"Attacks" on translations of the Bible

I find it curious that some here consider that paraphrases are not Scripture.
Short paraphrase translations of verses are common from the pulpit.
I see two English paraphrase testaments offered on Ebay now, one by Daniel Whitby, D.D. (1703) the other by H.Hammond (1681).
Are there earlier paraphrases?
From what I understand many sections of the Septuagint were paraphrase translations.

Rob

[ January 25, 2006, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Personally, I try to avoid using any paraphrase because the beliefs and biases of the translator(s) can creep into the text very easily. I'll take a more literal translation any day (KJV, NASB, NKJV, etc), with maybe the rare look into a dynamic equivalence version (NIV, etc.).

Personally, I don't feel it is an "attack" against a version when one points out that certain versions like the Clear Word Translation and the New World Translation are heavily influenced by the errant beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses respectively. There are certain versions that masquerade as God's word without actually being God's word, but, for the most part, the modern versions do reflect God's word as well as the good ol' King James Version.

 

Exactly. And the Message is filled with new age terms, and is more the message propogated by Christian mystics and theosophy, than it is the Word of God.

 

An earlier paraphrase would be the PARAPHRASES OF ERASMUS. The PARAPHRASES OF ERASMUS were translated into English and made official documents of the Church of England. According to the 1559 Elizabethan Injuctions, every parson was to obtain and diligently study the New Testament in Latin and In English along with Erasmus' Paraphrases "conferring the one with the other" (Bray, DOCUMENTS OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION, p. 339). In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of the English transltion of the PARAPHRASE OF ERASMUS, John N. Wall wrote: "For the laity, the Great Bible and the Paraphrases on the Gospels and Acts in English were to be in the possession of every parish" (p. 17).

Paraphrase in that day seems to have been used for a commentary.

 

Boanerges
"And the Message is filled with new age terms, and is more the message propogated by Christian mystics and THEOSOPHY, than it is the Word of God. "
"
They have added the Book of Dzyan to the canon in the Message?

 

Well, let me weigh in. I pretty much quit posting here, because the board is slanted heavily to the modern versions and anyone that holds to the Old King James and tries to offer proof seems to be shut down quickly. In the name of keeping the peace. Why not just shut down the person or persons that are unruly instead of the line of discussion?

Missionary

 

It is not so much that people who prefer the KJV are "shut down," but that the inflammatory rhetoric used by both sides in the KJVO debate is shut down. Everyone is entitled to have their preference in Bible versions, and a preference for the KJV is very, very common here at BB.

The posting of attacks against the Bible is what is in question here, whether those attacks are directed toward the KJV or the modern versions. Merely stating that a different word or phrasse would have been a better choice is not an attack against a Bible version. Saying that "Passover" is a better word selection than "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is viewed by some as an attack against the KJV, when it really isn't an attack against the KJV.

 

I'm tired of attacks on the Bible. It's been attacked from the beginning satan "yea hath God said" until today. But never before in History had Christians attacked the Word of God. Now it's not uncommon for KJVO's and other Christians (modernist) to attack God's Word. Oh well Heaven is going to be sweet.

 

In my opinion both Boanerges and Linda 64 attacked God's word in above posts and therefore broke the rules of this forum.

But that is just my opinion, as I believe that calling any version (even a paraphrase) useless.

The Message is probably my least favorite, but it is certainly not "useless"

God can USE anything, why, he even uses me sometimes

 

I am in full agreement with you Tim.

 

Tim,
I agree with you also. That is the purpose of fundamentalism: To make it known that our sins are not quite as bad as yours.

I think the message has been recieved loud and clear.

As for the message, I am unaware of any flat out heresies it contains, and while it is a paraphrase, it has been used, by God, to lead many people to Christ. If that angers you fundamentalists, the have a look at Acts 5:38-39, and take your complaint before God himself.

 

It is quite obvious that those who do not use the KJV can say anything against the KJV and it is not corrected. If the KJVO point out errors in doctrine of the Message, NIV, NASB, etc, they are edited out or the thread is closed. Seems like a one way street.

 

Not so, please show me a crucial doctrine the NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc leaves out.

Not just one verse, but a whole Doctrine.

I still maintain that calling a translation or paraphrase "useless" is attacking God's Word, and therefore attacking God.

There are some translations/paraphrases that are weaker than others. I really don't care for the Message, but I would never call it useless.

The NIV is not one of my preferances, but to slander it would be slandering God's Word, as it is just an English Translation of the Bible, as is the KJV.

NO Translation can be absolutely perfect, in the sense the original Greek and Hebrew were.
They are Translations!!

Pointing out better ways to translate God's words, from Greek and Hebrew, is not attacking the Bible.

But calling a translation "useless" or as in another thread, "tripe" is attacking God's word, and that is what is not being tolerated around here no more. Thank God!

 

This is actually quite unfounded. Those of us who use multiple translations do not attack the KJV. We show it's faults and mistakes but we do so in modern versions as well. There certainly is no uniformed attack on any one version. The Message has it's weak spots but so does the KJV,NIV and every other English translation.

 

Please show me any evidence that posts crtical of the KJV go uncorrected. Attacks on all Bible versions are edited.

If the KJV or any other translation were called "useless" as "The Message" has been called in this thread it would be edited and the poster warned.

 

I think the previous posts point out that there are parties on both sides of this debate who perceive its moderation as biased against them.

 

C4K, I personally thank you for the fine job you are doing.

 

Standing firm,

It is quite obvious that those who do not use the KJV can say anything against the KJV and it is not corrected. If the KJVO point out errors in doctrine of the Message, NIV, NASB, etc, they are edited out or the thread is closed. Seems like a one way street.

No not really.

What are perceived as "attacks" on the KJV are merely statements that the texts underlying it are not trhe best or that some English renderings are less than ideal. Those are objective statements about the KJV as a translation.

Notice that none of us who realize some of the limitations of the KJV as translation of God's word dare to attack it as a perversion or a devil Bible.

Now on the other hand...

Many posters who argue against the modern versions attack them as being satanic, trash, liberal etc. These are not objective critiques or statements - they represent slander of the Bible!


BIG difference. You won't find the moderators tolerating any attacks on the KJV.