Bible Translations

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Elk, Oct 10, 2003.

  1. Elk

    Elk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello.
    For a long time I really panicked about which Bible translation to use, but I discovered a few things.
    First, any translation from the Greek or Hebrew into English is an interpretation. No matter how accurate one is in finding the best word equivalent, phrase, or whatever, the scholars who translate ARE "interpretating" to the best of their ability.
    Second, when I looked at the Received Text, the UBS, the Nestles, etc., I have always thought that these were the primary manuscripts that were bound up and published and considered to be the best Greek manuscripts available that were found hundreds of years ago and compiled.
    But now I realize what I thought was not exactly true...these manuscripts, I venture to say did not come first, but the "translation" came first.
    Consider this.

    When the NIV came out, I certainly remember reading those advertisements about it. Their strong points of advertising was that they had used so many various manuscripts, did a lot of comparing, etc. and there it is.
    But now what...years later? You can go to the store and buy the interlinear "NIV" English/Greek text.
    It is easy to see that the NIV was compiled from various Greek manuscripts and pasted together.

    In the same way, I believe that the KJV came first, for I have read that various manuscripts and translations (such as the Bishops) were used to formulate the translation. But do you notice that it follows pretty accurately the "RECEIVED TEXT"?
    So, which came first, the Received Text or the KJV?

    I would venture to say, the KJV.
    And that the Received Text is a compliation of various manuscripts that were used at the time.

    It is easy to understand why other translations do not follow the KJV or the Received Text...it is because other existing manuscripts, compilations, and translations were used as well.

    But I must say, regarding the KJV, it truly does follow the Received Text quite closely, and in that they both agree well. So, if these selected Greek texts came from various sources, it is assuring to know that there appears to be a high level of accuracy that was passed down.

    My point for saying all this, is to say that there are various manuscripts in Greek that exist and Praise the Lord, a lot of efforts have been made as you can see in Greek texts and footnotes, etc. to "weight" the words and preserve the findings of comparisons, etc. It is so effident that God perserves His Word.

    There are many translations, and I am thankful for many of them, but not all.

    I do agree, however, that some that are coming out have an agenda of some sort, and that bothers me greatly and it is so sad.
    For example, the word "name" in the New Testament, some translators are using more and more the word "authority" instead. I do not think this is right (especially when one looks up the Greek meaning for name and finds that that it what it generally means. Authority being a more remote definition--according to Thayer), but it does I believe promote an extreme doctrinal view.
    I am also greatly perplexed when I read John 1:18 in the various translations. I also feel that some of these translations belittle Who Jesus was when HE came in the Flesh.
    If HE was in the Bosom of the Father, then it should say that. But many translations that are coming out, say "His Side, or Near". I believe that this is clearly an attempt to promote a different doctrine of Who Jesus was on earth.
    How does bosom become His side? or near?

    So, basically, I conclude that if translations exalt Who Jesus was and is, than I am for it.
    If they belittle or deflate Who Jesus was and is, than I am against it.

    But I truly am thankful for many of the various translations that have come out, for it increases my knowledge of Him.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The name "Textus Receptus" I believe came after the KJV was first translated. The Greek text known as the TR was first compiled by Erasmus in 1513 and went through 4 or 5 editions.

    The reason for this is rarely explained. The KJV follows hte TR so well because the TR was made to look like the KJV. We do not know exactly which edition of the TR was used for translating the KJV. In the late 1800s, FHA Scrivener did a lot of work on teh TR and compiled a TR to look like the KJV. So the TR commonly used today was made from the KJV rather than the other way around.

    There is however, as you say, a high degree of accuracy in the copying of manuscripts such that the word of God is found in the multitude of manuscripts. It cannot dogmatically be said to be found only in one Greek textual family or one Greek text. We simply do not know because God has not revealed it to us.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    You are right about the AV1611 coming BEFORE the compilation of the Majority Text (about a dozen years later).

    You are right that EVERY English translation interjects the bias of the translator or rules of a translation committee. Every time you see a "transliteration" instead of a "translation", you see that bias.

    For example, "baptidzo" means dip, plunge, not sprinkle. BUT if Anglican translators had translated it (instead of just putting English letters for the Greek letters) they would have incurred the wrath of James VI!

