6 Surprising Ideas the KJV Translators Had about Other Bible Translations

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Squire Robertsson, Aug 22, 2016.

  1. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    310
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,056
    Likes Received:
    48
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Yes, when we study scripture, and are trying to decide the best way to understand it, we should look at more than one translation, especially is they differ.

    It seems to me that the digital revolution should pare down the 1800 languages that do not have the bible far more rapidly than in the past.

    Having an accurate translation written in a way you can understand provides spiritual nourishment.

    Yes, all translations have blemishes, but using the ones with the least blemishes is best.

    Yes, all of our modern English translations have a great deal of room to improve.

    Conclusion, the KJV translators were not arrogant nor provincial.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    [gratuitous insult removed]

    All translations differ. What's your point?
    Where did you get the 1,800 figure?

    According to Wycliffe Bible Translators 180 million have no access to Scripture in their language. Further, 1.5 billion don't have the full Bible.

    But it's not a matter of "paring down" the number of languages without the Bible because of the digital revolution. People have to do the translation work. Computers can't translate. It requires people power.

    All are not agreed regarding your blemishes theme.
    Not "a great deal of room" but some. Give credit where credit is due.
     
    #4 Rippon, Aug 22, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2016
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ah, you got the 1,800 figure from George Guthrie. I see. But I haven't noted it anywhere else.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    There is no support for Guthrie's contention that "modern translations who work to correct imperfections in the KJV."

    Most translations have nothing to do with the KJV. They are not trying to improve it. Their textual basis is different as well as their language.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In the article by Bill Combs of DBTS he made the following claim:
    "Recently, they [Roman Catholic Church] have produced their own translation of the Bible in English..."

    But they have several that are on their approved list. They use the NRSV, and CEV (both altered of course). American RCs use the NAB. The NJB is used outside of America primarily. The Ronald Knox version made in 1955 might still be used by some. There are others they make use of. So I don't know what he is referring to.
     
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128

    Translation Legacy

    The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.
    The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Preface (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001).
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,178
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    There are 6500 languages on this planet. Of those, as of November 2014 the full Bible has been translated into 531 languages, and 2,883 languages have at least some portion of the Bible. Usually limited to John and Romans.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    What's the source for your info?

    Per WBT there are 6,877 known languages. Of those 554 have the full Bible. Portions of the Bible exist in 2,900 languages.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Rob, my statement still stands, most Bible translations have nothing to do with the KJV.
     
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    If there is a doctrinally differing message. For example "work of God" or "work God requires of us."

    Yet another attempt to find fault when none exists.

    Good Golly Miss Molly, we have translation applications on our smart phones. And the idea is not translation without people, but people aided with ever improving software will do the job more quickly at less cost.

    [insult removed]

    A very great deal of room exists, the translations today are very flawed, lacking transparency and correspondence, not to mention mistranslations such as begotten for monogenes.
     
    #12 Van, Aug 22, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2016
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Your charges are absurd. You have demonstrated how inept your "translations" are. You have scores of threads illustrating how nonsensical your renderings have been.
     
  14. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    310
    I would hazard if the Bible can be translated into a given language with the help of software, it probably already has a usable translation. It's the languages which are not computer accessible which are a concern.
     
  15. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Translation is a process. Computer software can do repetitive steps, sort data, identify source language words having the same or similar meaning, i.e. aqua and water.
     
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Blatent violation of the rule not to address the poster, devoid of thread topic content.

    Advocating using the more blemished translation rather than the least blemished translation demonstrates absurdity.
     
  17. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    310
    First, a language has to be digitized. For the most part, the languages in need of translations are spoken a hundred miles from the back side of beyond or are per-literate (IOW, they have no written form).
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I am not sure what your point is, but if it is that software will not improve both accuracy and speed of translation, I disagree.
     
  19. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    310
    IIRC, the line of discussion began with remarks on the number of languages without any Scripture. Some, like Uzbek and Tajik in Central Asia, have been digitized. Thus, are amenable to your suggestion. Others like ones in Africa haven't been and thus are not.
     
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I did not say all languages have been been digitally processed to produce a machine translation. I indicated that they will be, and sooner rather than latter.
     

Share This Page

Loading...