A Mutated Version ?

People do the things you stated all the time. Many on this board do. Are you going to go tell them they are being sinful when they take a position that isn't taught by the word of God? I'd like to see that.

By the way, since you are on such a kick concerning the authority of the scriptures, could you provide me with biblical evidence that KJVO's are being sinful in this matter?

 

I have one question for you: what did the original copies of scripture say?

 

A year ago, I would have claimed that all other versions are wrong. That is because I did not know any of the history behind the various Bibles in existence. I knew nothing of Textus Receptus or Critical Text or Dead Sea Scrolls. I didn't know of the political decisions of British kings or the Geneva Bible or the Latin Vulgate.

I've read a lot since then. (By the way - not everything we can find to read appears to be factual pieces, but instead seem to be very much agenda driven.)

I happen to believe that there are Bibles out there that are more accurate as translations of the available text, and as far as I'm concerned, better than the King James Version.

However, those which are dynamic equivalence or paraphrased - to me - put us into believing someone's opinion of the meaning of a script rather than letting the Holy Spirit help us in understanding.

Beware false teachers, and for me, the best way is to stick with a translation that sticks to word-for-word translation phrased in modern English. None of them are going to be perfect, but we do what we can. Between that and prayer, we'll get the Word. (not The Message)

But, understand this, I do not condemn those who stick to the King James Version. I do not fault them for their choice, and I would ask them not to fault mine.

 

Good post.

 

I agree with Mex that this is a very good post!

However, for both sides the problem arises from the philosophy the the KJV is the only inspired Word of God (English speaking or not). If I use an MV, then this doesn't hold water. If I believe this, nothing anyone can show me about how MVs were translated penetrates. True until the Holy Spirit convicts us on this issue anyway.

 

Anyone who has learned other languages, knows that word-for-word does not always pan out. Interpretative understanding must enter the picture. This makes hermeneutics more important than the particular copy of a
bible.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Rippon, I can see that you are hard pressed to go with a dynamic equivalence type of translation. I'll not criticize you for that. All I said was it is wrong to make statements such as the NLT being the more accurate translation. It makes me wonder if you work for a Bible publishing company that sells your preferred translation.

I never said that I think that I use a word-for-word translation that contained zero interpretation. Since I am somewhat familiar with a foreign language, I am also aware of the difficulties involved in translating ideas.

I do not use a version based on some committee's interpretation of intent and meaning and subsequently rewritten differently based on that interpretation. I really am aware of the differences between literal and dynamic interpretations. I thought I had made that clear enough.

 

Actually, it is okay to make that statement, because by any reputable scholarly account, it is more accurate. So are the NIV, TNIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NEB, ESV...and a bunch more.

The only one I avoid using more than the KJV is the NKJV, since it compromises the beautiful language of the KJV.

 

jaigner and rippon, I'll just respond to both of you in one post.

Thank you for your responses.

Again, I am now more aware of the difficulties of translating the manuscripts written in other languages than I was a few months ago. I also am aware that the more recently found manuscripts have added to the translators collection of information used to provide the newer translations.

Would both of you accept that I don't feel like trusting any bible categorized as "dynamic equivalence" because of my failure to put that much trust in the translators?

Look at the arguments that go on here just because of a misplaced comma or one word in a scripture! Yet, these brothers and sisters don't think about the fact that the argued word or comma was put there by a translator. Consider now how the argument will run over a "scripture" that was done entirely by the thoughts of someone who didn't like the way it sounded when done literally.

I know that the KJV, thought done well enough when it was done and revised several times since then, is not as accurate at the newer versions - including the NKJV.

I just have a very difficult time placing enough faith in a single human or human committee to let them entirely rewrite God's Word. I'll accept their "literal translation," as I have no other choice, but I won't accept the rephrasing as done to the extent that it is in some of the dynamic or paraphrased versions. It is a matter of trust.

To argue accuracy of a dynamic translation over a more literal one seems to me to be a waste of time. If I am wrong again, please excuse me for my lack of understanding.

 

I got it. You won't accept that that I don't trust dynamic equivalence. There is nothing more that can be said on that for me.

I did not say that I prefer KJV. I said that I don't beleive that it is rational to claim that a dynamic equivalence bible can be more accurate than a literal translation. Perhaps I have yet to be clear on that.

In order to make that claim, would you not first have to have something to compare it to? What is THE most accurate Bible in existance? What language is it in? How did you compare it to the NLT?

Please don't speak to me of "intent."

 

Rippon:

From Post 34:

I doubt that I owe it to myself to study up on these men. To do so would be to try to prove to myself that this group of men is more qualified to translate God's meaning that another group of men.

This is not a question, and I already knew that. However, MEN determined to put them in different places than other MEN did.

Again, depending on whether or not you choose to believe one group of men over another. To me, it is stll "apples to oranges."

I see "dynamic equivalence" -when someone restates God "INTENT" - they are indeed rewriting God's word. They are no longer just translating.

You answered the statement yourself, here.

Don't need to. I did not state that one is more accurate than they other. I said that a dynamic equivalent bible cannot be truly compared to a literal translation as they are different animals. They can only be contrasted.

Perhaps this is where our disconnect is. Our definition of accuracy may be the stumbling block. To me, accuracy implies word-for-word, not meaning-for-meaning. A report which is easy to read is no more "accurate" than one which isn't - especially if the reports were written by different people with different viewpoints.

Can I assume that you meant TR instead of RT? I am aware of the shortcomings of the KJV, but again, brother, I am not defending the KJV as being the only true Word of God.

Sorry. I hope this helps.

 

Nothing wrong with having a Bible version preference or opinion, but
too many people state their OPINIONS as FACTS. I tend to just disregard them.