SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Which Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Which Version?

Michael Marlow ( http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html ) has created a website dedicated to the Bible, its texts and versions which is an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to see the basics of any version.

Michael has some very strong convictions and he and I have crossed swords occasionally but this site is a wonderful tool for those who want to think about the relative virtues (and/or vices) of different translations.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/4 4:41Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Which Version?

I think this is going to go wider than just the Amplified so I am going to comment here instead on in the original thread.

Quote:
Greg: From my looking into it and from the conversation here it appears that the 'amplified bible' falls into the category of literal translations.


I don't think it does. It is one of a smaller group that I would call expanded translations. The best known of these, other than the Amplified would be, Wuest's Expanded translations. That same site has a description of the Amplified which came out about 5 year later.
[i]1965. Frances E. Siewert, ed., The Amplified Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965. Revised 1987. The New Testament appeared in 1958, the Old Testament in two parts in 1962 and 1964. Revised for the one-volume edition in 1965, and again in 1987. Produced by the Lockman Foundation. This version expands the text with alternative renderings and explanations added in parentheses, brackets, and other typographical devices.[/i]

If you look at the Dictionary definitions of a word eg power:
[b]Strongs[/b]: dunamis - force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.
[b]Thayer[/b]: 1) strength power, ability
1a) inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth
1b) power for performing miracles
1c) moral power and excellence of soul
1d) the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth
1e) power and resources arising from numbers
1f) power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hosts

What the [i]expanded versions[/i] do is to try to leave nothing out. So effectively they leave you to make the choice. The Amplified is putting into the text what another version might put into the margin.

The purpose of the paraphrases was to capture the whole sense of a sentence rather than just the words.
Youngs Literal Translation: [b]for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. [/b](Joh 3:16 YLT)
The Message:[b]"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.[/b]
(Joh 3:16 MSG)

Actually The Message makes more 'sense' here than Young's. A first-language English speaker would have to process Young's Literal before he understood it. In fact an absolutely literal translation would be
[b]in this way because loved the God the world thus the Son His the only begotten He gave in order that all the believing (ones)into HIm not be destroyed but to hold life age-enduring[/b] Now try getting your Sunday School class to memorize that! This verse is almost unintelligable unless we make it less literal. The whole problem is 'how less literal'.

Modern linguists would say that what I have done above is not a translation at all, and they dislike the distinction between literal (word for word)and dynamic (sense for sense). If you were asked to translate 'respondex s'il vous plait' into English and you translated it 'reply if it you pleases' your French teacher would mark it 'wrong'. He would say it means 'please reply'. This is the question that all Bible tranlsators have to try to answer. 'do I say what it says or what it means'. Every translation will include an element of 'what it means' even the most literal. It's all a question of degree.

The get the meaning of the words, which is vital for thorough Bible study, we need something closer to the literal translation. But to get the flowing sense of whole paragraphs, which is also necessary, a paraphrase can be useful. The problem is that you will get much more of the translators' theology with the latter than with the former.

It is important that while holding to the verbal inspiration of scripture we also remember that it is 'all scripture' that has been God breathed and not isolated parts of it. There is micro inspiration in every word, there is macro inspiration in whole books.

Amy Carmichael used to say she believed that every translation revealed facets of truth; I think she was probably right. I used to teach foreign students, ten at a time, around a large table. I insisted that they all use a NKJV version and their own first-language version. I would often ask them to translate their version for the benefit of the other students. Often their versions would highlight the very point I wanted to make. (This is a good thing to remember if you are preaching through interpreters. You may spend 10 minutes extricating the truth from your KJV which stands in clear view in their version)With some of my work with people with learning disabilities I have used a version originally created for the deaf. (sounds strange but the 'deaf' version used very few personal pronouns; it repeats the name of the speaker or doer. This makes it easier to keep track of the actors in the story for both deaf and learning disabled folk)

For my personal preference I use my KJV but for study I use, heavily, the ASV, Darby, Youngs. I have tried but been disappointed with... the list is endless!


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/5 4:39Profile
Nasher
Member



Joined: 2003/7/28
Posts: 404
Watford, UK

 Re:

With all these translations to chose from I sometimes think it would easier for us to learn New Testament Greek! ;-)

Seriously though what I would say to someone who does not know which translation to chose from is that is it a very important decision to make.


_________________
Mark Nash

 2004/11/5 5:27Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Seriously though what I would say to someone who does not know which translation to chose from is that is it a very important decision to make.



My standard answer would probably be the NKJV. When folk ask me what I think of it I usually say; 'it is an excellent introduction to the KJV' :-P

There is another element in Versions which I have not addressed here. It is much more complicated; the families of texts behind the different versions.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/5 9:22Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37186
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
Michael Marlowe has created a website dedicated to the Bible, its texts and versions which is an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to see the basics of any version.


It appears by purusing through this fellows site that he is not a fan of the textus receptus.

I found this comment amusing on the NKJV:
"The "complete" Lord's Prayer referred to in this advertisement is the Lord's Prayer as it appears in the Textus Receptus (Matthew 6:13), with the liturgical doxology added to the text. But perhaps someone zealous for the "complete" prayer can tell us why we should not have an even more complete Lord's Prayer by adopting the doxology as it is found in several other late manuscripts: "for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever, Amen." Was it not wicked of Erasmus to put the "incomplete" form of the doxology in his editions, expunging the all-important trinitarian clause? This is the level of thinking that we have among the mindless defenders of the "complete" text in the Textus Receptus. It is grossly irresponsible for Thomas Nelson Publishers to exploit and encourage such ignorance for private gain."


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/11/5 9:34Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
It appears by purusing through this fellows site that he is not a fan of the textus receptus.


No, he's not. He has made up his mind on most topics.

Quote:
This is the level of thinking that we have among the mindless defenders of the "complete" text in the Textus Receptus. It is grossly irresponsible for Thomas Nelson Publishers to exploit and encourage such ignorance for private gain."

Marlowe does admit, somewhere, that he is not a textual expert/scholar. This site will not leave you in any doubt as to the convictions of its owner, but there is some great stuff here for those who are interested in the area of study.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/5 10:18Profile
Nasher
Member



Joined: 2003/7/28
Posts: 404
Watford, UK

 Re:

Hi Ron, I would be keen to learn about the different families of manuscripts, please continue. :-)


_________________
Mark Nash

 2004/11/8 8:28Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37186
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
Hi Ron, I would be keen to learn about the different families of manuscripts, please continue.


I am personally a fan of the 'textus receptus' but I would love to hear Ron's thoughts also on the different streams of thought on this.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/11/8 9:27Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I am personally a fan of the 'textus receptus' but I would love to hear Ron's thoughts also on the different streams of thought on this.


This is an enormously complicated topic to attempt in one of these threads. One of the issues, I think, about addressing it would be that folks who were not able to follow the details of the argument could very easily be stumbled by the bits they did understand. I think it would be best to provide some links and then interested folks (both of you ;-)) could ask questions.

I am a competant amateur in these things but no more than that. I understand sufficient of the theories to listen to the proponents and make my own decision, which is pretty much the same as yours Greg.

Here is an excerpt from Maurice Robinson:

For over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which texttype might be favored by any critic.[6] This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. In the remaining one-fifth of the Greek New Testament, the Byzantine/Majority Textform represents the pattern of readings found in the Greek manuscripts predominating during the 1000-year Byzantine era. Early printed editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a general agreement with the Byzantine-era manuscripts upon which they were based. Such manuscripts and early printed editions are commonly termed "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" documents, based upon the term applied to the Elzevir 1624 printed Greek edition. Other editions commonly termed "Textus Receptus" include the editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598. George Ricker Berry has correctly noted that "in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus."




_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/8 13:48Profile









 Re:

I agree with a previous poster on this thread... the issue is not which version, but which school of Greek/Hebrew text? We could all learn Greek & Hebrew... but if one is still reading a corrupted text, it wont matter.

Personally I believe the Received Text is the preserved Word of God. I believe the KJV is NOT an inspired translation, however it is an accurate translation. The NKJV comes close, but when the Thees, Thy's and Thou's are dropped many verses lose their meaning entirely because you can not merely replaces those words with YOU or YOUR.

This is very important issue that I believe EVERY Christian needs to investigate because 99% of believers know nothing about the versions they are reading. If one knows nothing about the version they are reading, how do they know it's the truth?

Krispy

 2005/1/26 12:51





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy