Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

[FireDragon76]

From a Lutheran standpoint, most translations you can get are fine, there is rarely anything that amounts to a difference in dogmatic teaching. I simply do not think it is all that important.

Considering the limited resources that the scholars had, the KJV is a good translation and is still usable, though the language is archaic. Our church, like many others, uses the New Revised Standard Version as our official translation for recommended readings, but many others are acceptable as well.

 

[createdtoworship]

there are many problems with modern translations, and I am still waiting for someone to answer the "sinaiticus forgery question."

 

[Dr. Jack]

Ruckman was (he's dead) a crackpot. You'll never want for moonshine if you're using him as a source.

I rarely use him as a "source"; and he wasn't an actual source in the proper sense of the word. Rather, I was emphasizing the point that James White first agreed to debate him, then reneged on that debate. Both White and Ruckman are (or were) rude and arrogant individuals. Truthfully, having met Ruckman back in the 80's, I found he was even more flamboyantly arrogant in person than behind the pulpit. Personally, I think White was afraid of Ruckman.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I apologize for the delay in answering; I do considerable traveling, and simply didn't have time to respond.

But Paul gave them in the language of the day, not in ancient Hebrew.

I try my best to be professional and respectful, but have you seriously considered what you are saying? About 33% of the NT is quotes from the OT. Jesus did it; Paul did it; ... So the point here is that the OT Hebrew was being 'translated' into Greek, and yet considered Holy Writ! So how did any, or all of the NT writers translate the "ancient Hebrew" into Greek, and never say, but it was based upon "ancient Hebrew", didn't something get lost in the translation process?


How did the HS, on the Day of Pentecost take the words of "Galilaeans" and perfectly translate them into 16 different languages?

But, dying or not, we know such a church has at least one false doctrine - the KJVO myth.

My kind sir, can we please keep this conversation on a professional level?

We often hear a KJVO preacher stop in mid-sermon to explain a KJV archaism. And many people don't FULLY understand the KJV, especially wher words still in everyday use today, are used in the KJV with entirely-different meanings.

Conversation = lifestyle

Target = small shield

Let = either hinder or allow, depending upon the context

Ouches = settings for precious stones


To name a few.

When I was in 9th grade English class my teacher taught me a very valuable lesson; how to use a dictionary. I have never met an educated person who has never used a dictionary. Since that time I have tried to expand my vocabulary, and still find a good college dictionary useful.


2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy


How can we study, or, why should we study, if all knowledge was meant to be handed to us on a silver platter?

Actually, as we were not present when any of those "imferior" mss. were made, we can't really pass accurate judgment upon them. We don't know who made most of them, where or when.

If you really feel that way, the next time you hear folk like James White claim the Byzantine MSS are inferior, take it with a grain of salt!

No two Scriptural mss. are exactly the same thruout, and the KJV, "Textus Receptus" (latest revision) & the mss. from which the TR was made don't agree in many places.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that assertion?

This is all subject to opinion. One person's "best" may be another's "poor".

1) If that were true, it would mean that your opinion is no more valuable than mine!

2) Uniformity among copies represents the nature of quality. Those MSS which are more uniform (less variants) would be of a better quality; it shows a cohesiveness among the copies to a single sourse ... the original.

3) A lack of Uniformity shows less cohesion between the copies, showing multiple sources which shows a lack of faithfulness to the original.


Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have less in common than they do in similarity; not to mention the extreme amount of multi-generational editing which is clearly obvious (as well as commonly known, and commented on by scholarship). This is clear evidence that the two are not the best Greek MSS. That is not "opinion"; that is fact.

 

[createdtoworship]

 

[createdtoworship]

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm going to use this printing of the KJV Bible as my official translation!

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm going to use this printing of the KJV Bible as my official translation!

at least the KJV corrected it in subsequent translations, the material I have presented about the modern translations, are still uncorrected, and ignored.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

It all depends on the manuscripts that the translators are using. Our official version is the 1904 Patriarchal Greek text for the NT and the LXX for the OT.

 

[createdtoworship]

It all depends on the manuscripts that the translators are using. Our official version is the 1904 Patriarchal Greek text for the NT and the LXX for the OT.

yes, but my premise is that modern translations, even the literal ones are missing the mark. The most common and widely used modern translation is by far the NIV.



Daniel 3:25 NIV
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

the NIV sounds like greek mythology, not a picture of Christ!

the way the verse should read is this way:

Daniel 3:25 NKJV
“Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

 

[GreekOrthodox]

From the LXX, the NIV is closer to the word for word meaning.

καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ Θεοῦ.
and the sight/vision of the fourth like son of god. (translation is mine from 1 In his eighteenth year Nabuchodonosor the king made a golden image, its heigh... DANIEL / ΔΑΝΙΗΛ3 - Bilingual Septuagint )

So do you want the translators translating or interpreting? If they are interpreting, then does your theology match with theirs?

 

[createdtoworship]

From the LXX, the NIV is closer to the word for word meaning.

καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ Θεοῦ.
and the sight/vision of the fourth like son of god. (translation is mine from 1 In his eighteenth year Nabuchodonosor the king made a golden image, its heigh... DANIEL / ΔΑΝΙΗΛ3 - Bilingual Septuagint )

So do you want the translators translating or interpreting? If they are interpreting, then does your theology match with theirs?

the NIV is plural. your translation even is singular.

"god's" versus "God"

the problem with most translations is that they incorporate their own particular theology into the text. It's best to just stay with what the greek and hebrew says. For example NIV scholars probably thought, "the son of God, hadn't been born yet" so "Lets make this refer to other gods" or something like that. But incorporating theology into the text is wrong. This passage was meant by God to be a theophany. A picture of Christ in the old testament.

 

[Alithis]

This forum isnt for debating which is best.
But i guess preferential opinions are fine if voiced fairly .

There simply is no perfect english translation
And in many languages there exists the same issues as old english vs contemporary english .
Iv heard that old dutch and modern dutch is very different for example.

The remedy to be always in prayer when reading scripture.
And use at least two versions these days.
I prefer 3
NEV
Kjv
And NLT
But the reason is, im always seeking those im teaching to grasp a fair and foundational understanding. Since they are at times not having english as thier first language .

For my personal use i enjoy browsing a greek/english parralel for the Nt.

But one thing i always avoid.
And that is idolization of " the book"
The scripture point to JESUS. It is him we must seek and him we are to follow and obey and become like.
The book is only an aid.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

But incorporating theology into the text is wrong. This passage was meant by God to be a theophany. A picture of Christ in the old testament.

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation. However, that's what we interpret this to be rather than letting the translation stand on its own.

When I was in seminary, I had to translate sections of John into English. Translation typically means some kind of interpretation, such as, do I translate this as "descend" or "went down". It may be very subtle but even picking the word, unless there is no other option, can influence a reader. Even putting the Greek, which is a declined language and does not necessarily have to follow the English rules of grammar of Subject-Verb-Object, into the English order, can give a certain meaning to a passage.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation. However, that's what we interpret this to be rather than letting the translation stand on its own.

When I was in seminary, I had to translate sections of John into English. Translation typically means some kind of interpretation, such as, do I translate this as "descend" or "went down". It may be very subtle but even picking the word, unless there is no other option, can influence a reader. Even putting the Greek, which is a declined language and does not necessarily have to follow the English rules of grammar of Subject-Verb-Object, into the English order, can give a certain meaning to a passage.

but the bible is mainly read by non seminary students, so incorporating theology into the translation, instead of just transliterating the original language, both shows lack of trust in God, and it supercedes His will with our own.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Pethesedzao said: ↑
the KJV is the most accurate in comparison to all the other versions. the nkjv has twisted a lot of the original text and added some of its own meanings...

I hear that a lot. Always from KJVO-ers who have never actually read the Greek or the Hebrew.

Perhaps because that would be too tedious and time consuming.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

but the bible is mainly read by non seminary students, so incorporating theology into the translation, instead of just transliterating the original language, both shows lack of trust in God, and it supercedes His will with our own.

Sorry I havent been online much as my wife had shoulder replacement surgery.

What I was trying to get across is that you cant simply transliterate word for word as languages may not have similar concepts in words. For example, the Jesus/Peter conversation at the end of John misses some of the nuances that are in Greek. In the Greek, Jesus asks if Peter loves Him and Peter responds that he does love Him. But, Jesus uses the word agape for unconditional love while Peter responds with phileo for brotherly love. This is repeated for the second time. However, the third time, Jesus asks if Peter phileo loves Him.

