"Dear Friends" Does Capture The Greek Adequately.

From the Holman's Christian Standard Version preface:

The Goals of This Translation
• to provide English-speaking people across the world with an accurate, readable Bible in contemporary English
• to equip serious Bible students with an accurate translation for personal study, private devotions, and memorization
• to give those who love God’s word a text that is easy to read, visually attractive on the page, and appealing when heard
• to affirm the authority of the Scriptures as God’s inerrant word and to champion its absolutes against social or cultural agendas that would compromise its accuracy

When was the last time you used the word "Beloved" outside of a church setting?

Rob

 

I agree, "Dear friends" does not have the same power as "Beloved".

But it can be just as effective if read properly.

Haven't you ever heard a modern preacher, the likes of Charles Stanley, intone "Deeeear frrriends....".

Rob

 

"Loved ones" would work. It brings up over 17,300,000 hits with Google including an Aussie rock band. But "beloved" has 38,700,000 hits, including a Pulitzer Prize winning novel from 1986 and the movie made from it. I'd say "beloved" still resounds in the English language. But "dear friends"? Forget it!

 

Are they dropping the Holman because Holman is too Baptist I wonder? Why did they use it to begin with?

I had to laugh at Rob's rendition of Dr. Stanley, but it did make me think about the context of when I would use friends and when I would use beloved or loved ones. There is a division and it runs along secular lines in my mind generally. Beloved isn't used outside of church circles - it is rarely used in church circles.

While I don't know Greek, dear friends certainly does not encompass the passion I think was meant.

Maybe beloved isn't used outside of church circles - if it is taken out of the Bible, it won't even be used there. I do think it will be our loss if it is a lost word. John, the very loved disciple doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

 

TC,
Your pensive meditations reflect your sentiments and possible endearment of your "beloved" KJV.

 

GE
You have struck the tone for the orchestra to tune in to! The English of the KJV ever since its first publication has 'resounded' in each and every 'translation from the original languages' into all languages the Bible has been translated into - and that's about every language! We received the first Afrikaans Bible in 1933, 'translated from the original languages' by a committee not one of whom was as conversant with the original languages as with The English of the King James. It is an absulute impossibility the KJV all the time did not 'resound' in everyone's mind while struggling to reach a good Afrikaans rendering. And so was it with every language the Bible has been translated in - even with the first translations that followed on the KJV. It is not only historically and liguistically provable - it is sheer common sense.

So even today - as you have given a good example of - the 'old' English of the KJV still reigns supreme.

Modern translators --- I dont't think high of their ethics, to be quite frank. They have ulterior motives and it is visible in their product.

 

The KJV does have an influence in the Japanese Bibles, since the Motoyaku ("Original Translation"), the first complete Japanese Bible, was translated from it. However, the influence must remain small since Japanese and English are so hugely different in grammar and syntax.

This is quite a blanket condemnation! I may be included in that since I am involved in translating a new Japanese NT into modern Japanese from the TR. How broad exactly do you intend your condemnation to be?

I know personally one of the NKJV editors, and he is a godly, good man. I have no doubt that his motives for his participation in the project were completely pure.

 

Unfortunately, these are nothing but opinions, at best, "to be quite frank".

And out of curiosity, what are these supposed "ulterior motives" of "modern translators"?

I am a long-time close personal friend (39 years and counting, as we were college roommates) of the Dean of Students, and a teacher of the New Tribes Bible Institute, which prepares and trains students for the purpose of ministering to "language groups" that do not have the written Scriptures in their own language, and translate the Scriptures into the 'native' language, and their modern day lingo, at that. So I do have a bit of contact with that particular institution.

I have also been privileged, in the past, to meet some associated with the Wycliffe Bible Translators, which group is translators of the Scriptures into 'native' languages, likewise, as those languages are spoken today.

John of Japan is one on the Baptist Board, who is involved with translating the Scriptures into the Japanese language, where he ministers, and that into the 'modern Japanese language'.

Nigel on the Baptist Board is currently involved with a modern translation of the texts that supposedly lie behind the KJV into modern, contemporary English, with what is known as the Trinity Bible.

Each and every one of these, along with some others, such as the late Dr. Arthur Farstad with the NKJV and also the original chief editor fo the HCSB, whom Dr. Edward Blum succeeded, after the death of Dr. Farstad, plus Dr. Kenneth Barker, with the NIV, to name three general Editors (and just to name a few of whom I have some limited knowledge), have all expressly stated a desire to translate the Scriptures into the 'common' language (or vernacular) of the people.

I see that as consistent with the intents and desires of many great historical luminaries of Christianity, such as Jerome, Martin Luther, Desiderius Erasmus, John Wycliffe, John Rogers, Theodore Beza, and William Tyndale, to name just a few.

If these all had (or this desire is) the supposed "ulterior motives", then let us praise God for that, and pray for more with such motives!

If, by contrast, you happen to refer to the fact that these individuals are or may be paid for their work (or in the case of the HCSB, which is "owned" by Broadman/Holman which is an entity of the SBC, "hired' these individuals to do the translation), what of it?

FTR, the 'SBC' commissioned the HCSB, in the first place, to avoid paying the huge sums of royalties to other entities (and actually wound up with a pretty good version in the process, IMO, although I do not personally own one, yet) for the use of another version of Scripture in the hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature they produce for Southern Baptist Churches (although anyone can and do purchase the literature), and that, coupled with some concerns about some things found in the NIV, and TNIV, led to the HCSB.

Sorry, I simply don't see any problem, here. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." Is not a translator a "laborer", and engaged in a worthy (and completely honorable) task, at that?

I guess I just believe that he and/or she is very honorably engaged in this task!

Let me close this post, by saying that I agree with what John of Japan has written above. Your 'condemnation' here, is both way too broad, and unwarranted, as well, IMO.

Ed