Your personal translation journey

The NASB is a very helpful text for those of us without understanding of the original languages. It is still the most woodenly literal translation available, without a lot of the potential problems of the KJV.

 

Attack on the word of God deleted

 

Bible Translations

I read a KJV until I was in about the third grade and Good News for Modern Man NT came out and was given to everybody. I gulped it down like spring-water in the desert. I could understand the stories. May not be the best translation, but in the third grade, if I understood the stories and I don't think it hurt me Theologically at all I loved it. Then in high-school I started questioning the pastor and he recommended an NASB due to its accuracy. I had NO trouble reading it and loved it.

I'm a full time engineer and to this day I get frustrated trying to read the KJV English. Then when comparing Greek and Hebrew (primarily Greek) I started leaning toward my NASB and then the ESV came out correcting a lot of the RSV problems.

I notice that people are basing their "accuracy" on the Bible they like or the way it compares to their theology in ENGLISH. I think the accuracy of any translation should be its accuracy to the originals or at least what we have determined are as close to the originals as we have. Any other method of accuracy is just a waste of time since we are picking an English translation that matches the theology we probably grew up with. This is the reason I started studying Greek and to a lesser extent Hebrew.

I attend an SBC church and my daughter attends a Missionary Baptist Fundamentalist. I visited a lot, but got tired of the preacher telling me my translations of the Bible were written by the devil and the KJV1611 is the ONLY Bible that's true today, far exceeding any old manuscripts. Although they all carry the Oxford 1769. I also got tired of not hearing the gospels being preached and the liberalism of the local SBC churches are so evil, so I told my daughter that I have a real theology problem with the KJVO part especially since he quotes Ruckman and others all the time. I'm glad my daughter is taking her kids to church but my five year old is already questioning why grandpa reads a NASB and is not welcome with his Bible. At least my daughter is smart enough to let me read any Bible I want to my grandson and I usually pick the New Living Translation simply because he loves the stories that he can actually understand.

I suspect problems will occur as he gets older, but already my daughter is a little tired of the SBC cut-downs ten times a service. I told her that I would like to hear some good plain ole gospel preaching, you know---the part where Jesus came to Earth and died for ME!!!!!! I think she's growing frustrated but her husbands brother's families attend and the preacher takes them out to the steak house now and then, so I expect a household split in the future, but my daughter is one tough lady of 23 who said she would be an RN (my other two daughters got married) even if she got married and she has one year left in school. I'm proud of her and I think she is smart enough to know what's right and what's wrong and I think letting me read stories from my Living Translation is a good start on her part.

Let's get back on track and study some Greek and Hebrew THEN decide which documents to compare the English translations with. Otherwise, its a waste of time to quote what you like.

PS I love the sound of the religious "thee's and thou's" But, I don't need that language to speak to my God.

 

Excellent post, friend. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about how accuracy should only be determined by adherence to the best manuscripts.

Blessings.

 

Just a question..........do you understand your own signature line? After all, you chose it. If you do, then you can very easily understand the KJV.

BTW, I agree with this:

I believe they are the TR.

 

I trow not.

 

I understood your snide response. Most semi-intelligent people can.

 

I quoted the KJV- and you missed the point. It's not even in the Greek texts underlying the KJV.

And most people today would have NO idea what "trow" means. Go ahead- go out on the street and do a survey. I dare you.

 

trow in English means to think, to believe. It is still used in some circles in England to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Those circles would be few and rather small I suspect. But in the U.S.A. the average person-in-the-street wouldn't have a clue what trow means. Now if you use the sentence :"I trow not." -- then even if they weren't familiar with the word they could probably guess the correct meaning.

 

The only reason I know what it means is due to studying Shakespeare in school.

 

Honestly, I trow not. Didn't have a clue. Nor do I have a clue about the other fellow's handle. I guess I'm not a candidate for reading the KJV.

 

Do you know what these verses mean?



Job 16:8 You have bound me—and it has become a witness;
my gauntness rises up and testifies against me.



Jeremiah 46:20 Egypt is a beautiful heifer, but a gadfly is coming against her from the north.


Isaiah 59:13 rebellion and treachery against the Lord, turning our backs on our God, fomenting oppression and revolt,
uttering lies our hearts have conceived.

Leviticus 11:19.........the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.


2 Timothy 2:20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble.

 

My signature line is pretty easy to understand, and I appreciate the historical context from whence it came, as I do with the KJV. I certainly could understand a good portion of the KJV if I can understand it.

Well, then, agree to disagree. I just can't argue with all the scholarship on it that I've heard and read.

 

....and that's OK! :thumbs:

 

B4L: If you think that the TR (in any of its incarnations) represents the best of the manuscripts -- then what about the numerous times when the the KJV (in its many incarnations) departs from the TR? Is the KJV in error on those ocassions -- or is the TR in error?

 

No one wants to answer my question about this post?

My whole point with that is...........those verses have some pretty hard to understand words in them. Words that the average guy on the street will not know! Words that are not used in everyday speech.


I hear that "hard to understand" comment constantly as a reason not to use the KJV.


OK.


























^^^^^^ All those verses are from the NIV, (and that's only a few of many) so if the KJV is "outdated" and "hard for the common man to understand" , so is the NIV!

 

I like word games, let me play!

Gauntness- thinness- not archaic according to any online source I could find.

Gadfly- a little harder unless you are a fisherman or a farmer- a biting fly. Not archaic.

Fomenting- to incite, again, not archaic.

Hoopoe- now this is the only one so far I have no idea of- let me guess before I look- Uh, an owl?? Nope- but it IS a bird that we would know of if we lived on the Eurasian Continent. Oh, yes, also not archaic.

Ignoble- too easy- the opposite of noble. Not archaic.

That was fun!

Let's try some KJV words now:

Wot-


Stomacher-


Strake-


Selvedge-


Pygarg-

 

When did you declare gauntness as archaic?​

Since when has this commonly used word been deemed archaic by you?

You keep referencing currently used words. The TNIV has :"inciting revolt and oppression." But maybe you think that "inciting" is also archaic.

That's an unfamiliar word. But other versions such as the NASB and HCSB use it. You apparently prefer lapwing -- from the KJV which doesn't fare any better.

Noble is contrasted with ignoble -- they are opposites. That's a duh moment for you.

The TNIV has :"and some for disposal of refuse." It's clearer and more graphic.