Even in the KJV, this nuance is lost in English.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry I havent been online much as my wife had shoulder replacement surgery.

What I was trying to get across is that you cant simply transliterate word for word as languages may not have similar concepts in words. For example, the Jesus/Peter conversation at the end of John misses some of the nuances that are in Greek. In the Greek, Jesus asks if Peter loves Him and Peter responds that he does love Him. But, Jesus uses the word agape for unconditional love while Peter responds with phileo for brotherly love. This is repeated for the second time. However, the third time, Jesus asks if Peter phileo loves Him.

Even in the KJV, this nuance is lost in English.

All this means is thaT greek has a larger language than english. It's one of the largest langauges in the world, if not the largest. But transliteration is nOT the right word. A transliteration of love in greek to English would be agape for example. A transliterarion of the name of God in the hebrew would be Y'Shua. Ours is english, so we transliterated the Greek woRd for love as agape. But it's not just love. It's a sacrificial or perfect love. So technically when we translate, not transliterate agape to english, it requires more than just love. But requires perfect love or sacrificial love. Phileo is greek for brotherly love. And starge I believe is love for family, and Eros is sensual live. But the point is that even though the Greek is translated at more than one word in english, scholars have chosen to use the singular word love for simplicity. Because overall when a word crosses over to English accurately, you would only want to translate that one word. That is a good rule for a scholar or translator. UnfortunatEly in that rare occasion it did not work properly.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

All this means is thaT greek has a larger language than english. It's one of the largest langauges in the world, if not the largest. But transliteration is nOT the right word. A transliteration of love in greek to English would be agape for example. A transliterarion of the name of God in the hebrew would be Y'Shua. Ours is english, so we transliterated the Greek woRd for love as agape. But it's not just love. It's a sacrificial or perfect love. So technically when we translate, not transliterate agape to english, it requires more than just love. But requires perfect love or sacrificial love. Phileo is greek for brotherly love. And starge I believe is love for family, and Eros is sensual live. But the point is that even though the Greek is translated at more than one word in english, scholars have chosen to use the singular word love for simplicity. Because overall when a word crosses over to English accurately, you would only want to translate that one word. That is a good rule for a scholar or translator. UnfortunatEly in that rare occasion it did not work properly.

As for transliterate, I was using your word as you said "but the bible is mainly read by non seminary students, so incorporating theology into the translation, instead of just transliterating the original language, both shows lack of trust in God, and it supercedes His will with our own."

However, when translating, it often does modify the intent. As for rare occasion, it occurs far more frequently than you would expect and in simple phrases. Let's take the ending of the Lord's Prayer, "... but deliver us from evil." The Greek reads "...ΑΛΛΑ ΡΥΣΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ." Now Apo tou ponhrou, word for word should be "from the evil (one)", not "from evil". In fact, at seminary, although we used the KJV language when we said the prayer, we used "from the evil one" in English as it is more accurate.

My favorite eye-rolling misprint ends in "deliver us for evil"... What's sad about this is that the book has been printed for all Greek Orthodox churches and I have found that most people have never noticed the misprint.

 

[createdtoworship]

As for transliterate, I was using your word as you said "but the bible is mainly read by non seminary students, so incorporating theology into the translation, instead of just transliterating the original language, both shows lack of trust in God, and it supercedes His will with our own."

However, when translating, it often does modify the intent. As for rare occasion, it occurs far more frequently than you would expect and in simple phrases. Let's take the ending of the Lord's Prayer, "... but deliver us from evil." The Greek reads "...ΑΛΛΑ ΡΥΣΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ." Now Apo tou ponhrou, word for word should be "from the evil (one)", not "from evil". In fact, at seminary, although we used the KJV language when we said the prayer, we used "from the evil one" in English as it is more accurate.

My favorite eye-rolling misprint ends in "deliver us for evil"... What's sad about this is that the book has been printed for all Greek Orthodox churches and I have found that most people have never noticed the misprint.

yes, I understand mistranslations perfectly, I have posted at least a dozen regarding new translations, here let me post a few here: