Kings James Version why the best ?

[benelchi]

Both the NIVO and NIV here have more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow. I can't say I can agree with that. The newer translations do more and more of this.

Here is the text from both versions and the Hebrew MT text. In what way do you believe that the NIV has bent its translation more severely than the KJV?


KJV Psalm 37:14 The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation.

NIV Psalm 37:14 The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose ways are upright.

חֶרֶב פָּתְחוּ רְשָׁעִים וְדָרְכוּ קַשְׁתָּם לְהַפִּיל עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן לִטְבוֹחַ יִשְׁרֵי־דָרֶךְ
(Psa 37:14)

 

[OzSpen]

Only Aramaic with references, Hebrew I've studied but to no avail yet. Greek? Well, Greek is Greek to me
And yes, I know this from experience.

Experience won't give you the meaning of monogenes in the Greek text of John 3:16. However, knowledge of the Greek will be a great help.

So to pull down the NIV translation and exalt the KJV translation in John 3:16 is not based on the etymology of monogenes in Greek. It seems to be based on your lack of knowledge of Greek.

Oz

 

[rdcast]

Experience won't give you the meaning of monogenes in the Greek text of John 3:16. However, knowledge of the Greek will be a great help.

So to pull down the NIV translation and exalt the KJV translation in John 3:16 is not based on the etymology of monogenes in Greek.

Oz

I'm not doing any such thing Oz, just pointing out that flow is of too much importance from my standpoint.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not doing any such thing Oz, just pointing out that flow is of too much importance from my standpoint.

Accuracy of the translation from Greek is most important to me. Of course, the Holy Spirit's ministry is needed in all exegesis.

Oz

 

[rdcast]

Accuracy of the translation from Greek is most important to me. Of course, the Holy Spirit's ministry is needed in all exegesis.

Oz

Do you at least see what I'm saying? Modern, commercial translations have a financial motivation to create for their buyers, a translation as clear and readable for the widest buying population as they can. So, the issue of flow is taken more and more to extremes, while keeping true to the original suffers from the process.

 

[ebia]

Do you at least see what I'm saying? Modern, commercial translations have a financial motivation to create for their buyers, a translation as clear and readable for the widest buying population as they can. So, the issue of flow is taken more and more to extremes, while keeping true to the original suffers from the process.

As opposed to the KJV that had an ecclesial motivation to produce high-prose for a liturgical setting, say?

 

[Johnnz]

Do you at least see what I'm saying? Modern, commercial translations have a financial motivation to create for their buyers, a translation as clear and readable for the widest buying population as they can. So, the issue of flow is taken more and more to extremes, while keeping true to the original suffers from the process.

That statement discredits the many committed Christian scholars who have contributed years of dedicated study because of their love of Jesus and their dedication to the Scriptures.

John
NZ

 

[rdcast]

That statement discredits the many committed Christian scholars who have contributed years of dedicated study because of their love of Jesus and their dedication to the Scriptures.

John
NZ

sue me, but be advised, they are no less sinful and imperfect as you or I. It would be interested to knowing if you believe these fine fellows you hold in such high esteem for their supposed perfection, would they happen to have control over what they received to work on before they received it? The answer is no. So regardless how perfect you think they should be, they can't fix what was wrong from the time they were translated from earlier translations.

Oh, I see, you seem to think money doesn't move these people. That is so funny.

 

[Johnnz]

sue me, but be advised, they are no less sinful and imperfect as you or me.

Which means we both must not become dogmatic. Or too critical of others.

John
NZ

 

[rdcast]

Which means we both must not become dogmatic. Or too critical of others.

John
NZ

Exactly, so we agree that these sinful, imperfect individuals shouldn't be placed on such a high pedestal. Otherwise, we would know that they were being setup to fail us. That would just serve to discredit them.

Oh, I used a word you just used.

 

[rdcast]

As opposed to the KJV that had an ecclesial motivation to produce high-prose for a liturgical setting, say?

Well, they're still no better than the rest of us. Due to being born in sin and such. You know, imperfect and all as God created them? Besides, they received what they had from other imperfect individuals. If we were to be perfect, even in our work for God, Adam might as well never have eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good an evil. God's plans incorporates man's sinful imperfections.

 

[Johnnz]

Exactly, so we agree that these sinful, imperfect individuals shouldn't be placed on such a high pedestal. Otherwise, we would know that they were being setup to fail us. That would just serve to discredit them.

Oh, I used a word you just used.

But, unless you can read the original languages, at a fully competent level, and accept the core documents behind any translations were compiled by men too, and in addition you have a great grasp of literature, both English and those of the cultures in biblical times, what translation are you going to use that avoids "these sinful, imperfect individuals?"

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

Do you at least see what I'm saying? Modern, commercial translations have a financial motivation to create for their buyers, a translation as clear and readable for the widest buying population as they can. So, the issue of flow is taken more and more to extremes, while keeping true to the original suffers from the process.

No, I don't. Modern translations are designed to make the Bible available in the language of the people. My SIL translator friend who is translating the Scriptures into the East Timorese language of Buru has NO financial motivation. He wants the Buru people to be able to read the Bible in the language they understand.

It doesn't matter whether a Christian bookstore is selling the KJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV or the Buru translation, they all need to make a profit to stay in business.

You seem to be imposing on Bible translations what is not there according to the people who have translated them.

Since I read and teach Greek, I can assure you that the NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV, etc are keeping true to the original. The NIV and NLT pursue a dynamic equivalence translation philosophy while the ESV and NRSV use a formal equivalence model. Both philosophies are legitimate ways of doing translations. To be honest, I find the NLT to be one of the best translations for people wanting to understand the Scriptures in basic English. It is brilliant. All 4 of the modern translations I have mentioned are excellent according to the philosophy of translation used.

I think you have an agenda and you are imposing materialism as a motivation when my understanding is that these modern English translations are designed to use contemporary language so that people UNDERSTAND the English.

I do not speak in Shakespearean language, even though I have an Aussie accent for contemporary English.

Oz

 

[benelchi]

rdcast,

You made a claim that the NIV has more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow in their translation of Ps. 37:14.

I asked wanted about your basis for this claim. I asked that here because I see no valid bases for that claim in regards to this verse (or the other one I quoted):

http://www.christianforums.com/t7656653-19/#post61053720

 

[Keachian]

It's not what I read in it, but rather its heritage and its impact on our walk in Jesus Christ. I'm not hear to blow holes in anything, or to take seriously KJV haters.

All English Bibles have the same heritage, the KJV I'll admit has had a larger impact, but that's just because the KJV has had a longer time in the spotlight after all 2 Centuries is a long time

 

[rdcast]

But, unless you can read the original languages, at a fully competent level, and accept the core documents behind any translations were compiled by men too, and in addition you have a great grasp of literature, both English and those of the cultures in biblical times, what translation are you going to use that avoids "these sinful, imperfect individuals?"

John
NZ

You have to know the answer to your own question. Simply put, the perfect written word is no more to be found than perfect Adam. What I have is ultimately good enough. But it does make for good conversation.

 

[OzSpen]

All English Bibles have the same heritage, the KJV I'll admit has had a larger impact, but that's just because the KJV has had a longer time in the spotlight after all 2 Centuries is a long time

Make that 4 centuries in the spotlight.

Oz

 

[rdcast]

No, I don't. Modern translations are designed to make the Bible available in the language of the people. My SIL translator friend who is translating the Scriptures into the East Timorese language of Buru has NO financial motivation. He wants the Buru people to be able to read the Bible in the language they understand.

He's no more perfect than you or I. Just like Adam had to come out of the garden imperfect, so does the written word. I doubt even the original manuscripts were perfect. They may have had every jot and title, but once they were translated, you can forget it, and why on earth are you pretending that God promised us this fantasy of His written word handed down form scribe to scribe, perfect each and every time and know for a fact that it has undergone many revisions. That's a lie I wont play with.

 

[rdcast]

Make that 4 centuries in the spotlight.

Oz

4 centuries handled, translated by sinful, imperfect man, having had to revise it over and over due to imperfections they claim to have found. Maybe they were right but maybe they were wrong. Fact it, somebody made mistakes.

 

[rdcast]

rdcast,

You made a claim that the NIV has more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow in their translation of Ps. 37:14.

I asked wanted about your basis for this claim. I asked that here because I see no valid bases for that claim in regards to this verse (or the other one I quoted):

http://www.christianforums.com/t7656653-19/#post61053720

You must actually experience translating to understand the problematic nature of such a project. One of the first hurdles you're faced with is the sorry fact that many ancient words, have no direct translation to go on, so the translator has to choose an idioms for the reader that seems to fit the gap. This is a serious problem for keeping God's written word perfect, indeed, it makes it impossible to do so. Then you have what is called vernacular flow that all translators must bow down to(they have no choice with this), in order for their translations to be politically and civically acceptable. If the reader isn't comfortable, with a reasonable confidence they can read it without stumbling too bad, the translation would fail the readability test. So, there is this constant strain that prevents ever achieving what the inerrant fanatic blindly insists upon. To cheer you up, believe me, it's God's plan.