What is lacking?

I've noticed several posts which discuss the Apocrypha. I personally do not study the Apocrypha since I feel the study of the Old and New Testament to be of much more importance (and I do not seem to have enough time to study these). Since I collect old Bibles I can testify to several facts:
1- Bibles which were printed before the KJV in the English-language all contained the Apocrypha this was also true for Latin and Greek Bibles and these Bibles usually had the Apocrypha books spread throughout the Old Testament. The Apocrypha books began to be grouped in the Matthews Bible. Separate sections for the complete Apocrypha first appeared in the Geneva and then the Bishops versions.
2- The Apocrypha is included in the 1611 KJV (please note: it is also included in all other KJVs until 1796(some sources say about 1865) in which time a conference was held and it was agreed to exclude it from future Bibles printed for the Protestants.)
3- The 1611 KJV in the morning and evening prayers preliminaries also called for the reading of the Apocrypha, seems the translators of the KJV apparently felt the Apocrypha section of the Bible what of some importance.
4- A law was passed in 1615 to make printing of a Bible without the Apocrypha illegal. This was designed to eliminate the Geneva version from general use and to support the printing / use of the KJV. This was probably necessary to prevent the KJV from being rejected in favor of the Geneva as the Bishops Bible had been for the previous 40 years before the KJV.
5- The first Bibles to be printed without the Apocrypha were the Geneva 1599 versions. These were printed on the European continent to circumvent the English law forbidding the printing of the Geneva and they were actually printed much later than 1599 (a counterfeit date was used to fool the Bible “police”). They were known as “pirate” versions. They were purchased and used by the Puritan / Pilgrims.
6- I'm also told that both Jesus and Paul both quoted from the Apocrypha (if anyone would like specific references I will try to get them.) but I do not know for sure if this is true. Anyone who has information to add concerning this it would be appreciated.

My point is that the Apocrypha is recognized as a form scripture from about 200 AD to 1796. I also noted that someone had made reference to the Westcott and Hort text and underlying text containing the Apocrypha and they colluded that the underlying scripture for the KJV does not contain the Apocrypha. I believe this to be an error. All of the proceeding English Bibles from which the KJV was written contained the Apocrypha. But the Textus Receptus does not contain the Apocrypha since it only represents the New Testament and therefore could not make reference to the Apocrypha.

Let me state again that I'm not writing this in support of the Apocrypha as scripture I'm only trying to point out the history behind these books. I personally find the Apocrypha text to be extremely hard read and only of a historical value.

 

All of these discussions always seem the same to me. KJVers always try to prove the leader of the Church of England (whom they would never listen to and consider a heretic) hired a bunch of scholars (whom they would never let into their pulpit because they would consider them heretics) to produce a translation of copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts. Then they choose arbitrarily one of the subsequent modified editions and say that out of all this heresy and changes came perfection. The other side is just as bad, they are willing to take just about anything that calls itself a Bible and say that it, too, is the word of God. They all have their pet versions that appeal to them emotionally or seem to fit their education, or tickles their ears. I am waiting for someone with better writing skills than me to put down the reasons why what we really need is a version that tells us what God actually SAID, not what the translators thought he MEANT. The KJV does a very good job at this and that is why I use the New Scofied Reference Bible. It updates some of the archaic words without trying to change the translation. The NASB does the best job of trying to says what GOD said without trying to "help my understanding" by giving what they think He meant. The NIV states plainly that it is trying to give me the meaning without giving me the words. I don't care what you think, I don't care what translators think, I don't care what preachers think, untik AFTER I find out what GOD said, then and only then can the Holy Spirit teach me what He meant. God uses teachers, preachers, authors, friends, mentors, and such, but, there is no where for them to start until I know what HE said. I find those two views equally absurd. The original manuscripts are absolutely perfect in word and meaning. God's Word will never fail. You guys concentrate on telling me what God said and not on what a lot of other people thinks he meant. Start with the best text you can find (the one that makes the effort to actually translate), use your God given intelligence, the Holy Spirit inside you, your education, and then try as accurately as you can to tell me what God said and what you think that means. Trust the Holy Spirit to commune with me for the real learning.

 

It is some time since I participated in discussing KJV and other versions. I am still of the opinion that the more fanatical KJV onlyism is a quite recent innovation, if not heresy. I can understand certain people defend the KJV against some modern versions, which are often mere per-versions of the original. But they ought not resort to untruths and half truths and lies. One lie I come to think of is that the English King, James I, was a "godly man", when the historical record shows he was nothing of the kind. He was a staunch pedobaptist, as were most if not all of the KJV translators. Where is there any godliness in insisting on pedobaptism? This is reflected in the KJV wordings such as "baptized WITH water", when the original has the locative preposition "en" before the word for water, thus it ought to be rendered "IN water". Or more specifically, "immersed in water". The KJV is in such instances seen to be no friend of non-Protestants such as Baptists so called. John the Baptizer or Immerser was a forefather kind of to some present day immersionists and Baptists. And the penmen of the New Covenant scriptures, inspired of God, were in line with John, thus they were also immersionistic as respects the mode of baptism, and the inspired original shows this to be so. The word "baptizoo" never to my best knowledge refers to sprinkling, but for that there was another word, rhantizoo. If the original word had been rhantizoo it would have been proper to render as the KJV translators did, "baptized WITH water". The fact that the KJV translators were fallible does not imply the KJV is a bad translation. It is relatively good and accurate, but not infallible or free from translational errors or blunders or weak renderings. Only an ostrich would say the KJV cannot or need not be corrected in any single instance. One thing which annoys me with the KJV is how they were uncareful in the rendering of the verb forms in certain places. Another thing is that they sometimes left out the definite article, an example would be when in the original says "o christos", "the Christ", and the KJV renders "Christ", omitting the article. I may ask, with the permission of God or...? Then again many modern versionists do not seem to be bothered although most if not all modern versions bring in inconsistencies and heresies and errors into the Bible by following the more or less tampered with Alexandrian text. The translators may in many instances have been good and skilled, but the wrong base text makes the whole translation endeavour lacking in quality, some more some less. It is sad to say but to me it seems that very few translations into English have been made by genuine converts, true disciples of Christ. I very much doubt the claimed saintliness of the KJV translating baby baptizers. The same goes for Westcott and Hort & Co., who made the Revised Version. And the translators of the NIV were definitely not God-called to the task they performed. The same goes for every paraphrase version ever published under the name "Holy Bible". I cannot but help wonder why it seems God seldom calls some of His true saints to attempt at translating the word of God from the right texts, but instead suffers all kinds of inferior translations flourish the market. But He knows what He does, and none can blame Him.

Harald

 

And how do you know this?

 

Harald,
I don't follow your point. What are you saying?

 

rsr. What I said was/is of course my own opinion. An opinion may be right or it may be wrong. I believe I am right on track here because the NIV translation is translated using the false method of translation when it comes to Holy Scripture, dynamic equivalency. The KJV may be said to be a mixture of DE and formal equivalency. But dynamic Equiv. is certainly an unacceptable overall translation method in Bible translating efforts. Occasional resorting to DE is probably unavoidable, but an overall policy resting on DE is hazardous and foolish. It injects way too much of the subjective interpretative notions of the translators into the finished product. God has warned people in His word not to change it nor to add to it nor to diminish aught, which DE version do all too often here and there. This can be proven by comparing with the original tongue, whether one has the Alexandrian or the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine Majority text to compare with.

Harald

 

Larry. I could ask you the reverse question, what makes you to seemingly think the many versions on the market are accurate and faithful ones? Either there are only a few acceptable Bible translations or there are many many accurate and faithful ones. Or if one is a KJV onlyist one would say there is only ONE accurate and faithful translation, the KJV. I do not believe there is any absolutely perfect ones available, and never probably will be. For this one has to go to the Hebrew and Greek texts, which of course are no translations. And I trust to say there are only a few honorable, or, good translation on the market. I myself would right away disqualify all paraphrases and most if not all Dynamic Equivalency versions. This would make the sum total of ones to choose from much smaller. I know it is not an easy task to pass judgment upon Bible versions as to their quality, accuracy and faithfulness in comparison to the original tongues. As for the Hebrew OT I am not the least qualified. As for the Greek NT I think I can spot a faithful translation when I see one and a poor one when I see one. But don't most claim that ability who debate versions? I think it is thus. I do not expect to win any case by saying these, nor to lose. But if any asked my opinion I think I would tell them to check out the YLT, LITV, Geneva Bible, Tyndale's translation, KJV, NKJV, ALT, VW-Bible, MKJV. From among Alexandrian versions I acknowledge NASB and ASV as relatively good formal equivalency translations, the wrong NT base text degrades them to a certain extent. Yet at the same time acknowledging that all of the above have their own peculiar weaknesses. Surely some others could also be added to my list, but these come to mind right now. Nor do I want to pass hasty judgment as to which of the above is the best among them, or which the most inferior of them. But my studied opinion is that with a firm belief in the classic doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Bible it is as good as impossible to accept of the modern paraphrase perversions and almost-as-perverse dynamic equivalency versions.

Harald

 

Harald,
What makes you think that DE translations are inferior. I rather think that they are, in many ways, superior. I trust my NIV at least as much as my KJV, if not more. It expresses God's Word in a much better way.

I think that there is too much complaining about thought-for-thought vs word-for-word translating. Thoughts are made of of words and it is words we use to convey thoughts. If I tell my daughter to do something, I am more concerned that she understand what I am thinking and not just hear what I am saying. It is the thoughts that count more than the choice of words.

 

Terry. I do grant that in some instances a DE rendering which captures the sense of the original wording may be better than a formal equivalency rendering which is overly wooden so as to only confuse the reader as to the author meaning of that certain portion. Yet I believe it is more in line with the Biblical commands and prohibitions regarding God's words to render formally or literally. A DE translation as compared to a FE translation is generally speaking inferior when it comes to doing precise exegesis. A man named Robert L Thomas has written at least two lengthy articles touching upon this and related matters. I believe he is affiliated with John F MacArthur. Nevertheless, his writings are in my opinion good, and I found them last year on the net in Acrobat form, and are among the better articles on translating and translations and versions. When one reads a DE translations one (I myself) gets the impression the translator has not so much sought to give what God actually inspired but his own abbreviation or interpretation of the same. This is not the work of the translator, but of the expositor or exegete or whatever one calls the one who expounds upon the proper meaning of a given passage. Always the translator should render as accurately and faithfully to the original wording as is in his power and ability, without distorting or obscuring its meaning more than may be in the original. I know that translating formally involves interpretation, but it should not reflect too much in the finished product, the translation, like it sadly does in many purely DE translations. I believe it can be proven that DE translations are weaker in rendering the verb forms than FE translations, generally speaking. The Bible student ought not to rely on the translator's interpretative or expository skills for his understanding the word of God, which seemingly is the case with some who prefer DE version to FE versions, because the DE translator has predigested the passages by his overly interpretative renderings, which truly is the case far too often, instead of letting the text stand as is written, thus letting the reader dig into the text with his own tools and mental powers from scratch. And happy is he if the Holy Spirit of God sees fit to illuminate him in his study. The issues we are discussing are in my opinion interesting and important as well.

Harald

 

Harald, I know you are still fairly new here, but I
have no idea if you have written anything worthy
of reading or not! 8o) I am quite far from being a
young chick, and my eyes cannot follow a post
without paragraphing. And Ii am not the only one!
8o)

Please paragraph, Harald, even when it is not
necessary according to the rules of writing.
White space, as any type setter will tell you, is
necessary to give the eyes rest and to help them
focus.

8o)

 

Again, both Isaac and Ishmael were both born to Abraham. The KJV calls Ishmael the "son" of Abraham several times. Yet it calls Isaac the "only begotten" of Abraham. Obviously, even in the KJV, it does NOT mean "only-born", but unique and one of a kind.

Three points:

1. personally, I find referencing multiple translations often *eliminates* confusion that can result from reading from only one version.

2. The KJV translators, quoting and agreeing with Augustine, said "variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures". And I agree.

3. The verse about "the author of confusion" is 1 Cor 14:33. The context is chaotic prophesying in a church service. Even the KJV's marginal note on the word "confusion" says the Greek means "tumult, or unquietness". The verse is not about someone's own personal confusion that is the result of someone's misunderstanding or lack of enough information, but about the disruptive event of many people trying to prophesy at the same time in a church service.