    God has given us His Word. And from 5000 manuscripts, codicils et al we can make some GOOD translations!
     
  4. 3John2

    3John2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    I own a Worrel New Testament by AS Worrell. It is one of my favorite translations although it was translated from the Wescott & Hort texts. It is the only I know of that correctly translates it IMMERSION instead of baptize. In it John the baptist is called John the Immerser. It is a great translation & readily available if someone wants to look into it.
     
  5. GM

    GM
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    So, Dr.Bob,
    Do you believe that the KJV IS Gods Preserved Word in the English Language?
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    God promised to preserve His Word. That is Greek/Hebrew and He has always preserved it. Nowhere ever did God promise to preserve it in English, in 1611 or ever. Such is ludicrous and extra biblical.

    Thankfully, English translations of God's Word abound. Some are better than others. Some use slightly different Greek texts, so are more or less faithful. Every translation is part "interpretation".

    I grew up with and love the KJV1769 revision. I personally translate all verses I'm going to preach from the original.

    BTW, what was "God's Word" BEFORE 1611? How did God "preserve" it? Why was it no longer "preserved" the day the AV was finished?

    Thanks
     
  7. Sola_Scriptura

    Sola_Scriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    I noticed that Dr. Griffin has claimed that the word baptism was just a substitution of english letters for greek letters. This is inaccurate. The word baptize/baptism has existed since the early 14th century in english. Look in the Oxford English Dictionary for this. The word immersion meant at that time to soak up with water and therefore would be inaccurate. Also the claim that baptism means to sprinkle is inaccurate as well. Baptism meant to put under water. Sprinling did not become popular until the 1640s
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Hello?

    Greek word "baptidzo"
    English transliteration into "baptize"

    I did NOT say it was done just by the Anglican priests in 1611 translating the AV.

    It obviously had been transliterated into English hundreds of years earlier.

    But your point is? Baptize IS not a translation; it is transliteration. You can't debate that!
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob is 100% correct on this. I've done the homework and my findings support what he says. "Baptize" is a transliteration. Many English words are transliterations of non-english words: eccoutrement, cetacean, and alley are all English transliterations of words that exist in other languages.
     
  10. Sola_Scriptura

    Sola_Scriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be completely accurate baptize was given to the english language by the french who transliterated it. The main point was that the idea of using immerse would never have occurred because they already had the english word baptize which had the correct meaning and the meaning of immerse was incorrect.
     
  11. Sola_Scriptura

    Sola_Scriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God promised to preserve His Word. That is Greek/Hebrew and He has always preserved it."

    Concerning preservation, where in the Bible did God claim to preserve his word only in greek and hebrew?

    As to the other english "versions", it is a well known fact that all translations into english (of NT) from 1881 until the present are taken from the wescott-hort text, which was in turn taken from only 1% of the total 5,280+ extant manuscripts. The main texts that this text is made up from are Codex Aleph and B, which have been shown to be corrupt. Therefore any greek text taken from them, and then any translation, is in error. Then of course there are the facts of the character of Wescott and Hort, who practiced necromancy, spiritism, and other occult practices. This in itself should be enough for any Christian to never use any translation based on their text. From a corrupt tree comes corrupt fruit. Also there are the numerous contradictions in the new "versions" thereby making their claim to be the word of God a lie. God's word has no contradictions within. In the english language the only Bible translation without contradictions is the KJV. There are numerous examples of the contradictions in other version and I will be happy to share them if anyone is interested.
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are two greatly repeated lies.

    The NKJV comes from the TR and in many respects is more accurate than the KJV- such as translating the phrase hagios pneuma consistently as "Holy Spirit" rather than arbitrarily using "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost".

    Most MV translators use either Nestle-Aland or UBS, neither of which is based on W/H or even accepts all of W/H's assumptions and conclusions.
    Another oft repeated lie, the new texts list and grade variants that cover the full span of extant readings.
    The newer texts tend to favor older mss (which are mostly Alexandrian) and those supported by early quotes over against later mss and those reflecting the maturation of church dogma.
    All Greek mss are corrupt in one sense of another including those used by Erasmus. Corrupt in this context does not mean intentionally perverted. It means that there are deviations from whatever source, benign or malicious.

