Bible Translations

[now faith]

Deer, the argument regarding the 'best translation' continues. Everybody and everybody's dog has clear-cut and convincing 'proof' their favorite version is not on the best version but the only version God likes and anyone using a 'brand X' version is going to Hell.

Okay, not everyone.

Presuming God actually has a message for His followers, and further presuming God actually wants His followers to get a clear understanding of that message, a good translation is not hard to find.

Saying that, there are some translations which intentionally changed the wording to support their 'pet' theologies. However, I am reasonably sure God will guide you past the pitfalls of the fraudulent versions. Presuming - as I do - God really wants you to understand what He has to say.

So the NIV is just fine. There may be some grammatical errors and no doubt some phrases with whom SOMEONE will disagree. But one who reads and studies what God has set forth will become a useful and competent Christian as a result.

To say presuming God actually has a message for his followers, is ambiguity under the guise of superiority.
A presumption is ignorance of fact.
What do Preachers have to base their message on,if they are void of facts?

 

[OzSpen]

Looking at 2 Timothy 2.15 ,there exist a noticeable difference in context between the King James and the (NLT)

Not to nit pick but we are discussing translation.
The use of terminology in the NLT tells us to work hard so you can present yourself to God and recieve his approval.
be a good worker one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.
In one perception you could combine a works based salvation as a introduction to the verse.
The introduction states work hard for God for his approval/ be a good worker to not be ashamed then a conjuction is added ( And)
The use of a conjuction is used when describing two or more events.
Placing this at the end of the verse seems to make explaining God's word a adverb clause.
To study means to devote time on the subject to gain knowledge.
Work is more diverse in definition.
By using the word study the King James validates the use of workman in God's Word.
By simply using work to begin the verse it is multifaceted.

'Not to nit pick', but that's exactly what you did. There is NO difference in context between NLT and KJV. The context is exactly the same.

The difference is in the way of expressing the Greek language. NLT is thought-for-thought translation and KJV is word-for-word translation (which is impossible to do in translating from one language to another) - I read and teach NT Greek.

You may not like the dynamic equivalence translation of 2 Tim 2:15 (NLT) but prefer the formal equivalence (and old fashioned language) of the KJV.

The formal equivalence translation of the ESV states, 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth'.

It is not talking about working to receive salvation. The context deals with behaviour:

• 'not to quarrel about words' (v. 14);
• 'a worker who has no need to be ashamed' (v. 15);
• 'Avoid irreverent babble' that leads to more ungodliness (v. 16);
• 'Their talk will spead like gangrene' (v. 17).

So approval before God (v 15) has to do with actions AFTER salvation, thus it deals with sanctification and not salvation.

Oz

 

[now faith]

'Not to nit pick', but that's exactly what you did. There is NO difference in context between NLT and KJV. The context is exactly the same.

The difference is in the way of expressing the Greek language. NLT is thought-for-thought translation and KJV is word-for-word translation (which is impossible to do in translating from one language to another) - I read and teach NT Greek.

You may not like the dynamic equivalence translation of 2 Tim 2:15 (NLT) but prefer the formal equivalence (and old fashioned language) of the KJV.

The formal equivalence translation of the ESV states, 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth'.

It is not talking about working to receive salvation. The context deals with behaviour:

• 'not to quarrel about words' (v. 14);
• 'a worker who has no need to be ashamed' (v. 15);
• 'Avoid irreverent babble' that leads to more ungodliness (v. 16);
• 'Their talk will spead like gangrene' (v. 17).

So approval before God (v 15) has to do with actions AFTER salvation, thus it deals with sanctification and not salvation.

Oz

It is a individual choice,for me the King James simplifies it's context.
The quote we are discussing, has nothing to do with sanctification.
It's main point is to study God's word so we can share the Gospel correctly.
It is a old tired debate ,that ends up being more of a division among Christians, than giving knowlage.
It is impossible to agree on due to the text used in translation.
So one prefers Byzantine over the Alexandrian,or vice versa.

My personal belief is Westcott and Hort were not ideal candidate's for translation of the Critical text.
Thanks for the kind words,God Bless.

 

[OzSpen]

It is a individual choice,for me the King James simplifies it's context.
The quote we are discussing, has nothing to do with sanctification.
It's main point is to study God's word so we can share the Gospel correctly.
It is a old tired debate ,that ends up being more of a division among Christians, than giving knowlage.
It is impossible to agree on due to the text used in translation.
So one prefers Byzantine over the Alexandrian,or vice versa.

My personal belief is Westcott and Hort were not ideal candidate's for translation of the Critical text.
Thanks for the kind words,God Bless.

I've provided evidence from 2 Tim 2 (see #62) to demonstrate that Paul was dealing with behaviour that was not Christo-centric and needed to become more Christ-like. That's dealing with sanctification.

What is sanctification for the believer? Positional sanctification is being 'set free from every sin' because of Christ's blood sacrifice (Acts 13:39). However, after becoming believers we still sin, so sanctification is a progressive, practical experience of becoming obedient to the Word and becoming more like Jesus - growing in spiritual maturity (see also 2 Peter 3:18).

I've given you examples of how Christians need to shape up in their behaviour (progressive sanctification) in 2 Tim 2 (see post #62).

As for raising Westcott and Hort, that's a red herring.

Oz

 

[now faith]

I've provided evidence from 2 Tim 2 (see #62) to demonstrate that Paul was dealing with behaviour that was not Christo-centric and needed to become more Christ-like. That's dealing with sanctification.

What is sanctification for the believer? Positional sanctification is being 'set free from every sin' because of Christ's blood sacrifice (Acts 13:39). However, after becoming believers we still sin, so sanctification is a progressive, practical experience of becoming obedient to the Word and becoming more like Jesus - growing in spiritual maturity (see also 2 Peter 3:18).

I've given you examples of how Christians need to shape up in their behaviour (progressive sanctification) in 2 Tim 2 (see post #62).

As for raising Westcott and Hort, that's a red herring.

Oz

I could not help to notice that two Bible translations were quoted, to make your point.
Your original qoute was from the N.L.T.,then you quoted the E.S.V.? Post 62
As for the logical fallacy or reasoning for my comment on Westcott and Hort, was not to dodge the main topic.
It is common knowledge through many sources both of them did not hold the Bible as the living word of God.

1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, [Hort mocks those who believe the bible] ...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

1858 Oct. 21st - Hort: The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).


1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a shrine of Mary). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness"

1865 Nov. 17th - Westcott: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).

1865 Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50). Source : Bible Ready .com.

Some would question the site the quotes are from,but there are many more with the same statements from Westcott and Hort.

So to ask a question: Is the Bible given by the Holy spirit for our sanctification or spiritual discernment?
Or is the Bible written by men who were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,but the Bible it's self a text that needs multiple translations and knowlage of Greek?
If it requires knowlage of Greek what dialect?

Wickipedia:
The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian), associated with Alexandria, is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of biblical manuscripts.

The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. In later manuscripts (from the 9th century onwards), the Byzantine text-type became far more common and remains as the standard text in the Greek Orthodox church and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era.

Most modern New Testaments are based on what is called "reasoned eclecticism", such as that of the Nestle-Aland 27, in formulating a Greek text. This invariably results in a text that is strongly Alexandrian in character.[1]

It seems to me the Alexandrian text-type has the same attributes as our English.
As some say the King James English is outdated ,most certainly Greek evolved as well.
One major problem is the quality of the Alexandrian text,and the small number of writing 's found as well on scraped paper that was re used.

Wickipedia: Up until the 9th century, Greek texts were written entirely in upper case letters, referred to as Uncials. During the 9th and 10th centuries, the new lower-case writing hand of Minuscules came gradually to replace the older style. Most Greek Uncial manuscripts were recopied in this period and their parchment leaves typically scraped clean for re-use. Consequently, surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts from before the 9th century are relatively rare; but nine — over half of the total that survive — witness a more or less pure Alexandrian text. These include the oldest near-complete manuscripts of the New Testament Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus (believed to date from the early 4th century CE).

What happened in the 4th century?

