To Each His Own

[TCGreek]

1. I cannot begin to tell you how many versions of the Bible there are out there (Rippon might be able to tell you).

2. Each version uses a particular translation philosophy and tend to target a particular market, so there's no one version to fit every one.

So for now, I'll continue to use the NASB95, while consulting other versions.

 

[TCGreek]

It has often been said that if you're adept at the biblical languages that you should use a freer translation like the NIV or NLTse or even the NET. But two profs of mine thought otherwise.

1. One prof who did a doctorate in the Classics, Latin and Greek, used the NASB95.

2. And the other who did a doctorate in NT and the Patristics used the NIV.

Once again, to each his own choice of versions.

 

[Gold Dragon]

It has often been said that if you're adept at the biblical languages that you should use a freer translation like the NIV or NLTse or even the NET. But two profs of mine thought otherwise.

I would say the freer translations would be more suitable for those less adept at the original languages.

More formal or literal translations focus on word translation and tend to preserve the word order, grammar and sentence structure of the original languages. Modern day languages like modern english often have very different grammatical rules so preserving the word order and grammar of the originals makes for very foreign reading to the average modern reader and often leads to loss of meaning or misunderstanding. Those with experience in biblical Hebrew and Greek along with the grammar and sentence structure of those languages tend to have less difficulty with more formal translations.

 

[franklinmonroe]

1. I cannot begin to tell you how many versions of the Bible there are out there (Rippon might be able to tell you)...

One reason that there is not a single concrete number of English versions of the Bible is that there is not standard guidelines as to what should be counted, and what should not. What constitutes a 'bible' volume? The 22 (our 27) books of the Hebrew Tanahk is the entire Jewish scriptures. So, many 'bible' counts enumerate both "Old" and "New" testaments individually. Should a partial testament count? The five books of the Pentateuch is the entire Samaritan scriptures. Should the many abbreviated/abridged versions of the 'bible'count? And then, some texts have been marketed under several different names (I count 'em as just one text). So, any number must be qualified as to what it actually represents. I can confirm about 200 unique English texts of the Christian New Testament published in print since 1900.

2. Each version uses a particular translation philosophy and tend to target a particular market, so there's no one version to fit every one...

The translation philosophy doesn't bother me as much as the question of underlying original language text. Looking only at the NT: either the Greek Byzantine (TR/MT) text has added to the words of God, or the Greek Alexandrian (UBS/N-A) text has omitted words. Of course, both of these textual traditions could be guilty of interpolations and subtractions, but certainly they cannot both represent the precise original.

I have witnessed statements like: "I prefer the NASB, but the KJV is a good translation too" (or sometimes vice-versa). However, this reminds me of the Muslim postion on who Jesus was. They'll say: "Jesus was a good prophet, but he was not God." But that is a self-refuting statement! Jesus emphatically said He was God, and if Islam does not accept that as true, then they cannot logically also claim he is a good prophet (because his claim would have been a false one). In the case of biblical text, it cannot be logically accepted that both/all texts are complete and pure.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In the case of biblical text, it cannot be logically accepted that both/all texts are complete and pure.

The uncertainty around manuscripts is why modern translators and scholars use a blend manuscript with both "Alexandrian" and "Byzantine" manuscripts as their base text. The N-A is not strictly "Alexandrian".

 

[Rippon]

I have witnessed statements like: "I prefer the NASB, but the KJV is a good translation too" (or sometimes vice-versa). However, this reminds me of the Muslim postion on who Jesus was. They'll say: "Jesus was a good prophet, but he was not God." But that is a self-refuting statement! Jesus emphatically said He was God, and if Islam does not accept that as true, then they cannot logically also claim he is a good prophet (because his claim would have been a false one). In the case of biblical text, it cannot be logically accepted that both/all texts are complete and pure.

FM , your analogy is not a fair one , to say the least . One who prefers the KJV and another who prefers the NASB version is a world away from person 'A' saying Jesus is God , and person 'B' saying he was just a prophet ! These cases are not in the least parallels .

The doctrines and truths expressed in the KJV are identical with the doctrines and truths conveyed in the NASB .

 

[TCGreek]

1. In a few emails with scholar Daniel B. Wallace of DTS, Dr. Wallace rates the ESV over the HCSB and the NASB. To be honest, I was surprised.

2. I went to Rick Manfield's site to compare the changes of the ESV 2001 to the ESV 2007, only to find out that the translator have just about borrowed the changes from the NASU.

While I like a few lines from the ESV, I still think it is overhyped. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

1. In a few emails with scholar Daniel B. Wallace of DTS, Dr. Wallace rates the ESV over the HCSB and the NASB. To be honest, I was surprised.

2. I went to Rick Manfield's site to compare the changes of the ESV 2001 to the ESV 2007, only to find out that the translator have just about borrowed the changes from the NASU.

While I like a few lines from the ESV, I still think it is overhyped. :thumbs:

I am surprised my Wallace's view . Be more specific . In what ways does he rate the ESV higher than the HCSB and the NASBU ?

For all the "woodenness" claims about the NASBU , I think it's English is better than the ESV's . And yes , I do think the ESV has been over-hyped .

 

[TCGreek]

I am surprised my Wallace's view . Be more specific . In what ways does he rate the ESV higher than the HCSB and the NASBU ?

For all the "woodenness" claims about the NASBU , I think it's English is better than the ESV's . And yes , I do think the ESV has been over-hyped .

Three lines of arguments for his choice of the ESV:

1. It's predecessor's reputation, which really is no argument.

2. The ESV is a smoother read.

3. And because Leland Ryken was the literary stylist of the ESV.

 

[TCGreek]

1. For now I'm holding on to my NASU, but if I were to change Bibles it would definitely be the HCSB. I'm looking for to the HCSB's update next year.

2. I find the HCSB incredibly smooth and accurate. But I'm still hang up over "soul (lack of)," "dear friends," and "brothers."

3. I'm impressed with the HCSB's faithful rendering of doulos/douloi and so on.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... One who prefers the KJV and another who prefers the NASB version is a world away from person 'A' saying Jesus is God , and person 'B' saying he was just a prophet !...

I do not know how you went wrong, but the above is a misrepresentation of what I actually posted. In the first part you paraphrase (fair and in reverse) my hypothetical "I prefer the NASB, but the KJV is a good translation too" statement. However, you attribute the statement divided by two individuals; I portrayed the complete quote as being from single source.

Your second part does not reflect what I wrote (nor what I intended) either. I phrased the Muslim position thus: "Jesus was a good prophet, but he was not God." This is the basic Islamic point-of-view. Again, there are not two persons speaking here (an 'A' and a 'B' person). Another clue would have been that I said it was "self-refuting". Perhaps compounding the error is that you wrote "Jesus is God" (where the original was in the negative: "he was not God"). I'm not sure if you can clear this up.

The point was that two contradictory things cannot be both true (at the same time and in the same way). Do believers need to come to grips with the fact that at least one of the texts is not complete and pure?

 

[Gold Dragon]

The point was that two contradictory things cannot be both true (at the same time and in the same way). Do believers need to come to grips with the fact that at least one of the texts is not complete and pure?

The reality is that no translation is made with a complete and pure manuscript. The KJV was based on a version of the "Textus Receptus" that was the result of a compilation of several contradicting partial manuscripts.

 

[Salamander]

And your "proof" is where?

 

[Gold Dragon]

And your "proof" is where?

The initial versions of the TR compiled by Erasmus (5 versions by him) was a compilation of manuscripts 1r, 2e and 2ap with some consultation with 1eap, 4ap and 7p. e=gospels (evangel), a=acts, p=pauline letters, r=revelation. Future versions of the TR were variations of Erasmus' work by Estienne, Beza, the Elzevirs and others with input from other manuscripts.

The initial TR used by the KJV translators was mainly two different versions of the TR by Theodore Beza (1598 and 1588/89). Scrivener identified 190 places where the KJV translators departed from those two versions of the TR. Variations within the Received Text Tradition

 

[Salamander]

Show us that "reality" there is no translation is made with a complete and pure manuscript?

All I see is pure conjecture.

The translators most certainly had good reason for "departing" from Erasmus' and Beza's for clarification purposes. I believe that reason is to keep the harmony of the Scripture without departing into a realm of dogma that eventually is proven to be biased.

 

[Gold Dragon]

All I see is pure conjecture.

If that is what you choose to see given the evidence I have provided, that is your prerogative.

 

[Salamander]

BTW, define "departing"?

It seems we ought to define departing as departing from the doctrine or the original intent and not simply departing in a choice of words.

The translators seem to have the upper hand to relate to the understanding the more of the mind of God rather than appealing to the understanding of men.

I just read all 190 INSTANCES YOU SPOKE OF IN THE link you provided; no reason to say the translators "departed" from anything.

It is more likely the use of the word "departing' is to influence one to think they actually changed something or imposed their opinion in the place of the truth.

That is a very deceptive practice.

 

[Salamander]

If that is what you choose to see given the evidence I have provided, that is your prerogative.

Considering I made no choice but to allow reason and the Holy Ghost to guide me, your assumption is certainly wrong.

 

[Gold Dragon]

BTW, define "departing"?

departing = different

 

[Salamander]

A Golden delicious apple doesn't depart from a red delicious apple in that they are both apples.

It seems more the use of "departing" here is suggesting that an apple departed from being an apple into that of an orange.:type: