SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

ccchhhrrriiisss, I actually used to be a devoted NIV reader, and I hated the KJV. Everything I read when I started to research this came from an "anti" KJV stance because they were given to me by somone who was my pastor, who was very pro-modern version. So I have actually researched this completely backwards from what you described. Not disagreeing with you... just ask that you dont paint with such a broad brush.

And when the translators were suggesting that multiple versions be used when studying scripture, they were not meaning the Alexandrian stream of Greek text, since that stream was very much rejected by the Protestant until the 1880's.

Also, yes, the 1611 reads slightly different from the KJV most have now. Not speaking for anyone but myself, I am not against updating. But using a completely different Greek text which varies quite differently from the Received Text is not an update... it's a different translation of a different text. Thats what the modern verions (NIV, NASB etc) are.

Just wanted to point that out...

Krispy

 2005/8/10 14:40
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Further to my comments on Scrivener I thought this [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervrevisers.html]List of Revisers[/url] might be of interest. These are the people who actually created the English RV of 1881 (and consequently the ASV of 1901) and there are some surprising people among them; Scrivener being one of them.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/8/10 15:02Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4526


 Re:

Hi Krispy...!

That's a great method of research. I have never really heard of an "anti" KJV school of thought, though. That is very surprising and disheartening.

Please forgive any misunderstanding with my comment (as being painted with a "broad brush"). I have unfortunately found [i]many[/i] who have used more of a "narrow brush" (pardon the borrowed colloquialism) when using references or "research material" in this matter. Because of overwhelming availability, [i]many[/i] researchers tend to find books supporting a [i]KJV-only[/i] mentality. While there is alot of great material contained in many of these books, it still offers only a biased or slanted view, rather than a truly investigative view. And some of these books offer a "conspiracy theory" approach to all other versions (as if the NIV translators were evil men vent on destroying the faith). Some books go so far to label those who use other translations as being "lost."

Sadly, it seems that many people often accept an argument based upon the credibility of the informant, rather than on the weight behind the research or work. This is true with a multitude of topics of discussion within Christianity, as is evidenced in discussions in congregations and by even some visitors to this website.

The KJV that we accept today is usually the version published in 1769 (sometimes known as the Benjamin Blayney text). This was actually the fifth edition. The original 1611 version, due to linguistic changes, is written in an older, non-standardized form of english (with many spelling differentiations). Here is a link to a page out of the original, from a [i]KJV-only[/i] website:

As you can see, because of such spelling changes, it is quite difficult for many average readers to understand. It is widely available at libraries and bookstores (ISBN 0840700288 and ISBN 0840700288).

I suggest that those who really want to study the KJV to begin by going to the original. Read the original 1611 version (rather than the 1769 KJV), including dedicatory and translators notes. It might be helpful to read the original preface to the 1611 version (often called "[i]The Translators to the Reader[/i]").

Probably one of the most surprising elements when studying the KJV is the stringent instructions that were given to the translators by King James (and the catholic clergy). They were surprisingly quite the opposite of what some might believe. For instance, many of the old ecclesiastical words and terminology were not permitted to be "updated" during the translation process. Also, whenever possible, the translators were urged to not deviate from the commonly read [i]Bishop's Bible[/i], but when neccessary, to use much of the [i]Tyndale[/i] wording. And again, if any word "hath divers signification" -- then the translators were to refer to what was accepted by the most "eminent" church "fathers." Ultimately, the King James Version was almost an 80% unaltered version of [i]The Tyndale Version[/i].

Skeptics of modern translations often have a good reason to be skeptical. In fact, they [i]should[/i] be. Alot of what is passed as a [i]translation[/i] is nothing more than a modified version of a previous translation (such as the nKJV; NIrV, The Living Bible, etc...). Critics point to the obvious flaws in those versions, as well as the more subtle flaws in the more serious translations.

But is the KJV without controversy? Of course not. People often point to the fact that the Original 1611 KJV is notably different in linguistic style and spelling from the later editions. There are also several oddly translated passages in the KJV (such as the KJV Acts 12:4 reference of [i]Easter[/i] -- reference to the pagan diety and Roman holiday, when the greek translation is obviously [i]Passover[/i]).

Obviously, there are other versions available in other languages that even outdate the 1611 King James Version. Many of these are also based upon the same manuscripts available to the translators of the KJV. But in some of these languages, the pronouns have changed very little in 400 years (like Spanish). Thus, the "kingly" sounding "thees" and "thous" are not as present.

The Word of God is, of course, [i]inspired[/i] by God -- and it is infallible. The translation, regardless of how honorably someone tries to argue, can sometimes be flawed. There are slight differences in wording (and yes, in meaning) of text. But because a word is mistranslated does not change the fact that God is indeed the author of the Bible. Someone once said, "[i]Some men like to read the Bible in Hebrew. Some like to read the Bible in Greek. I prefer to read it with the Holy Ghost[/i]." I suggest that this is the attitude to take. The Holy Spirit will lead us and guide us into all truth. Like I said before, I suggest that the sincere believer research the matter wholeheartedly and without prejudice. And, as with all matters of faith and belief, [i]test everything[/i] (I Thessalonians 5:21).

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/8/10 16:04Profile









 Re:

While I do reject modern versions now, I am not of the extreme KJV-Only variety. Some go so far as to say that the KJV corrects the Greek. I reject that. I do believe the KJV is God's preserved Word, based on the Received Text, which is how I believe God has preserved His Word since the Apostolic Age. I reject anything that is based on any other stream of text.

Thats my position in a nutshell. :-)

Krispy

 2005/8/10 16:40
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1838
Hemel Hempstead

 Re: What is the best translation in other translations other than english

I have been looking at versions in different languages and it is hard to tell what is accurate or not in those translations if anybody say knows about the korean or the japanese or the portuges or hebrew translation or turkish I would be interested!!


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2005/8/10 18:49Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re: Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

I am not a bible scholar. Thus, anything I say should be taken with scrutiny.

Recently, I visited an exhibit called "Ink and Blood" which goes into the history of the bible and how it has come to be what it is. You can see more about this exhibit at thier website: http://www.inkandblood.com/

In addition, if you would like to read a good book on the history of bible translation, check out "The Bible in Translation" by Bruce M. Metzger.

From what I understand, however, the KJV is not the best translation to read, if not for any reason than this: it is written in another language. We speak modern English whose form has so deviated from original English that if you do not know Old English as a language, you will misinterpret the text. The next reason is that over 80% of the King James Translation comes from one translator, Tyndale. Lastly, it was translated from Latin to English, rather than Greek and Hebrew. This means it has passed through two languages. That would be like an Arabian telling a Roman who then tells a German. How accurate could it be? (Then again, does not the Spirit work in us?)

The debate could rage for which bible is the "best." The New American Standard Bible is a word for word translation that comes from the original Greek and Hebrew languages. (Many scholars will argue this is the most accurate.) The NIV gathered the top scholars of our day and age with teams of people translating each book. (This method offers a more democratic approach.) Other bibles, like the Message, offers a single translator putting things in his own words. The list goes on.

I always think of what Jesus said: "My sheep will know my voice." (John 10:27) Whether it's a bible, preacher, or minister, God's people will know when the Holy Spirit is speaking.

The bible was written by the Holy Spirit, and only the Spirit can understand things of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:6-16)

Humans are fallible. The bible cannot be authenticated. Our faith is not based upon a book, it is based upon Christ. And so, what is most important is putting our faith in Christ. When we do this, we trust in Him and by this we trust that when we read the bible, He will use it to speak to us through the Spirit. Obviously then, the "best" translation is the one Christ chooses to speak to you, whether it is the King James or New Century.


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/8/10 18:53Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Spiros Zodhiates Key Word Study Bible?KJV -n- NASV

How do thoughs two bibles compare to Spiros Zodhiates Key Word Study Bible?


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/8/10 20:29Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

brother blake,

Like you I'm only out to find the truth. And I also believe the Spirit will guide us in all truth.

However, in defense of the King James, there are three things you stated that are incorrect. The KJV did not come from the Latin Vulgate, it came from greek texts:

"Erasmus gathered together what Greek manuscripts he could locate in Basle. He was able to collect five, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century."

From website:

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0032.html

There are some phrases that were said to be taken out the the Latin Vulgate, but the Textus Receptus were translated from Greek manuscripts. Erasmus did make a Latin copy as well as a Greek if this is what you meant.

Also, when you tell me that I am reading the KJV in another language, that just is not true. There are some words that I look up on Webster's, but that doesn't make the version inferior, it shows the corruptive nature of man's languages. Corrupted English is still English.

Lastly, the fact that you said the Bible cannot be authenticated is rather shocking. If it's not authentic, how can you trust what you read?

I'm searching for truth regardless of where the evidence points.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/8/10 23:28Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

My dear letsgetbusy,

I could be wrong, as I said, I am not an authority on the bible.

The new testament consists mostly of letters written by the apostles. None of the original letters are in existence today. If they were, imagine the impact it would have on religious community. The bible would have to be accepted as truth. However, it is not. Rather, it suffers under immense debate.

The authenticity of the bible can be proved no more than any person can prove the existence of God. Rather, God has made it this way intentionally. If a person could prove the existence of God, humanity could not choose to love God. They would have to as their would be undenable proof. Rather, God has established a system whereby faith is key. We must choose to believe in Christ. We must live by faith.

Likewise, we must also have faith in the bible. The bible is the word of God written by the Holy Spirit through people. As we know, people are corrupt. Many people stumble over knowing the bible has been written by humans. They discredit the bible as such. I know many Christians who discredit the bible.

It is our choice to believe in the bible as God's word. We must bow down to our Lord Christ Jesus and accept His Spirit (His word) as truth. We must walk by faith even in this.

Let me not confuse anyone. I was not discrediting the King James version by my last post. I was merely pointing out that the word of God is not the book, it is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can choose to speak through many translations across a variety of languages.

One last thing about a search for truth: I too am in search of truth. I have come to realize that there is only one truth: Jesus Christ. Everything apart from Jesus has multiple truths.

This is important. Many people want to believe that there is only one way for everything. If X is right, then Y is wrong. They try to make the world black and white when it is not. Only God is truth. For everything else which God has created, there is variety and multiple truths.

God loves variety. There are no two things that God has created that are exactly the same. Think of snowflakes, fingerprints, and trees. Can you give me two that are exact copies?

Both maples and pines are trees. If I asked if a pine was a tree, you would say yes. If I asked a maple was a tree, you would say yes. So which is a tree? They both are.

Likewise, there are a variety of people. We speak different languages. We have different cultures and looks.

The worst thing we can do is limit God by saying there is only one way to everything. There is only one God. He is Jesus Christ. He is truth. Everything else has multiples. God is the foundation.

Therefore, to say there is only one true bible is ridiculous and blasphemous. There is only one true God. There is only one Holy Spirit. His Spirit is not a book. Rather, the Holy Spirit speaks through more books than the bible, and more preachers than just the apostles.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11)


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/8/11 0:19Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

beenblake

Quote:
From what I understand, however, the KJV is not the best translation to read, if not for any reason than this: it is written in another language. We speak modern English whose form has so deviated from original English that if you do not know Old English as a language, you will misinterpret the text. The next reason is that over 80% of the King James Translation comes from one translator, Tyndale. Lastly, it was translated from Latin to English, rather than Greek and Hebrew. This means it has passed through two languages. That would be like an Arabian telling a Roman who then tells a German. How accurate could it be? (Then again, does not the Spirit work in us?)



I'm taking up your invitation to 'scrutinize'. ;-) I think your information is a little off here but I think I can guess where it came from. It is true that Erasmus 'used' the Latin Vulgate but he did not 'base' his translation on it. He based his translation on his own text based on some ancient Greek manuscripts; this is important to remember. He created a Greek text using methods of what would now be called 'Textual Criticism'. We would not have our KJV without some textual critical foundations. He produced a 'version' which was his 'best fit/guess' at what the original 'autographs' (the handwritten originals) had actually said. But Erasmus was always a Catholic and never really willing to challenge the authorities of his day. (unlike the reformers) On occasion the Latin Vulgate had passages which were not in any of the manuscripts from which Erasmus had created his edited text. The Vulgate was highly regarded at that time and had itself been translated from the Greek. Erasmus took the line of least resistence and translated the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate into his own Greek text, although there was no manuscript evidence for them! He obviously concluded that although the verses were not in Greek manuscripts available to him they must have been in manuscripts which had been available to Jerome in his Vulgate translation. Not wanting to 'lose' anything he decided to 'take Jerome's word' for it.

The consequence of this was that a passage of 1 John which was not in the Byzantine textform was then translated by Tyndale (using Erasmus' text) into English and remains still in our KJV even though there is no textual evidence to support it. As you point out in your letter the KJV preface makes it very clear that the intention of the translators was to make a good translation better, and that they regarded their translation as a work in process. It is important to remember that this was always Tyndale's attitude too. If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended. The precise figure of KJV dependence on Tyndale, btw, is 83%.

The other thing that might lie behind your comments about Tyndale translating from the Latin may be to do with language itself. Tyndale learned his Greek through the medium of Latin. He was a brilliant linguist, but Greek has verb tenses which Latin does not have so all Greek scholars of this period struggled with Greek tenses. Their Greek was Greek understood by Latin. I can illustrate this simply.
“Knowing this, that [u]our old man is crucified with him[/u], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Rom. 6:6, KJV)

“knowing this, that [u]our old man was crucified with him[/u], that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;” (Rom. 6:6, ASV)

“knowing this, that [u]our old man was crucified with Him[/u], that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.” (Rom. 6:6, NKJV)You will see that the ASV and the NKJV have changed the tense of this 'crucifixion'. The KJV puts it into the present tense, the ASV and the NKJV put it into the past tense. There is a vital aspect of New Testament truth contained in this verse and the KJV loses it, simply because Tyndale translated the Greek Aorist tense as a simple present tense. The Aorist tense is best translated as a simple past tense, although it has the sense of the action having been completed in the past. So the KJV says that our 'old man' is in process of 'being crucified', the Greek and the ASV and the KJV says 'our old man was crucified'. The issue of whether the 'old man' is undergoing crucifixion or 'was crucified' with Christ is a vital element of New Testament truth.

So Tyndale was limited in the tools that were available to him. Another aspect of Tyndale's work which often surprises people is that he did not try to create a 'word for word' translation. For him communication was always uppermost in his mind. I prefer word for word myself, but it is important to see Tyndale and hence the KJV in their historical context.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/8/11 4:20Profile





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