Your thoughts on Bible translations

[twinters]

example:



The reality is, Acts 8:37 didn't show up until the 6th century at the earliest. That's why many Bibles put it as a footnote. I've made my stance on why I don't use the KJV for devotional, educational or scholarly work on here in another thread and been criticized for it, it is what it is and I don't want to rehash it here, but just because it's there in one place doesn't mean it belongs there in the first place. One can argue that it "fits" there, it doesn't mean that it was part of the original text.

[Eternally]

Originally Posted by twinters

example:



The reality is, Acts 8:37 didn't show up until the 6th century at the earliest. That's why many Bibles put it as a footnote. I've made my stance on why I don't use the KJV for devotional, educational or scholarly work on here in another thread and been criticized for it, it is what it is and I don't want to rehash it here, but just because it's there in one place doesn't mean it belongs there in the first place. One can argue that it "fits" there, it doesn't mean that it was part of the original text.

Twinters, Thank you thank you thank you! You gave excellent proof.

Don't you wish there was a rule here where there wouldnt need to be a defense for non-KJV translations?

[Hootmon]

Originally Posted by Eternally

Don't you wish there was a rule here where there wouldnt need to be a defense for non-KJV translations?

No kidding.

Acts 8:37 removed from 29 Bible translations

As if more is automatically better...

Might as well make another thread listing all the translations that add the verse, eh?

[twinters]

Originally Posted by Eternally

Twinters, Thank you thank you thank you! You gave excellent proof.

Don't you wish there was a rule here where there wouldnt need to be a defense for non-KJV translations?

No, I think it's healthy to debate the validity of various translations because some are outright abhorrent. We're talking about the matters of faith, salvation and eternity and it's important that the words we choose to believe in are accurate or at least as close to what the author originally penned. I'll never outright criticize anyone for choosing the KJV personally as the text they accept as long as it's done on strictly devotional grounds. From a scholarly standpoint, it's a different discussion.

Regardless, due to a vareity of myths and/or ignorance about the KJV including:
1) how it came about
2) its dominance as the English Bible from the late 17th century / early 18th century on
3) the lack of knowledge of the politics that came about during it's inception
4) The entire range of texts used (not just TR which was one of many sources) to compile/translate
5) The misuse of modern greek to translate ancient greek terminology (as well as latin since the Vulgate was in fact one of the secondary sources)

People will see it as a superior translation. That's fine. If that Bible is the one that speaks to you and God moves you through it, then use it. But just because it was the "first" (which it was not the first English Bible, nor the second or third) many will see it as the authority and it gets put in a place where it should not be. I'm not saying this is happening here but some KJV-only movements put more emphasis on the Bible as a book, almost as a pseudo-idol, that the message it is delivering. As a Christian that's alarming. As someone who has dedicated much of their educational life to Christian and Biblical history, it's disturbing and downright scary.

For the record I'm not a fan of the NIV either but I do use the NASB for devotional purposes. For my doctorate based work (and previously my masters based work) I either use direct translations or the native language although I'm finding out my greek is a tad bit rusty after a 5+ year hiatus. Regardless, there will never be a single consensus on a single Bible version because of dogmatic beliefs, tradition and the fact that entire splinter churches are formed off of variations in text. Modern english has greater range than ancient greek which also comes with its own flaws as we try to apply modern english words to greek words that had a different meaning in their time and context (and context is a huge problem, moreso with Paul than anyone else though). With only a few exceptions, there shouldn't been to be a defense (or an offense) for either viewpoint.

I just fear that projects like the Conservapedia Bible Translation Project will only further fracture what's going on out there with real Biblical scholarship and further muddy the waters (not to mention completely change the text of the Bible based on personal feelings of the "translator").

[Seated]

Originally Posted by bookworm1711

Issues pertaining to textual criticism are very complex.

I have been studying about them for well over 50 years.

I spent the past two weeks, literally full time, reading on these very issues.

I have a comparatively huge library on the subject, occupying most of one whole wall of bookcases in my library room.

I worked with a scholar, Mr. G. E. Hoyer, now gone home to be with the Lord, for many years. He made it possible for me to secure these rare books.

My conclusion (and his) is that Acts 8:37 belongs in the original Greek text, even though it is missing from many sources. Mr. Hoyer found that the text does indeed have, like the poster at Post 13 above commented, "a mathematical signature."

I have found that one study Bible edition which follows the King James Version exactly, but only modernizes the archaic spelling, is The Evidence Bible. I just recently bought one, and am highly pleased with its contents, especially the emphasis upon salvation matters and soul winning.

The NASB, which is based on the earlier Alexandrian texts, includes the verse, albeit in parentheses. You do that when you have committed yourself to a family of texts and want to achieve a translation based on that but at the same time avoid controversy over disputed text. The NASB also did this with what is commonly called "the Lord's Prayer" verses. One account follows the Alexandrian text, while another shows the Byzantine.

I want to point out a couple of fallacies about this whole issue. First, pertaining to the youtube. The guy says "you don't leave out part of God's Word just because you don't agree with it." I don't think he was being intelligent when he said this for the reason I stated above. If you do a translation based on the earlier, lighter Alexandrian text, then once you have committed, you remain true to it as much as is possible. It has nothing to do with agreeing with or disagreeing with the particular text in question, but the copies as a whole.

The second fallacy is the idea that the Alexandrian texts "omitted" things. Please. You must be able to explain why I shouldn't believe that the later Byzantine texts didn't add these words. The plain truth about their dating makes it seem foolish to argue this, but argue they do.

Choose your family of copied texts. But remember that no matter which family you choose, no one knows who the scribes were.

[turalura]

Bookworm:

Thank you for posting this in depth review of Bible translations and manuscripts. Oh, how wonderful it would be to possess all of this knowledge that you have gained in the past years. I learned so much and would love to hear more. I appreciate your posting this.

Now, what are your thoughts on the ESV translation?

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by KingdomSeeker

My NIV does the exact same thing! (Granted, this is a Bible I've kept from my Catholic days, printed by a Catholic organization). It has an additional footnote justifying the change by saying that only the later manuscripts have that verse! For crying out loud, the entire Gospel of John is a "later manuscript" than the others, but it's still there!

Honestly, how do they think they can get away with doing this?

http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/Ripped

http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/Ripp...s_Ripped6.html

[Believer in miracles]

Good links Buzzardhut.................also, Jehovah is missing in many bibles

Can check them all here....


http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...searchtype=all

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by bookworm1711

I did not want to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues of textual criticism in a thread meant for a general audience of Bible believing Christians.

I'll go a bit further in depth in this post not to start an argument or debate, but to clarify the issues and inform each reader, who I trust will prayerfully heed Psalm 25:9 and Romans 15:7.

As I mentioned in my post above on this thread, I have been studying these matters for 50 years.

It is interesting to note that in this day less emphasis is placed upon the theory of Wescott and Hort, two scholars who produced a Greek text which was followed by the English Revisers in 1881, 1885, for the English Revised Version (reflected in the American Standard Version of 1901), and by many modern English translations issued since then.

Wescott and Hort (to almost oversimplify their idea) placed extreme weight upon the three oldest complete manuscripts of the New Testament. When ever any two of the three agreed, that is the reading they selected for their text.

It has been learned since that some of the so-called late manuscripts are actually more reliable than these "older" though complete manuscripts, for these "late" manuscripts are actually copies of manuscripts older than the ones Wescott and Hort were following.

I might say that this is a very, even super-complex matter. No one has ever satisfactorily developed a kind of "family tree" which traces the lineage of the manuscripts we have available today back to the original or near-original copies.

[IveSeenEvil]

Originally Posted by Teotwawki

NKJV, KJV, and NASB are my favorite translations. I wouldn't go anywhere near an NIV.

Like most Christians, I own several Bibles. The NKJ, NAS, and the NIV. However, I'm not trained well in understanding the difference. But, because my NAS was my first, I tend to go to it with prayer & the NKJ for study due to the excellent footnotes by John MacArthur.

Why is the NIV on your 'no good' list?

[Teotwawki]

Originally Posted by IveSeenEvil

Like most Christians, I own several Bibles. The NKJ, NAS, and the NIV. However, I'm not trained well in understanding the difference. But, because my NAS was my first, I tend to go to it with prayer & the NKJ for study due to the excellent footnotes by John MacArthur.

Why is the NIV on your 'no good' list?

The NIV is a paraphrase - it's not a word-for-word translation, it's been "interpreted" for you. Basically it's someone telling you about what the Bible says, instead of what it actually says. For example in Revelation 6 the word "Denarius" is written as "a day's wages". That is an interpretation, not a translation. There is a huge difference between the two. The NIV also omits politically inconvenient verses like Acts 8:37.

The KJV, NKJV, and NASB are literal word-for-word translations. They are real authentic Bibles, wheras the NIV is not.

[twinters]

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

There is so much wrong with that chart it's not even funny. To even remotely claim that the Syriac tradition is "accurate" is quite honestly a slap in the face of modern Christianity since it was the Syriac tradition that attempted to harmonize the Gospels - taking 4 books and turning them into one. Tatian, to be specific, was the one responsible for this line of thinking. It was called the Diatessaron and it didn't go back to being 4 different gospels until nearly the 6th century (not to mention the dates on that timeline are wrong).

If anything, history as the gauge, Alexandrian style scribes would have been significantly more concerned with textual accuracy and less likely to enter/omit terms as would have been more common in the growing cult of Orthodoxy (different from orthodoxy, lower case o) that would have been present within the Empire. Of course nobody can prove that either way being that none of us were there to audit the scribes on either side but given that Alexandria was the center of learning in the ancient world and they actually cared about education, accuracy, literacy and other things we take for granted today, it gives them more credence when it comes to the caretaking of the Scriptures.

As for the Ripped links, I'm at a complete loss on some of the explanations, hell to be specific. Sheol is not hell. It never has been hell. It never will be hell. It's simple the grave or where the dead go once they leave this mortal coil. It's a strictly Jewish concept who coincidentally don't believe in hell and certainly wouldn't have written about it. Now if someone wants to muddy the waters and say, "well in this case, hell just means there were put into the ground" then fine, we'll split hairs. But if someone actually tries to argue that sheol means hell in the same way Geenna/Gehinnom/Gehenna is presented in the New Testament, that's flat out adding words or meaning to the Bible which simply aren't there. There's no scholarly leg (or really devotional for that matter) to stand on with that argument. In that regard, the KJV is flat out mistranslated if someone takes that away from their reading.

Again, if the KJV is the version that works for you, so be it and I'm glad it's the text that moves you closer to God. But to claim that the modern translations from a greater sampling of texts somehow excludes "God's Word", it's naive at best. The KJV was a political statement fraught with it's own complex backstory that hardly make it credible as "the" (as in the only reliable text / perfect version) Bible. I'm not saying it's bad to claim it's better than select other versions is a statement of faith only, not on one of textual criticism, Biblical scholarship or Christian history.

[chrisb01]

It is late right now, but I will do some research when I get home tomorrow. I think I have something some where about this and I want to share it.

[Teotwawki]

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

Beautiful chart
Thanks for posting this, the visualization really helps

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by twinters

There is so much wrong with that chart it's not even funny. To even remotely claim that the Syriac tradition is "accurate" is quite honestly a slap in the face of modern Christianity since it was the Syriac tradition that attempted to harmonize the Gospels - taking 4 books and turning them into one. Tatian, to be specific, was the one responsible for this line of thinking. It was called the Diatessaron and it didn't go back to being 4 different gospels until nearly the 6th century (not to mention the dates on that timeline are wrong).

If anything, history as the gauge, Alexandrian style scribes would have been significantly more concerned with textual accuracy and less likely to enter/omit terms as would have been more common in the growing cult of Orthodoxy (different from orthodoxy, lower case o) that would have been present within the Empire. Of course nobody can prove that either way

oh ok

Originally Posted by twinters

being that none of us were there to audit the scribes on either side but given that Alexandria was the center of learning in the ancient world and they actually cared about education, accuracy, literacy and other things we take for granted today, it gives them more credence when it comes to the caretaking of the Scriptures.

it all boils down to two texts, one good one, and one bad one

Originally Posted by Teotwawki

Beautiful chart
Thanks for posting this, the visualization really helps

http://buzzardhut.net/Documents/King...rnVersions.pdf

http://buzzardhut.net/Documents/Authorized.pdf

http://buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Which.Bible.pdf

http://buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Comparisons.htm

http://buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf

[twinters]

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

it all boils down to two texts, one good one, and one bad one

And so you as an individual have chosen that one text is right and the other is wrong? as if Tatian didn't do enough damage to the texts...Besides the fact that it doesn't fit your view and that the opposing texts undermine your position, how exactly are you sure that any other text would be corrupt and that they suddenly add/remove/modify God's Word. There's no point of reference to say that one is better than the other except that the KJV-only crowd seem to think, strictly though a matter of faith, that the KJV is the only accurate Bible. And since that borrows, lightly, from texts based out of Asia Minor, that seems to "validate" those texts as authentic despite the problems with Erasmus' TR and the 11th-14th century texts used to translate it.

This issue is so divisive and for painfully dumb reasons. People need to separate fact from faith - there is no perfect english translation. Period. And to promote otherwise is a falsehood, can lead people astray and/or can cause people to lose faith. Just because translation "x" excludes a verse or changes a word doesn't mean it's wrong. In many cases said verse or word should have been there in the first place.

[Eternally]

Originally Posted by twinters

This issue is so divisive and for painfully dumb reasons. People need to separate fact from faith - there is no perfect english translation. Period. And to promote otherwise is a falsehood, can lead people astray and/or can cause people to lose faith. Just because translation "x" excludes a verse or changes a word doesn't mean it's wrong. In many cases said verse or word should have been there in the first place.

You said it much better than I ever could.

[EdwardK]

Wow, from Buzz'z link:

After taking the two well-known passages into account in Mark 16 and John 7:53 - 8:11 (as shown on pg. 36), the final tally is:

FINAL TOTAL:140,523 - 137,601 = 2,922 fewer words in the modern version text Thus, the modern version text is shorter in the New Testament than that of the King James Bible by about the total number of words contained in I and II Peter combined!

Removing 2,922 of God's words is OK? Wow.

Edwardk

[Hootmon]

Originally Posted by EdwardK

Removing 2,922 of God's words is OK? Wow.

God wrote in King James English?

[EdwardK]

Hootmon, Think!

Those verses removed were in Greek - this isn't a translation issue, and the content what was in the Greeks isn't in modern translations. I'll agree that the precise number may change with translation - maybe it's 2,854 in English, but we both know we are talking about content, right?