Which English Translation is Perfect?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, we know that letter-for-letter perfection is not to be found in any translation.

    We had a very good thread concerning source documents that started by discussing KJV source documents and evolved into discussing what each of us thought were the most accurate source documents.

    Let us take this intellectual thread a little further and discuss which English Translation (our of every single English language translations) available and (at least readable today -- not real olde English that is impossible to read) is the most accurate of all translations.

    What I mean by most accurate is the one that BEST preserves what we think were the original autographs. Discussion of the sources again is fine. I will NOT let this turn into a KJVO debate. If the KJV does turn out to be considered the most accurate, then it must be stated specifically which version and the discussion must include evidence to support the case (on any version).

    Thank you,

    What says U?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I support the KJV because of method of translation and source texts.
     
  3. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Yes, but is it 'perfect'??

    Correct answer: no translation is 'perfect'.
     
  4. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    But yet out of the other side of your mouth cast doubt on it(Proverbs 11:1);what gives??
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I am confused by your post Slambo.

    I asked a simple question in another thread.

    You accusation that my "false balance" is an "abomination" would be deleted as a personal attack if it were made against another poster.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    But yet out of the other side of your mouth cast doubt on it(Proverbs 11:1);what gives?? </font>[/QUOTE]Notice the "s" at the
    end of "source texts". That "s" makes a very
    big difference. The KJVO position must
    maintain that there is one and only one
    correct source text when in fact, the
    KJV1611 translators had available to them
    multiple source texts. In fact,
    the KJV1611 translators noted in margin
    notes the variations in the source texts.

    IMHO it is the message of God's Holy Written
    Word which is inerrant not the format
    of the letters or the spelling of the words
    nor even the exact words themselves. Thus
    the the message of God's Holy Written Word
    is available in all faithful source texts
    and all faithful translations. Amen!
     
  7. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I gave a VERY simple answer;now,answer my question.
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Thank you Ed.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are welcome, Sir.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I do not answer on demand - my views are well known here.
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, okay, let's get back to the subject before I get my thread closed down. The thread explains that no translation is perfect above. The word Perfect was simply used in the Title and the exact explanation in the first post.

    Based on EVIDENCE, one English translation will be closer to the original autographs than the others, which one is it? Also, again, if you pick KJV, which version, there ARE many?
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Sorry Philip. I thought my answer was what you asked for. I use the KJV for reasons stated and do not squabble over which version of the KJV. We agree that no English version is letter for letter perfect.
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You weren't the problem, I was just seeing a drift in the subject. Thank you very much for your answer, let us see if we can get some more.

    Thnks C4K,
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Slambo - grow up. Is that simple enough? Your impertinence has been noted. I would encourage you to watch your step very carefully.

    A person can say that XYZ is the best English translation and still not claim it is PERFECT.
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who would say maybe the NKJV due to its Textus Receptus NT?

    Or how about the ESV for its literal translation of a better source?

    Or NASB, although stiff to read?

    Is the KJV really the best considering so many words in the English language have changed since it was printed?

    Would it be the NIV, or is the translation too dynamic?

    Just some things to think about when you answer.
     
  16. mountainrun

    mountainrun
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are ya'alls thoughts on the HCSB?
    Even though it is the official SB translation, I find myself uncomfortable with it in the limited experience I have with it.

    Nor do I see a need for it.

    MR
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe by faith in my heart that the
    HCSB is the DIVINE TRANSLATION for the
    early 21st Century. Because the pretribulation
    rapture may be shortly, the HCSB may be
    the last translation that English speaking
    people have time to read.

    I still have a hard time figuring how
    how God pulled off the miracle of
    having a book translated in 1769 even
    make much sense in the 20th century
    (1901-2000). Maybe there are more rednecks
    than i thought :confused:
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess the HCSB is going to win the accuracy prize since no one is standing up for their favorite Bible except Ed. Now, that we have a DIVINE TRANSLATION does that make the SB divine? Otherwise, how are you going to make the rest of these other Baptists read it before the rapture?
     
  19. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    The HCSB is definitely superior to all others;

    Because it is an eclectic text-it started as a TR and then converted to CT
    Because it is Optimal Equivalent- it blends FE and DE styles
    Because it has a bunch of footnotes- but not to many to be distracting like the NET
    Because it doesn’t sound “stuffy” or “elitist” – and also does not sound “common” or “ignorant” the language is appropriate for use in the liturgy as well as with 3rd graders.
    It handles the gender controversy well- neutral where appropriate with out adding meaning to the text as is the case with the NRSV.

    It would all most be perfect but;
    It uses “Messiah” in the New Testament instead of Christ- this should only be done @ Jn 1:41 and 4:25
    It capitalizes divine pronouns- there is no reason to do this especially in a translation already assumed to have denominational bias.
    It uses “ass” in Genesis 16:12 -and Holman has not returned my email to explain this to me.

    Other than these minor flaws it is the best translation to the American English speaking public.

    Hip-Hip-Hooray! For the HCSB!
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the funniest KJV boo-boo of all:

    2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
    And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out,
    and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
    an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
    and when they1 arose early in the morning,
    behold, they2 were all dead corpses
    .

    Of course, it is only funny if you
    resolve the first "they1" as "the Assyrians"
    and the second "they2" as "the Assyrians"
    so it reads:

    2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
    And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out,
    and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
    an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
    and when the Assyrians arose early in the morning,
    behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses
    .

    Compare to the clarity of the HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible
    2 Kings 19:35 (HCSB):

    That night the angel of the Lord went out
    and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians.
    When the people got up the [next] morning-there
    were all the dead bodies!



    But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
    [​IMG] Praise Iesus, the Christ [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...