Get to know your Bible translations

All well and good JB, but what about those of us whose Greek is not up to the job you describe? For us, the AV 1611 is the version of record. There are no doubt better and worse translations out there, but for many of us the AV 1611 is the starting point.

[JohnBrian]

Dave Gilbert wrote:

Also,there are far too many changes, subtractions and additions to the text when comparing it ( the Authorized ) to other translations done in recent years, for me to just brush things aside as being necessary for further accuracy and modernization.

Your error here is that you use the KJV as the standard and compare other translations to it. Translations should be compared to the original language texts. Only then can it be determined if the translation is faulty. When all the manuscripts are compared there is no difference that places any doctrine in jeopardy and there are more extant manuscripts of the Bible than there are of any other ancient writing.

The Word has been preserved in manuscripts spread out all over the world. I say Amen to that!

I realise that I am prolonging this thread but I’d really be interested in the understanding of others.

Many Christians I know would find it hard to understand the preservation of God’s Word in the light of the points that I and others have highlighted above …

[Rob Fall] All well and good JB, but what about those of us whose Greek is not up to the job you describe? For us, the AV 1611 is the version of record. There are no doubt better and worse translations out there, but for many of us the AV 1611 is the starting point.

–

JohnBrian wrote:

–

Dave Gilbert wrote:

Also,there are far too many changes, subtractions and additions to the text when comparing it ( the Authorized ) to other translations done in recent years, for me to just brush things aside as being necessary for further accuracy and modernization.

–

Your error here is that you use the KJV as the standard and compare other translations to it.

[TRIM]

The Word has been preserved in manuscripts spread out all over the world. I say Amen to that!

Recognizing the challenges of translating from the multiplicity of manuscripts; with the desire to make the Bible understood by the reader; rather than insisting (as Dave does) that the English words of a single translation are sacrosanct. All of us do not need to be language or manuscript authorities. We do need to recognize though that the Bible has been preserved in the MULTITUDE of manuscripts.

I use the KJV in my church, and when I write the occasional blog article. That being said, I find it hard to call the KJV the “best” translation. Consider this:

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

James 3:4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.

Any modern reader will be a bit perplexed by the rendering. Compare it to any newer translation and see the difference for yourself. I shall use the NET (which routinely use along with the ESV for comparison purposes) as an example:

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we will be judged more strictly.

James 3:4 Look at ships too: Though they are so large and driven by harsh winds, they are steered by a tiny rudder wherever the pilot’s inclination directs.

I think the difference is obvious. I love and use the KJV. I find, among some fundamental Baptists, that the adoption of a newer translation may be a stumbling block. Not a problem, for that reason I’ll keep the KJV and be very happy with it. But, is it the best translation in 2014? Probably not …

I know what you mean; I am so immersed in the KJV-English that I don’t usually need a translator. I am honestly torn about what to do for newer Christians. I want to give them something easier than KJV, but issuing an ESV gift Bible to visitors may well cause more problems than it solves! That being said, you can’t beat Christianbook.com’s case of 24 KJV’s for $39.99!

Take care!

Dave, we have already addressed your concerns about the manuscripts….you yourself have admitted that you have limited knowledge. Normally a person defers to people with a better understanding of the topic. Based on our interaction on this topic, you have made it quite plain that your limited knowledge on this topic is a better basis for reasoning than the extensive study, training, education and knowledge of others. The textual theory that you espouse is limited, basic, and misleading. Read some good books on the topic.

I highly recommend the two books that James B Williams edited ( http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Our-Hands-Preserved/dp/1889893870/ref=s… ) and ( http://www.amazon.com/From-Mind-God-Man-Laymans/dp/1889893382/ref=sr_1_… ).
The KJV is not the oldest English translation….the definition of “best” is somewhat subjective it appears. Please continue to use the KJV. You’re entitled to do so and it is an accurate translation. I’m not at all concerned about that. I am concerned that your limited knowledge gives you the boldness to directly attack God’s Word and make borderline blasphemous statements about it. The ESV, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, NIV and other translations are as much God’s Word as the KJV. Do yourself a favor and quietly enjoy God’s Word in whatever translation you prefer without further demonstrating your ignorance on these topics and your disregard for God’s Word.

[Dave Gilbert]

Where on earth did you get the idea I was in any way attacking God’s word?

“Notice that the verse in my above post contains 3 readings, two of which completely contradict one another ( KJV and ESV )….you’re telling me that this is of God then? That they are both His word?” [Dave Gilbert]

“Also,there are far too many changes, subtractions and additions to the text when comparing it ( the Authorized ) to other translations done in recent years, for me to just brush things aside as being necessary for further accuracy and modernization. To me, there seems to be something deeper going on as a foundational basis for the plethora of new English works…the promise of money, perhaps?” [Dave Gilbert]

“For me, when I see a translation of God’s word into English, the first thing I want to know is, what Text are they using as their basis? If it’s the CT, then out the window it goes….” [Dave Gilbert]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, Dave. But it appears to me that you are saying that every English translation after the KJV (except for the NKJV) is flawed. To my reading, you accuse them of willfully using the wrong manuscripts, changing meaning and only being concerned with money….is that a fair summation of your statements? Perhaps you believe something different and have just miss-stated your position?

[Dave Gilbert]

Might I say, that’s also quite a leap from questioning man’s translation of it, to actually attacking God’s word! Am I correct in saying, that if I question some group of today’s learned scholars efforts to translate the manuscripts from Greek and Hebrew into English today, that I am being held in contempt? That I am being looked down upon because every “Tom, Dick and Harry” publishing house is employing their own groups of “learned scholars” to do something that’s already been done…what…over a dozen times in my lifetime?

The faithful translation in your hands is as much the word of God as the translation in my hands. You are wholesale grabbing new translations (bundling accurate with inaccurate) and convicting them in the court of your opinion. I would think that at the very least, you would put some stock in the opinions of people who have training in Greek and translating work.
Your frequent reference to greed as a motivation for the newer translations is completely irrelevant. I would classify it as a red herring, but I could also see it as an ad hominem fallacy; those more knowledgeable about formal logic may classify it differently. Regardless, it is perfectly acceptable to make money off of translating and publishing God’s Word…people have been doing that for hundreds of years. Furthermore, the intent of making money does not prevent a good translation from being born. The KJV was originally translated to further break the English church from Catholicism. It was a bold political statement at that time. Even these baser motives did not prevent the KJV from being an accurate and loved translation. Even if modern translations are motivated to some or all extent by a desire to make money, it is irrelevant to whether they are accurate or not.

[Dave Gilbert]

Then hold me in contempt, and label me as a blasphemer for asking why…The Lord knows I would not question HIS word, only man’s efforts at getting it right. In my opinion, they already have, and it was completed 400 years ago. Except for variations from that English to now, there really is no reason to keep correcting it and re-translating it ad infinitum / ad nauseum…can you tell me of any that are actually legitimate?

I do not hold you in contempt. I value you as a Christian brother. I am deeply concerned at your casual disregard for God’s Word (as reflected in translations).

You firmly believe the KJV to be the best. Your alleged wide reading on the topic has reinforced that conviction. That is your prerogative as a believer.

Yes, there are legitimate translations with better manuscript sources, better translation accuracy, better translation consistency, better understanding of ANE metaphors and customs. This is been stated several times throughout the conversation. When you continue to ask rhetorical questions that have been answered already, people tend to start discounting your statements.

[Dave Gilbert]

Also, I did NOT say that the KJV was the oldest English translation…please re-read my posts above; Most people that are familiar with the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation know that John Wycliffe completed the work of translating from Latin into English in 1382, making it the oldest, sir. Now, I sense that you do not like me…am I correct? Sorry to be such a thorn, but all I want are some answers that make sense…not ones that support the current trend in translating and re-translating the work in perpetuity. As for deferring to others with a better understanding on the subject, I’ve read and listened to many on both sides with a fair bit more understanding than I have…I just happen to side with the ones who don’t agree with the usage of the ( Eclectic ) Critical Text. That aside, there is still the surface issue of the actual readings of many passages in the new translations, when compared to the old ones.

“I said “oldest and best”…I didn’t necessarily say “best”… But, to me, also “best”. The reasons? I gave them above. ;)” [Dave Gilbert]

however, also balanced with:

“It has existed for the last 400 years AS God’s word in English. <–-Alongside others, but for 250+ years it was virtually alone in popularity.” [Dave Gilbert]

You did say it was oldest, but you also left room for it to be the best among older translations. I apologize if I misunderstood your statement. Your statement about “oldest” stuck out to me in the same way my suggesting that you said it stood out to you in my comments.

But no, I bear you no ill-will. I do find it somewhat tedious when you continually troll out the same arguments after they have been answered. I do get frustrated when you feign ignorance on a topic but then claim to have an absolute position on the topic. But I find these to be annoying in the context of our conversation. I do not dislike you personally. As I’ve said before, you are a brother in Christ.

[Dave Gilbert]

They are fair questions, and you in particular have given me no real reason to stop asking them. I personally don’t believe in a “broad road” of meanings for many passages…I believe when God says something, it doesn’t change. But when I look at Philippians 2:6 it says something completely different depending on which translation one reads. When I keep digging, I also find out that Acts 8:37 is missing in most of the new translations, that 1 John 5:7 is mangled or missing, and that Mark 16:9-20 is either missing or held in doubt as to whether the Lord actually SAID it. This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Please read the books that I’ve mentioned above. If you are truly interested in answers, you will find them to be helpful.

God’s Word does not change. Our ability to accurate communicate God’s Word does change. God’s Words were in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Retranslating does not change that.

I and several others have discussed the translative differences with you…both from a Greek perspective and a linguistic perspective. You refuse to accept the accurate answers. Your statements reveal that you do not understand linguistics or translating. If you refuse to accept facts, then we have no foundation for reasoned discussion, although I am happy to discuss other things.

As JohnBrian commented above. Something cannot be missing if it was never there in the first place. Regardless, I know of no aspect of Orthodoxy that is compromised by the presence or absence of Mark 16:9-20. Most converts do not have these signs of their belief (snake-handling, exorcisms, healing powers, speaking in tongues, becoming impervious to poisons). You can reference Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for a very good discussion of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.

[Dave Gilbert]

Still no problem??

Best wishes to you sir.

And also to you.