"Attacks" on translations of the Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Craigbythesea, Jan 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    What does, and what does not,constitute an "attack" on translations of the Bible? Where is the line to be drawn?

    • A less than new translation
    • An old translation
    • A very old translation
    • A translation that is old enough that it could stand some revisions
    • A translation that is old and therefore in need of some revisions
    • A translation that is old and therefore in need of major revisions
    • A translation that is old and therefore seriously in need of major revisions
    • A translation that is very old and therefore seriously in need of major revision
    • A translation that is very old and therefore seriously in need of major revisions and corrections
    • A translation that is so old that it is seriously in need of major revisions and corrections
    • A translation that is so old that the translators did not have the necessary information to make an accurate translation
    • A translation that is so old that the translators did not have the necessary information to make an accurate translation, and that is therefore obsolete
    • An obsolete translation
    • An obsolete translation of little value today for Bible study
    • An ancient and obsolete translation of little value today for Bible study
    • An ancient and obsolete translation of very little value today for Bible study

    If the writer of the statement is very knowledgeable about Bible translations, translation theory, the Hebrew and Greek languages, changes in the English language over the past several centuries, and dialectical difference in the English language around the world, and this writer writes accurately and objectively, is he attacking a translation or providing his readers with and fair, honest, and professional opinion even if his opinion is most accurately expressed by one of the statements found toward the bottom of the list?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    No translation of the word of God is ever obsolete and thus worthless. I have a translation that is over 600 years old that I still enjoy reading.

    I have portions of translations that are over 1,000 years old that I enjoy reading and from which I get a great blessing.

    If you don't like a translation, don't use it, but don't spit on it either.

    "God lufode middan-eard swa', daet he sealde his 'an-cennedan sunu, daet nan ne forweorde de on hine gelyfp, ac haebbe dact 'ece lif."
     
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,019
    Likes Received:
    148
    Well said. Reading in another language or an old translation can jog your mind in fruitful ways.
     
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 3:16 in ??
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anglo-Saxon!!!
     
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    What does, and what does not,constitute an "attack" on translations of the Bible? Where is the line to be drawn?
     
  7. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well calling a translation "ungodly" is definately attacking God's word.

    I would even say that calling it "useless" is attacking God's word.

    But pointing out better ways it could have been translated, that is not.
     
  8. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree with Tim! Pointing out a Bible versions errors in hope of getting a 'better' more mistake free Bible is not attacking God's Word. To call a version a p*rv*rsion is an attack. To claim one version is perfect and inerrant is also an attack on God's Word although maybe not on a single version.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    It clearly depends on the context of the quote. For the purpose of this discussion board any remarks which are made in a way which is disparaging to either side of the versions debate will be seen as an "attack" either on the version of its adherents.

    Also viewed as attacks are comments which are disparaging to versions which are not as old which may not be direct "attacks" on the version itself.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Correct. It is John 3:16 in Old English (Anglo Saxon) from the Lindisfarne Gospels dating to about 700 A.D. These were in Latin with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation added about 950 A.D. [​IMG]
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    For the purpose of this discussion board, where do you draw the line between what is “disparaging”and what is a fair, honest, objective and accurate appraisal of a translation? Going back to the descriptive phrases in the opening post, and supposing that the translation being considered is the King James Version of 1611 as published in 1611, where does one cross the line to where the descriptive phrase is an “attack” on the King James Version of 1611? In other words, which of the descriptive phrases used in the opening post would be allowed by you, and which phrases would not be allowed by you? Precisely where do you draw the line? All of them are disparaging, and the further one goes down the list, the more disparaging they become.

    Or, to consider another example, the statement, “The tense of many verbs in the New Testament are translated less precisely in the KJV than they are in the NASB.” This is certainly a disparaging comparison, but it is also a fair, honest, objective and accurate statement the truth of which one may wish to consider in choosing which translation to use as one’s primary study Bible. Is such a statement contrary to the policy of this board, or is it not? Most certainly it is not a violation of the posting rules of this forum, which say nothing at all about statements that are simply disparaging, but only those that use certain terms:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    I appreciate the forthrightness of your questions Craig. In recent weeks there has been a serious crackdown on what is and is not being permitted here. This has been done in order to keep this forum open. There has been tremendous pressure for its total closure and that is the only alternative to this strict enforcement. I am only one moderator, but if I were forced to draw a line (and I will not be held to this) I would probably draw it somewhere in this section.

    Again, the general "sense of a post would also need to be taken into account.

    While this quote is an opinion, I can't see it as being snipped or edited if the context is appropriate.

    If posters cannot accept a strict moderation of this forum I assure you that the pressure on us to close the forum will only increase.
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Thank you for your direct and very helpful response! The quote referenced above, however, is not an opinion but a statement of fact. For one example, the writers of the gospels frequently used the Greek present tense when writing of past events, but the translators of the KJV NEVER translated these verbs using an English present tense and the reader has no a clue that in the in the Greek New Testament a present tense form was used. The NASB, however, translates these present tense forms using an English past tenses form, but it ALWAYS marks these “historic” present tense forms with an asterisk so that the reader will know that in the Greek text a present rather than past tense was used. Therefore, in the KJV the rhetorical effect of the Greek present tense forms is lost to the reader (as it is in most other contemporary translations), but it is preserved in the NASB. For more information regarding the translations of Greek tenses in the NASB, see the preface to the NASB at http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html

    A very easy test of accuracy in translating Greek verbs is what is known as “back translation,” that is, translating a translation back into the original language. Try that with the KJV, and then try it with the NASB. You will find that there is no comparison.

    From whence cometh this pressure? This is the first that I have heard of it.

    ****************
    I would be interested in knowing how the other moderators and the administrators feel about this issue. If they agree with you, it might be wise to update the rules for posting in this forum so that we can all know them and follow them. I would also like to know how the other members feel about this issue, so that I can be more sensitive to their feelings. Hopefully some of them will respond to this thread and provide some helpful input.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have generally limited my 'attacks', here & elsewhere, to certain doctrines about certain versions because I am convinced, from solid evidence, that those doctrines are false. However, when I & others point out the reasons those doctrines are false, their advocates often accuse us of attacking their pet version(s) insteada the doctrines about those versions.

    It is my firm belief that EVERY translation made in as honest a manner as is possible for the translator(s) and with a high degree of accuracy, not slanted toward any one denom, is a valid version.

    With so many possible renderings of so many Hebrew and Greek words & phrases into English, I believe it's impossible for man to make an English translation that will 100% satisfy every English user. I believe the same is true for all older languages now in use.

    On another thread concerning the differing narrations of the same events, it was mentioned that each writer had a different perspective of these events. I believe the same is true for translators in the light that many, MANY of the older-language words & phrases have many disparate meanings in English. The translator must be guided with HIS/HER God-given perspective. The Godliness of the translators? I believe the vast majority of them were Christians. After all, a translator can make a lot more dinero doing other work besides making another Bible version. I believe most of them work, or have worked, from love of the Scriptures, and have endeavored to do their work as honestly as God has given them the light.

    I absitively, posolutely REFUSE to accept any doctrine that attempts to LIMIT GOD to just one version in any given language which has had the Bible for many years. I believe we all have a D-U-T-Y as Christians to speak out against such doctrines because they're NOT SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE & therefore cannot be true.

    But there ARE some versions which DO warrant an attack by Christians. I don't believe I need name them...but let's just say that in many places they depart from any known Scriptural text. These are the only "versions" I attack anywhere. However, pointing out booboos in a valid version or versions isn't an attack...it's a presentation of FACTS.

    But if there's not another English BV made before Christ returns, these discussions will continue some place, some time.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    From whence cometh this pressure? This is the first that I have heard of it.

    ****************
    I would be interested in knowing how the other moderators and the administrators feel about this issue. If they agree with you, it might be wise to update the rules for posting in this forum so that we can all know them and follow them. I would also like to know how the other members feel about this issue, so that I can be more sensitive to their feelings. Hopefully some of them will respond to this thread and provide some helpful input.

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Please see this thread for a discussion of the potential closure of this particular forum.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2686.html
     
  16. Boanerges

    Boanerges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Message is useless in my opinion. :-O
     
  17. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN Boanerges!! The Message is "useless"--it is NOT God's Word-- :rolleyes:
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is not. It is a paraphrase of God's Word. This differs from most bibles, which are translations of God's Word.
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    AMEN Boanerges!! The Message is "useless"--it is NOT God's Word-- :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I do not care for The Message, but many people have benefited from it, and posting these wild attacks against it without any substantiation is precisely what needs to stop!

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...