Do MVs Find Mistakes in their MVs? Where?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by rbrent, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. rbrent

    rbrent
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    MVs faithfully profess their love for the KJV.

    They profess they do NOT hate the KJV.

    They profess simply to believe that the KJV, like every translation, has problems, mistakes and mistranslations...

    What are the Problems, Mistakes, Mistranslations, Problem Areas you MVs are uncomfortable with in your Multiple Versions?
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a multiversion user, I can tell you that there is no bible that is a perfect translation, and that pretty much every Bible has some translational errors in it.

    One of the most obvious problems is the inability for English translations to adequately translate the context of words like "agape", "storge", "eros" and "phileo". English translations use the word "love" for both, even though the words in koine Greek have significantly different meanings. This is apparrant especially in Paul's dissertation on love (Love is patient, etc), and the dialogue between Peter and Paul (Do you love me?). This shortcoming appears to be prevalent in all English translations I've read, including the NIV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    And what English Bible writes out the translation of Tartaros, the abode of the angels who sinned, until judgment? Most of'em simply say'hell' at 2 Peter 2:4. While this isn't a booboo, it's not a complete definition, either.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    RBrent: "What are the Problems, Mistakes, Mistranslations, Problem Areas you MVs are uncomfortable with in your Multiple Versions?"

    First, there's the infamous "S.O.B." rendering in 1 Samuel 20:30 in the "Living Bible", which I understand is corrected in lated editions. That isn't even a semi-literal English equivalent of the Hebrew, let alone it's being the second most-offensive scatology I know of in American English. (I should know this, as I'm a Navy vet!"Cuss like a sailor" isn't just a metaphorical phrase!) FYI, I don't consider the LB a valid version.

    Next, I'm not real thrilled over the use of "young woman" in some versions' rendering of Isaiah 7:14. While by strict definition of the Hebrew word 'almah', the rendering "young woman" is NOT incorrect(In those days, the virginity of an "almah" was a gimme), the context of the entire Bible leans toward the "virgin" rendering, especially in the light of the NT's Greek reading 'parthenos', which clearly means, "virgin".

    There, I've said my peace. We can sit down with ANY BV in ANY language and find faults and discrepancies, as they all have a few. However, I generally reserve comment on the subject for the KJVOs who insist the KJV is perfect. ALL of them have come out as GOD CHOSE. Plainly, if God had chosen for us to have a perfect, unchanged copy of His words, He would've preserved the Autographs.
     
  5. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like where most MV's state that Neb saw the 4th in the furnace "like a son of the gods"...I think the NIV butchers Micah 5:2b, etc. (I only speak from the side of translations, because the Texts are another matter).
    I think most MV proponents are consistent that they realize that translations are man's interpretation...I'm sorta narrow minded myself in that the only MV I use in preaching/teaching is the NKJV, that being Textual Preference.
    Good topic starter.
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Galatians 5:23, the more prevalent MV's use the word "gentleness" which, as best as I can research, is a far less suitable choice than "meekness" (used in the KJV, ASV, and YLT). "Gentleness" seems to be too broad. Meekness narrows the thought to enduring unjust treatment without "reviling again". It conveys an essence of submission (to God's will in this case) that "gentleness" does not.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I can tell, this is probably more in line with what Neb would have thought he saw, since he was a polytheist. Even if it were "son of God" some presume that the verse means he saw Jesus. That's not the case. In the OT, "son of God" and "sons of God" are generally used to describe believers.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Yes, most of them are missing John 5:7.

    Yes, I know. [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must be missing an inside joke. Both the KJV and NIV contain John 5:7 in entirety...
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Oh no, I proved I'm human one more time!

    Yes, the proof is overwhelming.

    1 John 5:7 of course.

    [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  11. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Rev. 1:5 (KJV 1769)
    And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

    Most MV's say we are freed or released or loosed from our sins. My study resources show washed to be a better choice here. The word has the meaning of a complete/whole body washing. So the MV's aren't as good here.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked at both the KJV and NIV. Both contain the text in question. The NIV, however, contains part of the text in a footnote, with a comment that reads, "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century".
     
  13. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    some printers' errors perhaps, but MVs r perfect, entire, lacking in nothing ... mature even! :D
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Suit yourself, but IMO, if its not in the body of the text then it's missing from the text.

    However I do like the NIV where it's faithful to the TR (almost always).

    HankD
     
  15. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I can tell, this is probably more in line with what Neb would have thought he saw, since he was a polytheist. Even if it were "son of God" some presume that the verse means he saw Jesus. That's not the case. In the OT, "son of God" and "sons of God" are generally used to describe believers. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know. I'm just saying I don't like it. It preaches "good" to say it was the preincarnate Christ, when it could've been. But I understand you point.
     

Share This Page

Loading...