Wickipedia: Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the Great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

So we come full circle, reformed but using the same text we reformed from.

 

[OzSpen]

I could not help to notice that two Bible translations were quoted, to make your point.
Your original qoute was from the N.L.T.,then you quoted the E.S.V.? Post 62
As for the logical fallacy or reasoning for my comment on Westcott and Hort, was not to dodge the main topic.
It is common knowledge through many sources both of them did not hold the Bible as the living word of God.

1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, [Hort mocks those who believe the bible] ...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

1858 Oct. 21st - Hort: The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).


1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a shrine of Mary). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness"

1865 Nov. 17th - Westcott: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).

1865 Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50). Source : Bible Ready .com.

Some would question the site the quotes are from,but there are many more with the same statements from Westcott and Hort.

So to ask a question: Is the Bible given by the Holy spirit for our sanctification or spiritual discernment?
Or is the Bible written by men who were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,but the Bible it's self a text that needs multiple translations and knowlage of Greek?
If it requires knowlage of Greek what dialect?

Wickipedia:
The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian), associated with Alexandria, is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of biblical manuscripts.

The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. In later manuscripts (from the 9th century onwards), the Byzantine text-type became far more common and remains as the standard text in the Greek Orthodox church and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era.

Most modern New Testaments are based on what is called "reasoned eclecticism", such as that of the Nestle-Aland 27, in formulating a Greek text. This invariably results in a text that is strongly Alexandrian in character.[1]

It seems to me the Alexandrian text-type has the same attributes as our English.
As some say the King James English is outdated ,most certainly Greek evolved as well.
One major problem is the quality of the Alexandrian text,and the small number of writing 's found as well on scraped paper that was re used.

Wickipedia: Up until the 9th century, Greek texts were written entirely in upper case letters, referred to as Uncials. During the 9th and 10th centuries, the new lower-case writing hand of Minuscules came gradually to replace the older style. Most Greek Uncial manuscripts were recopied in this period and their parchment leaves typically scraped clean for re-use. Consequently, surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts from before the 9th century are relatively rare; but nine — over half of the total that survive — witness a more or less pure Alexandrian text. These include the oldest near-complete manuscripts of the New Testament Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus (believed to date from the early 4th century CE).

What happened in the 4th century?

Wickipedia: Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the Great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

So we come full circle, reformed but using the same text we reformed from.

I don't need an indoctrination session in your promotion of the Byzantine text and the dumbing down of Westcott & Hort.

Don't you realise that many people who were knowledgeable of Greek and were excellent Greek grammarians were non-Christians?

I've read my fair share of Christians on Christian forums (not only this one) who need a better understanding of the exegesis of the Greek NT text or Hebrew OT text.

Surely you must realise that the more a text is copied, the better the opportunity for variants to enter the text. Variants are typographical errors or changes of words and grammar.

When Erasmus gathered his handful of Greek NT MSS to create the Textus Receptus (on which the KJV is based), none was earlier than the 10th century. He had NO complete Greek NT text. In fact, he had none that included the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation so what did he do? He translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek for those 6 verses. Since that time, no Greek MSS has been found that gives the words of those verses exactly as Erasmus translated them.

Why don't you give credit to the site from which you gained this information. I found it at, 'Westcott and Hort Exposed - FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS'. When you don't give credit, you are plagiarising - stealing another's work.

P.S. Wickipedia is spelt Wikipedia.

Oz

 

[now faith]

I don't need an indoctrination session in your promotion of the Byzantine text and the dumbing down of Westcott & Hort.

Don't you realise that many people who were knowledgeable of Greek and were excellent Greek grammarians were non-Christians?

I've read my fair share of Christians on Christian forums (not only this one) who need a better understanding of the exegesis of the Greek NT text or Hebrew OT text.

Surely you must realise that the more a text is copied, the better the opportunity for variants to enter the text. Variants are typographical errors or changes of words and grammar.

When Erasmus gathered his handful of Greek NT MSS to create the Textus Receptus (on which the KJV is based), none was earlier than the 10th century. He had NO complete Greek NT text. In fact, he had none that included the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation so what did he do? He translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek for those 6 verses. Since that time, no Greek MSS has been found that gives the words of those verses exactly as Erasmus translated them.

