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!

Featured When translations are older...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by GenevanBaptist, Feb 25, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,481
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Happy 15th!

    Great book if you are interested in the History behind the KJV.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,989
    Likes Received:
    1,126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for the endorsement. I was trying to google up some reviews on my phone in the store, but my search results were heavily secular, not what I would call trustworthy.
     
  3. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,652
    Likes Received:
    902
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A good read that explains the politics and the philosophy of the translation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,989
    Likes Received:
    1,126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've read Trevor Royle's history The Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and hope that this will serve as a sort of prequel.
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Right in the sense that both are close enough to the original text to be considered to be accurate and the original text...

    lets say one said Give thanks always to the lord Jesus christ, other said just Jesus Christ, think both mean same thing!
     
  6. Archie the Preacher

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is a rather oversimplified question, so I'll answer it in a simplified manner.

    Generally, an 'older' manuscript is closer to the original. One can have a later copy which is errant; or a copy of a manuscript translated into another language (the Peshitta, for instance) from an 'older' manuscript which is correct. But one cannot have a copy of an 'errant' document which is somehow correct.

    One looks to the current English version as more accurate, as the words are 'correct' in the modern or current meanings. For instance, some 'older' translations use the word 'meat' where the original word - in Hebrew or Greek - means 'food'. Another great misunderstanding is the Sixth (in the Talmud) Commandment. It is translated in 'older' translations as "Thou shalt not kill" causing no end of confusion about 'killing' in war or self-defense. "You will not commit murder" is a much more correct translation in current English.

    Not to mention the English word 'gay' has undergone some alterations in meaning since the early 1960s. It just isn't the same any more.

    Just for the record, the English language version(s) probably will need to be 're-translated' in another few years to address the changes in the English language between now and then.

    I would further point out God protects His message. Minor changes in word order or spelling or such are not as problematic as changes in the actual message. However, either God takes care of His message, OR, He doesn't or He cannot. I find the latter concept rather futile.

    That is what is known as an opinion. By what standard are the 'oldest English translations' more reliable? More reliable than what or which 'newer' translations? Are they more reliable than the original texts?
    I think I get it. If the modern translation doesn't match up - to what extent? - to the older (claimed to be by Genevan Baptist) more reliable translation, then it is 'unreliable'?

    Is the newer translation 'unreliable' if it doesn't match word for word, or if the meaning has been changed?
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,481
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you don't want an accurate bible? Just a "close enough" bible?

    Nobody is contesting that. But what about changing Son to God? "Only begotten Son" or "Only begotten God." Is making God a begotten being "close enough" for you?
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would take either choice their, as jesus is THE unique Son of God, and is also God!
    Esv/Nasb/Nkjv are all accurate versions to me!
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,481
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, which one is correct? Is God a created being? Was God "begotten?" If so, by whom? And who was God before God was begotten?

    Yes, we all know that. But "accurate" to what extent? Did Isaiah write both Isaiah and Jeremiah?
     
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Only Begorren means that whatever Jesus was/is , he is the same "stuff" as God was/is, not JW, a created being!

    And all of those I listed are accurate enough to be the word of God to us in English now!
     
  11. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,010
    Likes Received:
    571
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Does anybody know anything about these 'Hebrew-Spanish-Cretian-earliest-copies-of-the-NT-spread-when-pentacost-occured' manuscripts being touted by GenevanBaptist?
     
  12. GenevanBaptist

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    13
    Maybe you shoulda read this last part of my original post?

    "It's not about the 'oldest Greek' - it's really about the more accurate way of 'more witnesses' to show that the Greek you use is accurate, regardless of its age."

    As my words about Spanish and Cretian were just examples of other languages, I didn't actually think about whether their were such manuscripts in those particular languages.

    Since there are some Greek manuscripts that are incomplete or lack some words or verses in them, the translators of the older English Bibles did look into other language manuscripts/scriptures to compare the text to the Greek to see what was missing or lacking.

    Just read some title pages and prefaces and you will see phrases such as -

    "Conferred diligently with the Greek, and best approved translations in diverse languages"

    And in the KJV's 'to the reader', they stress the fact that they didn't refuse any other language manuscript or scriptures as source material for helping determining what scripture said for sure in English. (Page 10, par. 1)

    The translators of the KJV said -

    "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch..."

    They looked where they found accuracy.
     
  13. banana

    banana Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2014
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    5
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's simple, the oldest English translations aren't based on the oldest manuscripts.

    Scholars look at different languages if the manuscripts are older.
     
  14. GenevanBaptist

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yes. But they did use the most complete manuscripts - and ones the faithful followers of our Lord used and recopied for centuries. Catholic monks are not the only ones who recopied manuscripts. And accuracy was much more important to a believer than a works oriented lost monk.
     
  15. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,652
    Likes Received:
    902
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please satisfy my curiosity. Who do you think were the "faithful followers of our Lord" who produced the manuscripts upon which Erasmus based his Greek text?

    Since Erasmus relied primarily on Minuscule 2815 (produced by the Dominicans) and Minuscule 1 (also in the custody of the Dominicans), at what point were they transcribed by "faithful followers"? Did the Dominicans just happen to end up with the proper manuscripts?
     
  16. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,652
    Likes Received:
    902
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is common to refer to the ancient translations as witnesses, particularly the Syriac and Old Latin, although the surviving manuscripts are older than the Great Uncials in Greek.

    (Correction: What I meant to say was the the surviving translations, generally speaking, are NO older than the Great Uncials in Greek.)

    This gives cover for Erasmus' decision to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate verses missing from his manuscript of Revelation. As Edward F. Hills says:

     
    #36 rsr, Feb 28, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,652
    Likes Received:
    902
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Possibly in Greek? While there have been some theories that a few of the books were not in Greek originally, that has always been a minority opinion.

    "Yet they understood when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe." is either metaphorical or hyperbolic because 1. There were no NT books at the time of Pentecost and 2. There was no need for dozens of different languages early on because Greek, Latin and Syrian sufficed for the vast majority of the Mideast and Europe. The Roman church, for example, used Greek until the third century.
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Interesting that those holding to the superior Kjv base that upon text sources of the church of Rome, such as Greek text of Eramus and the Vulgate!
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ONLY one that I ever read about was that Matthew night have been penned in Aramaic originally?
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is that the main reason against Critical text, as the sources used were compiled/from Catholic monks
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...