1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Pendulum swings for Bible versions and 2010 election results

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by BobinKy, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob...

    Thanks for your recommendation of Berry's Greek Interlinear New Testament. I may pick up a copy since it uses the KJB's Textus Receptus.

    To be honest, I have fallen in love (again) with the KJB. I spent a number of years reading any Bible but the KJB. Now, I see how stupid I was and how much of God's Word I missed. The important nuances of the KJB text are not found in modern translations. It has taken me 60 years to get to this point. I am not KJBO--but I always feel I have read the Bible when I read a passage in the KJB.

    I follow four paths through the Bible: Psalms, Old Testament, Gospels, and New Testament. I do one reading per day and follow this order:
    1. NIV 1984
    2. NRSV
    3. KJB
    4. Study bibles
    5. Atlases
    6. Cross references
    7. Word study

    In addition to my daily Bible Study, I also have a second period of time each day set aside for prayer and hymn singing. Prayer in the morning, Bible Study in the afternoon or evening.

    Dr. Bob, thank you for all you do for BaptistBoard.com.

    ...Bob in Kentucky
     
  2. SRBooe

    SRBooe New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am astounded by all of this. I am a mere infant in Christ, so there are many things I do not yet understand the way some of you apparently do, so don't take my questions wrong, please.

    If indeed all of these translations are true, and the modern ones can be understood, why does anyone need all of them? Would not one understandable translation be sufficient? Why read several? Does the message change between translations? Does the story change? If there is a change, then it can not be that they are all true, right?

    I am confused by this.

    I knew only the KJV prior to my salvation a year ago. Since then, because of my difficulty with Old English, I picked up a New American Version. From what I have seen, they appear to agree (but since Old English and I are not friends, I cannot gaurantee it). Do I need another version now?
     
  3. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good questions all. As a Christian for over 40 years now, I don't understand the need for all these translations either. Maybe one or two, but hundreds?


    They claim that doesn't happen. I beg to differ, and you are proof. God bless you!
     
  4. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, you don't need another version. If you want to gain a better understanding then using more than one is to your advantage.

    No one needs ALL of them. Bible translation is a money-making venture so there will always be new ones coming out.

    The message does not change between translations, but it may sound different as the different translators may choose different words that say the same thing. Some translators strive for word-for-word translations, while others take a more thought-for-thought approach. But, in the end, it is the same message.

    This is also why multiple translations can help in study. I look at it like windows in a house... more windows let in more light, making it easier to see what you are looking at. Getting different approaches and different word choices can help you better understand what is being said.
     
  5. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    As others have said--very good questions.

    And as others have said--Bible translation and publishing is a business for both the translators and the publishers.

    . . .

    Many years ago, I served on a library committee at the local church I was attending. The committee's purpose was to set up a church library. A librarian, who was not a member of our church but was helping us process the books (call numbers, catalog, spine identification, etc.), asked about the history of our church. One of our committee members--in all honesty and sincerity--said our particular church was formed because the founders believed other churches followed inerrant doctrine. At this, I thought the librarian would end up rolling about on the church floor with laughter. Finally, she came to her senses and replied, "Sir, I thought that is how all churches got started."

    . . .

    My opinion is we do not need all those translations. However, I do think a person needs two formal equivalence translations (word for word) and one dynamic equivalence translation (thought for thought).

    There are many articles and charts posted on the Internet describing these two translation approaches. Sometimes there are attempts made to place specific translations on a continuum (e.g., formal on the left, dynamic on the right). And some folks distinguish between a dynamic equivalence translation and a paraphrase like The Message or the original Living Bible. Here is a Wikipedia link that presents a simple description of translation differences: Dynamic and formal equivalence

    For my current reading, I have chosen two formal equivalence translations and one dynamic equivalence translation.

    Formal Equivalence Translations
    King James Bible (KJB)
    New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

    Dynamic Equivalence Translation
    New International Version 1984 (NIV 1984)

    . . .

    Modern translations have become so numerous that the publishers have changed the naming scheme for new translations.

    For example, two of the successors to the Revised Standard Version go by the names of New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and English Standard Version (ESV). And please understand, these two versions are very different from each other, though they both stem from the original Revised Standard Version. For example, the NRSV adopts gender inclusive language while attempting to minimize doctrinal bias. On the other hand, the ESV adheres to traditional gender language and incorporates "reformed" doctrinal bias to some degree.

    The translation team and publishers of the New International Version and the New Living Translation (NLT) have followed a different naming strategy. First, the New Living Translation is a revision of the original Living Translation (LT). As the years rolled by, the publisher made revisions to the text but kept the name of New Living Translation. Thus, to see which NLT you are reading, you have to look for the copyright date on the copyright page at the beginning of the Bible. There have been three different NLT versions over the last twenty years.

    The New International Version is in the process of switching naming strategies. First there was the NIV 1979 and its revision the NIV 1984. Then the translation committee switched to adopting different names for different revisions, such as Today's New International Version (TNIV, 2005). And on November 1 of this year, they released the text of the NIV 2011 online at BibleGateway.Com. There is even a scholar who has published online the differences in the various NIV translations. The NIV translation committee and publisher state they are going to discontinue all previous versions and simply call the new version NIV. Here again, when you see a NIV product, be sure to check the copyright page because there are changes. For example, the NIV 1984 follows traditional gender language and reads similar to the King James Bible in places. On the other hand, the NIV 2011 adopts gender inclusive language and make a bigger break with the KJB.

    . . .

    Had enough? Well, I certainly have. And that is why I refuse to follow the NIV translators and publishers down their translation mill. Today the hubbub is all about gender language and meaningful contemporary words. Tomorrow, the advertised "new and improved" will promote something else.

    If I sound a bit cynical, that is because I am a retired businessman and I know "new and improved" and "repackaging" for what it is--just another way to make a buck. Not that I blame them all that much. For decades that is how I made my living: hawking the "new and improved" this or that.

    Of course there are also denominational and/or doctrinal reasons for many modern translations. Here the focus seems to make a specific doctrine stand out at the expense of denying other doctrinal nuances (interpretations) in the same text.

    Yada, yada, yada.

    . . .

    For yourself, choose the translation that speaks to you--the translation you feel God speaking directly to you as you read it. Another forum participant used the phrase "window." That is what I suggest you look for. Which specific translation has the most windows for you, windows where you hear God speaking directly to you.

    One final thought, I also suggest you use the translation most frequently used by the church you attend. If in doubt, ask the pastor.

    . . .

    More than you wanted to hear, I am sure.

    ...Bob
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Trotter -- Preach it!

    Of course, if you assume only one translation is correct, more than one translation will confuse you. I consider it Axiomatic that "All Scripture is profitable ... " -- 2Timothy 3:16 "All scripture" includes the NIV, nKJV, NASB, and other good Bibles.
     
  7. SRBooe

    SRBooe New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a technician by trade, so I examine little things ensure that parts fit and function as required, so don't be put off by the number of questions I ask or observations that I make. It is my nature, and I feel compelled to make sure that I do things correctly as much as humanly possible.

    I have to ask, if the translators now feel that they have to remove "gender bias," are they not then saying that previous versions had errors in them? Personally,I see an attempted "correction" like that more an attempt for policial correctness in hopes of selling more Bibles. I have to believe that such a change also changes the message.

    I heard a discussion at my church that claims that we can rely on the Holy Spirit to give us explanations to our Biblical questions. When reading the KJV, I had a ton of questions. Since I picked up the NASB, I don't have as many, but they still happen.

    I don't think I am going to be a version collector.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Formal equivalence doesn't = word-for-word.
    Dynamic equivalence doesn't necessarily equal thought-for-thought.



    But it's not a dynamic-equivalent translation -- the TEV,or as it was known before as the GNT was an actual DE.

    Look at the Preface of the 1984 NIV and see if there is any reference to dynamic-equivalency in their translational method. Not at all.




    Actually they are very similiar. There as much alike as the 1984 NIV is to the TNIV.

    What in the world do you mean by that statement? Please elaborate.

    Have you actually read what you are talking about? The ESV uses less inclusive language than the NRSV -- but a lot more than the NIV for example.

    The NIV has been accused of a Reformed bias --any faithful Bible translation -- will read in a Reformed manner.


    LOL!! Just about every modern version has made a break with the KJV. We are living in the 21st century now -- not the 16th (because the KJV really uses language that dates back to before 1575).

    Is that slang from your area? I had never heard the term "translation mill" before.


    You are dead wrong here --sinfully so. I really do believe that godly scholars have attempted to update versions with the best of intentions and that real improvements have been made.
     
  9. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    RIPPON...

    Opinions are what we express in online forums. Since you do not agree with some of my opinions in this thread--well--that is your problem, not mine. And I do not see the need to write them again.

    Except for this one, which I offer because you may not understand the idiom.

    Mill is sometimes used to describe a business or organization that dispenses products as if produced in a factory. A common example is the term "diploma mill," referring to an educational institution that collects tuition and issues diplomas, while requiring little effort from its students.

    My use of "mill" in the phrase "translation mill" goes to the heart of all my posts in this thread--translations are now produced like products from a factory assembly line.

    In my opinion, so many translations are beginning to do more harm than good.

    Again, this is my opinion. This is Bob's Mill. Please, do not get upset or agitated. You can always start your own thread--Rippon's Mill.

    :tongue3:

    ...Bob
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But a number of your opinions go against established facts.

    It's a shame that you have such a low view of Scripture.

    More access to the Word of God is a very good and God-ordained thing. We are speaking of thed Word of God. How can you possibly think that many translations of the Word or God is bad?! I can think of many actual evil things which are getting to be pervasive in society -- but having the Scriptures available to many is something which the Lord honors -- even though you despise it.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Welcome SRBooe! You have come to a place where some of your Bible questions may be answered. Of course, you will find differences of opinion here (as seen in responses to your post already). Essentially, differences of opinion is why there are many English versions.

    While there have been 100s of English Bible versions produced since the beginning of the Reformation, only a portion are actually still in print. The typical Protestant Christian bookstore will offer about a dozen or so. As mentioned, there are basically two broad methods of translation (three if paraphrases is included): Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. Sometimes these go by other names. F-E versions essentially follow the Greek and Hebrew word order which is not necessarily helpful unless you are interested in those languages. D-E versions are 'idiomatic', that is, they are constructured as an English writer might more naturally compose a text. Some people like F-E, and others prefer D-E. I would agree with other posts that you ought to have at least one of each (you may already have a KJV which is F-E). Other common F-E versions are the NIV, NASB, and NRSV/ESV (some being much more 'literal' than others).

    In addition to the method of translation, there are difference bewteen Bible versions of the use of various available underlying texts in Greek (and Hebrew). For example, the KJV/NLJV translate a (slightly) different Greek text into English than, say, the NIV and the NASB. Some people believe that the underlying Greek of the NT in the KJV/NKJV is most faithful to the original autographs, while other people think that another Greek text is more accurrate. Some Catholic Bibles are English translations from Latin, not the original languages at all. This is a very complex issue that may take quite a bit of study if you make it a criteria in your Bible selection. Some popular D-E versions would be the NLT, HCSB, NET, TEV, NCV, The Message, and CEV (some are much more 'free' than others).

    Also, there are some versions that the translation is influenced by certain doctrinal presuppositions (sectarian bias). This is obvious in the NWT (the version produced by the JWs). But also in others, like Catholic versions -- which the New American Bible is a popular one. If that is indeed the version you have, you probably should get a different Bible soon. The NAB is a readable version but you will ultimately find some renderings that tend to support Catholic dogma where you would not find them in a more conservative or evangelical-influenced version (not to mention the Catholic footnotes found in their versions).

    There are many more considerations for choosing a Bible version, such as gender appropriateness (see next post) and readability (reading level). Readability is more individualist determined by an individual's intelligence, education, and comfort with English. The fact is, some Bibles are just easier to understand and read smoother than others; these are often designed with youth or English-as-2nd-language folks in mind. It kinda depends on how hard you want to work at it. The KJV is technically in Modern English (although very early Modern) but with a good dictionary it can be understood. In many folks opinion, the KJV sounds particularly good when read aloud as compared with most other versions.

    There are some good books that address the 'how-to-choose-a-Bible' issue and you ought to read at least one. I have read several (I also own and have read through every NT version mentioned above except the NET and NAB). Well, that is more than enough to get you started.
     
    #31 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, previous versions were not in error. Previous English language convention allowed the masculine forms to stand for universals (so "his" rather than "her," or "men" rather than "people", "brethren" rather than say "members of the church", "makind" rather than "humanity", etc.). The appropriateness of that convention has now changed. It should not change the message and is in fact more faithful to the intent.
     
    #32 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Some of these were not very faithful versions from the start. Some were merely light revisions on previous versions. Most of the hundreds would be considered antiquated now (due to language and/or biblical scholarship). Of the ones still being published, they mostly serve different constituents.
     
    #33 franklinmonroe, Nov 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The HCSB certainly isn't a D-E type. The NET Bible while more dynamic than the NIV, really belongs to the same grouping as the HCSB,ISV,and NIV. This category is a blending or balance between the formal and functional method.


    Webster's of 1828 is not that accessible. Besides, phrases and even whole sentences have antiquated and obscure renderings where even ancient dictionaries wouldn't be of much help.
     
  15. SRBooe

    SRBooe New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your post, sir. It will take me some time to accept "faithful to the intent" since I haven't figured out how modern translators know "the intent."

    I have even heard that there is a bible out (perhaps the Oxford version?) that changes God from a He to a She. Hopefully, that is not someones' version of complying with "intent."
     
  16. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary is online and pretty easy to use.

    Check out all the Bible quotations. King James, of course.



    Sorry, but I don't see a problem with KJB renderings.

    And here is an article you may want to share with the students in your English class: How the King James Bible Shaped the English Language.


    . . .


    Tag You're It.

    :tongue3:


    ...Bob

    I am KJB Preferred
    (refer to Dr. Bob's definitions)

    . . .
     
    #36 BobinKy, Nov 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010
  17. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish to thank everyone for seeing me through my current translation crisis--what I call the swing of the pendulum. If you have followed my posts, you know I have settled on three translations:
    1. NIV 1984
    2. NRSV
    3. KJB.
    I believe these three translations will:
    • Provide access to the Word of God
    • Blend with my spirituality
    • Simplify my Bible study
    • Fit with my other Bible resources
    • Permit me to study in a paper format
    • Work within my decreasing storage limitations
    I apologize to anyone I may have offended by my posts.

    . . .

    May the LORD bless each of you in your study, sharing, teaching, and preaching of His Word--through whatever translation(s) He leads you to use.

    ...Bob
     
    #37 BobinKy, Nov 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2010
Loading...