"Attacks" on translations of the Bible

What does, and what does not,constitute an "attack" on translations of the Bible? Where is the line to be drawn?

• A less than new translation
• An old translation
• A very old translation
• A translation that is old enough that it could stand some revisions
• A translation that is old and therefore in need of some revisions
• A translation that is old and therefore in need of major revisions
• A translation that is old and therefore seriously in need of major revisions
• A translation that is very old and therefore seriously in need of major revision
• A translation that is very old and therefore seriously in need of major revisions and corrections
• A translation that is so old that it is seriously in need of major revisions and corrections
• A translation that is so old that the translators did not have the necessary information to make an accurate translation
• A translation that is so old that the translators did not have the necessary information to make an accurate translation, and that is therefore obsolete
• An obsolete translation
• An obsolete translation of little value today for Bible study
• An ancient and obsolete translation of little value today for Bible study
• An ancient and obsolete translation of very little value today for Bible study

If the writer of the statement is very knowledgeable about Bible translations, translation theory, the Hebrew and Greek languages, changes in the English language over the past several centuries, and dialectical difference in the English language around the world, and this writer writes accurately and objectively, is he attacking a translation or providing his readers with and fair, honest, and professional opinion even if his opinion is most accurately expressed by one of the statements found toward the bottom of the list?

 

What does, and what does not,constitute an "attack" on translations of the Bible? Where is the line to be drawn?

 

For the purpose of this discussion board, where do you draw the line between what is “disparaging”and what is a fair, honest, objective and accurate appraisal of a translation? Going back to the descriptive phrases in the opening post, and supposing that the translation being considered is the King James Version of 1611 as published in 1611, where does one cross the line to where the descriptive phrase is an “attack” on the King James Version of 1611? In other words, which of the descriptive phrases used in the opening post would be allowed by you, and which phrases would not be allowed by you? Precisely where do you draw the line? All of them are disparaging, and the further one goes down the list, the more disparaging they become.

Or, to consider another example, the statement, “The tense of many verbs in the New Testament are translated less precisely in the KJV than they are in the NASB.” This is certainly a disparaging comparison, but it is also a fair, honest, objective and accurate statement the truth of which one may wish to consider in choosing which translation to use as one’s primary study Bible. Is such a statement contrary to the policy of this board, or is it not? Most certainly it is not a violation of the posting rules of this forum, which say nothing at all about statements that are simply disparaging, but only those that use certain terms:

 

Thank you for your direct and very helpful response! The quote referenced above, however, is not an opinion but a statement of fact. For one example, the writers of the gospels frequently used the Greek present tense when writing of past events, but the translators of the KJV NEVER translated these verbs using an English present tense and the reader has no a clue that in the in the Greek New Testament a present tense form was used. The NASB, however, translates these present tense forms using an English past tenses form, but it ALWAYS marks these “historic” present tense forms with an asterisk so that the reader will know that in the Greek text a present rather than past tense was used. Therefore, in the KJV the rhetorical effect of the Greek present tense forms is lost to the reader (as it is in most other contemporary translations), but it is preserved in the NASB. For more information regarding the translations of Greek tenses in the NASB, see the preface to the NASB at http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html

A very easy test of accuracy in translating Greek verbs is what is known as “back translation,” that is, translating a translation back into the original language. Try that with the KJV, and then try it with the NASB. You will find that there is no comparison.

From whence cometh this pressure? This is the first that I have heard of it.

****************
I would be interested in knowing how the other moderators and the administrators feel about this issue. If they agree with you, it might be wise to update the rules for posting in this forum so that we can all know them and follow them. I would also like to know how the other members feel about this issue, so that I can be more sensitive to their feelings. Hopefully some of them will respond to this thread and provide some helpful input.

 

Thank you for this link! I made use of it and read the posts in the thread and added one of my own.

 

AMEN Boanerges!! The Message is "useless"--it is NOT God's Word-- </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I do not care for The Message, but many people have benefited from it, and posting these wild attacks against it without any substantiation is precisely what needs to stop!