    Erasmus mss's were very corrupt. Only one had any part of Revelation and it lacked the last leaf.
    This is BrianT's forte... but if you don't want to wait on him, go to his website or do a search here to see this lie debunked.
    The deception in your argument persists- MV's are not based on the WH text.
    There are contradictions in the KJV such as saying that God does not repent then saying He did, the accounts of Paul's conversion, and the age of Ahaziah when he began to reign.
    You are right but the errors of human copyists and translators have introduced apparent contradictions in all existing versions.
    That is false. The apparent contradictions within the KJV are explainable... as are the apparent contradictions in other versions.
    Go ahead. It might be healthy for you if you will not persist in applying the double standard of allowing KJV problems to be explained but disallowing any explaination of problems in other versions.
     
  13. Sola_Scriptura

    Sola_Scriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NKJV was taken from the the modern texts and not the TR. This has been demonstrated time and again.

    As to Wescott and Hort's necromany et al, buy a copy of their collected writings and letters and you will see it in their own words.

    As to the MV, you demonstrate your ignorance of the Nestle/Aland text. It is in fact based on the W/H text. Now one of the recent updates of it has switched over to the TR reading for the majority of places.

    As to the contradiction in MVs there is the account of Elhanan killing bot Goliath and the brother of Goliath. There is the admonition from Christ not to be angry and then he was angry. There is the removal of the last half of Romans 8:1 which should read "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." From "who walk.." until "Spirit" are removed in MV. This changes the meaning of the verse. You might also look in the front of the NIV, NASB, NKJV, et al and read where they got their texts from. Then you can read where these greek texts got the majority of their information from. It is always traced back to W/H. The so called contradictions in the KJV are of quite a different sort than in the MVs. These in the MVs change doctrine and are real contradictions.
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where?

    BrianT has posted enough quotes in full context here to demonstrate that KJVO's are willing to lie about these men and distort their quotes in flagrant dishonesty. When you or someone else takes the citations Brian gives and demonstrates that his quotes are inaccurate then I may be motivated to get a copy of the book myself.

    In the mean time, I will favor the evidence given by the one who quotes in full context and cites his quotes accurately and specifically.

    It is based on a system of textual criticism largely attributed to W&H.
    They continue to update these modern texts to take into account new discoveries. This is simply an honest way to do scholarship. To attempt to set in stone a text derived from a hand full of late mss then discount all subsequent discovery, is not honest scholarship.

    Which has been explained here.
    This has a similar explaination as "thou shalt not kill" when God later commands the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of a city, even the women and children. Context is critical. In Mat 5:21, Jesus repeated the law against murder then expanded it to include those who allowed anger like that held by murderers to consume them.
    I memorized the first 8 chapters of Romans (KJV). In this process, I realized how awkward the KJV's redundancy of this phrase was to the context of the first 4 verses of chapter 8.

    MV's have the phrase after verse 4. This use makes the teaching of the passage flow smoothly from its supporting statements to its conclusion.

    BTW, a simple literal reading of Romans 8:1 in the KJV contradicts salvation by grace through faith alone. As in the KJV, the verse says that there is no condemnation to them that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.
    Yes it does. The KJV lends itself much more readily to support the works based salvation of the RCC and Church of England rather than salvation by grace alone as taught by Paul.
    My NKJV makes a pretty strong statement in support of the traditional text. It is fair but expresses opposition to the critical text.
    I have looked at Lockman's info and nowhere do they cite the W&H text as a source.
    You are wrong twice. The problems you cite have reasonable explainations and do not change doctrine whatsoever. I think your first two citations are probably errors (real accidental deletions) in the texts behind MV's. The third one is in all probability an addition in the KJV.

    I personally favor the Majority Text view and look forward to the day when a good translation of that textual perspective is popularly available.
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Humorous thought - Sola_Scriptura, may I ask why the name? What did that mean to the Reformers who gave their lives for it?

    You seem to be in the "only" sect, yet opt for a name that is diametrically contrasted to the AV1611 English translation!

    Sorry. The incongruity was too much.

    And by the way, your argument on the Greek word "baptidzo" is still totally wrong. Sorry.

    Baptidzo in the Greek means "dip, immerse, plunge". Look it up in any lexicon; I'm not making that up.

    IT DOESN'T MEAN "BAPTIZE". Those are just French or English letters transliterating the inspired Greek letters.

    Meaning doesn't change. Sorry you're so confused on this. BTW, I've never met an "only" that had an issue with this. Most are Baptists and in 100% agreement with reality in this matter.
     
  16. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are mistaken. As the preface to the NKJV says, "the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes."

    This is a misleading statement. The editorial committee which produced the NA27 text began with the WH text but then *changed* it in *many* places where the MS evidence warranted it. This resulted in a text that was different from the WH text, as a quick look at Matthew chapter 27 will demonstrate:

    Mt. 27 NA27-UBS4 text [W&H text

    v. 2 Pilatwn [Peilatwn
    v. 3 paradidous [paradous
    v. 4 athwn [dikaiov
    v. 16 Iesoun Barabban [Barabban
    v. 17 Iesoun ton Barabban [ton Barabban
    v. 24 apenanti [katenanti
    v. 46 eli eli lema sabachthani [elwi elwi lema sabachthanei
    v. 49 elegon [eipan
    v. 49 ABSENT [allos de labwn logchen enuxen autou ten pleuran, kai exelthen udor kai aima
    v. 64 oi mathetai autou [oi mathetai

    There's an old saying you might be familiar with: "Things that are different are not the same." [​IMG]

    Others have made the same claims for each of these examples, and they have all been discussed elsewhere on this board and refuted. I might add that the Goliath-Elhahan example is especially damning, since it is the *KJV* which adds to the word of God.

    I disagree. The apparent contradictions in the MV's are of exactly the same kind as in the KJV and can be explained the same way. And none of the modern versions used by Christians on this board (e.g., the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) changes any major Christian doctrine. The only way anyone can make this claim is if they forcibly rip a verse or phrase out of its context and ignore the clear teaching of Scripture as a whole. When this is done, the KJV can be made to "change doctrine" too.

    I would challenge anyone to produce an example of a difference in the modern versions which changes any major Christian doctrine in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole. (Perhaps the moderators would consider posting this challenge in a new thread).
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct! [​IMG]
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are two greatly repeated lies.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Lies? I do not think so. W/H are unchristians who produced the 1881 ERV.

    Why was NA edited 27 times?

    Why was UBS edited 4 times?

    Which is accurate?

    I agree with Sola_Scriptura. :D

    Why are you interested in older MSS than manuscript evidences?
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the same wrong manuscript could have been copied many times over. That hardly proves that it is more reliable. Especially since the earliest records are many, many centuries removed from their original writing.

    The Ecclectic text adheres to all the evidence and is able to weigh each individually.

    Here is an example:

    A KJVO proponent makes some ridiculous lie about the other texts. It get repeated over and over again. It is still a lie.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice to know that someone with access to the book of life has shown up here :rolleyes:

    The same reason why the TR was edited 5 times and the KJV was edited more than that ... to correct errors in them. You have already been shown that the KJV was not perfect. BTW, these corrections in teh NA and the UBS texts were only corrections of printer's errors and punctuation. They weren't real errors. I just mention that so your faith won't be destroyed. Actually I mention it to point out how absurd that claim is when KJVO use it to try to defend the errors that made their way into the KJV.

    Like the KJV, the latest edition is most accurate.

    I agree with Sola_Scriptura. :D </font>[/QUOTE]YOu are both demonstrably wrong. Get out your NA or your UBS text and look at the textual apparatus. There is undeniable proof that you have both believed a lie and been decieved. It is the TR that was originally based on less than 1% of the evidence. Erasmus, by his own account, used seven manuscripts. That's right ... you read it correctly ... seven. The editors of the NA and UBS used all the available manuscripts. You have bought a lie and then repeated it.

    Because the older a manuscript it, the more likely it is to be correct. The closer to the source, the purer it is. You have been taught this before. You should not be having to ask these questions. We have been through it so many times. For some reason, you are just not getting it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...