Why don't you give credit to the site from which you gained this information. I found it at, 'Westcott and Hort Exposed - FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS'. When you don't give credit, you are plagiarising - stealing another's work.

P.S. Wickipedia is spelt Wikipedia.

Oz

This is how my net pad spelling presented it ,and simply due to a misspelled word I does not mean I'm not giving credit to Wikipedia.
The use of spelt in a past tense of a sentence is also a error in grammer.
I provided the link where I found the quotes, I will provide it again,but if you look into this indeed gave the link as well you could find 20 more with the same qoute.

On text type older does not mean better.
If anything to support using the work of Erasmus, would be the errors in the Vulgate he exposed.
He was not a reformer and maintained his Roman Catholic beliefs, after he mastered Latin did he show the error in translation.
Many King James proponents give credit to Erasmus.
As far as non Christians translation of the Bible ,no I do not accept a Atheist influence in God's Word.

As far as the validation of the King James translation?
47 professors and scholars worked for 7 years to achieve this undertaking.
They cross checked each other and I do not know of a more comprehensive panel of translators ever assembled.

On the Westcott and Hort notes you can see a reference at the end of each qoute in parentheses.
It is from the bio.life and letters of Brook Foss Westcott.volume 1 and can be downloaded from their research center.
I find your accusation of stealing another's work to be ad hominem indeed and really would not expect such a statement.
So no further commentary from me.
Thank you and God bless.

Other links on Westcott and Hort :
Christian Doctrine from Bible Theology Ministries

Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

 

[now faith]

I might add for information purposes, that the University of Harvard has free download on loan from the writtings Westcott.

 

[OzSpen]

now faith,

You stated, 'The use of spelt in a past tense of a sentence is also a error in grammer'.

Which dictionary are you using? According to Oxford dictionaries online (which I use), 'spelt' is the 'past and past participle of spell'. Therefore, it is you who could be making an error of grammar in your statement. But it is not as easy as that. I found this explanation online:

Spelled vs spelt:

• In American English, spelt primarily refers to the hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe, and the verb spell makes spelled in the past tense and as a past participle.
  
  
• In all other main varieties of English, spelt and spelled both work as the past tense and past participle of spell, at least where spell means to form words letter by letter or (with out) to make clear. Outside the U.S., the two forms are interchangeable in these uses, and both are common.
  
  
• But when spell carries the sense to temporarily relieve (someone) from work, spelled is the preferred form throughout the English-speaking world. This is a minor point, though, as this sense of spell is rarely used outside the U.S., where it is most common.
  
  
• Spelled is not a recent Americanism as many people assume (including some who have commented on this post). Both spelled and spelt are old, and examples of each are easily found in historical Google Books searches covering the 17th and 18th centuries. It is true, however, that spelt was ascendant everywhere through most of the 19th century. This ended when Americans permanently settled on spelled around 1900.

(grammarist.com)
​

By the way, it is spelt grammar and not grammer (Oxford dictionaries online).

You stated: 'As far as the validation of the King James translation? 47 professors and scholars worked for 7 years to achieve this undertaking'.

That's committing an appeal to authority fallacy. It is erroneous reasoning.

Oz

​

 

[now faith]

now faith,

You stated, 'The use of spelt in a past tense of a sentence is also a error in grammer'.

Which dictionary are you using? According to Oxford dictionaries online (which I use), 'spelt' is the 'past and past participle of spell'. Therefore, it is you who could be making an error of grammar in your statement. But it is not as easy as that. I found this explanation online:

Spelled vs spelt:

• In American English, spelt primarily refers to the hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe, and the verb spell makes spelled in the past tense and as a past participle.
  
  
• In all other main varieties of English, spelt and spelled both work as the past tense and past participle of spell, at least where spell means to form words letter by letter or (with out) to make clear. Outside the U.S., the two forms are interchangeable in these uses, and both are common.
  
  
• But when spell carries the sense to temporarily relieve (someone) from work, spelled is the preferred form throughout the English-speaking world. This is a minor point, though, as this sense of spell is rarely used outside the U.S., where it is most common.
  
  
• Spelled is not a recent Americanism as many people assume (including some who have commented on this post). Both spelled and spelt are old, and examples of each are easily found in historical Google Books searches covering the 17th and 18th centuries. It is true, however, that spelt was ascendant everywhere through most of the 19th century. This ended when Americans permanently settled on spelled around 1900.

(grammarist.com)
​

By the way, it is spelt grammar and not grammer (Oxford dictionaries online).

You stated: 'As far as the validation of the King James translation? 47 professors and scholars worked for 7 years to achieve this undertaking'.

That's committing an appeal to authority fallacy. It is erroneous reasoning.

Oz

​

Spelt is proper for past tense in Australia, but is uncommon in America.
I disagree that having a overwhelming majority of experts work on a project for a long period of time is erroneous.
It is deductive reasoning ,when compared to other translaters with far less experience and resources.
My Brother in Christ I respect your work,and am not wanting any further debate.
I give you the last word.

 

[OzSpen]

Spelt is proper for past tense in Australia, but is uncommon in America.
I disagree that having a overwhelming majority of experts work on a project for a long period of time is erroneous.
It is deductive reasoning ,when compared to other translaters with far less experience and resources.
My Brother in Christ I respect your work,and am not wanting any further debate.
I give you the last word.

I quoted the Oxford Dictionary. That is not the dictionary of Australia, which is the Macquarie Dictionary.

Please learn to read accurately what I wrote.

 

[now faith]

Spelt has been the preferred choice in British English for many years, where spelled is also acceptable.

Spelled is the preferred choice in American English, where spelt is viewed as a misspelling.

Reference :writingexplained.org

 

[OzSpen]

Spelt has been the preferred choice in British English for many years, where spelled is also acceptable.

Spelled is the preferred choice in American English, where spelt is viewed as a misspelling.

Reference :writingexplained.org

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2017. s v spelt) -an American dictionary - gives the meaning of 'spelt' as: 'chiefly British past tense and past participle of spell'. It does not call it misspelling.

British English also has many other differences with American English in spelling and meaning.

May you have a good day.

Oz

 

[Dave-W]

Spelt is proper for past tense in Australia, but is uncommon in America.

I have used ground spelt flour to make bread ....

 

[Dave-W]

British English also has many other differences with American English in spelling and meaning.

Some day us Americans have to teach the English how to speak English..

[/tongue in cheek]

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I once knew a bear who didn't bear up under hot weather. :rimshot!:

 

[Steve Petersen]

Britain and America are two peoples divided by a common language.

- G.B. Shaw

 

[JackRT]

"Americans will always do the right thing, after everything else has been tried and found wanting."

--- Winston Churchill

 

[now faith]

Britain and America are two peoples divided by a common language.

- G.B. Shaw

True,but I suppose that anology could apply elsewhere as well.
But at least we can understand each other.

In a way this discussion is about the same thing,in some countries they have a mixture of dialects in their language.
Most people in such countries speak a second language that is common to all.

If we for example moved forward 2000 years and translated text for the Phillipines, we would see language adopted by those who visited or traded there.
Malayo / Polynesian and Spanish are two examples I can think of ,and it depends on what regional area a person is from which one is used.
Tagalog is the common language used in major city's ,but is also the name of a group of people there.
Filipino is considered common yet it is Tagalog.

As you can see translation can be a very difficult thing to do, if you are translating specific events that have a narritive.

When cultures have been combined such as Greek, Roman,Hebrew,Persian,and Chaldean you would want as many scrolls and manuscripts as you could find to compare.
A great deal of time and people would be needed for such a task,as well help from God.

 

[OzSpen]

Some day us Americans have to teach the English how to speak English..

[/tongue in cheek]

I hope you mean, 'Some day we Americans have to teach the English....'. The subject of the sentence is in the nominative case. You used 'us' (objective case) when it should have been 'we' (nominative case).

Grammar nazi speaking!

Oz