Most Accurate Bible Translation Confusion....

[GreekOrthodox]

True, but they're a lot better than laypeople translating on their own. Everyone, including laypeople, base their interpretations on their theology.

And with a factual commentary by a group of scholars, they will generally just present the facts without a theological commentary or at least a commentary that runs the denominational spectrum.

 

[pescador]

And with a factual commentary by a group of scholars, they will generally just present the facts without a theological commentary or at least a commentary that runs the denominational spectrum.

Commentaries by scholars often include a theological commentary. By far those scholars are "men of the cloth" who include unbiased theology.

 

[MilanGeer]

Did you go into the greek and/or hebrew using the lexicon ...

The point I was trying to make ... is when wanting to delve deeper into the meaning of texts (especially ones one is not clear on) ... regardless of the english translation one should go use the greek and hebrew lexicons ... often by doing that provides great clarity. The greek and hebrew languages have a lot more depth in meaning to them than english.

I agree that greek and hebrew languages are much more important than English.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalms 11:3).

I believe today, the devil is seeking to make others doubt God's Word that is written in plain English (the KJB). The original languages can sometimes be helpful, but they should not be our final word of authority because we really have no way of knowing that these languages defined by recent scholars is true or trustworthy. I believe God preserved His words for this generation today based on the promise of God's Word (Psalms 12:6-7). This promise is altered in Modern Translations (Which seems kind of fishy to me). But people get sucked up in their church, or a pastor, or their Bible college, etc.; and they see the simplicity in Christ as a stumbling block.

Ultimately this has to do with being under a final word of authority. Most people do not like authority, and they prefer to do their own thing. Somebody pretending that they know the original languages means that they can make the Word of God what they want it to say or to follow a message that is more comforting that their Pastor teaches.

 

[pescador]

I have said very often that Biblical translation is both art and science, and it ain't easy! Not only are the languages very, very different than modern English (and other languages of course), the culture that we live in is very, very different than the cultures of the Bible.

Words have meaning in context, and the structure of the source languages is very, very different than ours. It is a common mistake to buy a lexicon and derive the meaning of the words; it's fraught with the possibility of mistranslation.

Leave the translation to the professionals who have devoted their lives to Biblical research. It's not for amateurs, any more than any academic discipline is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We need a final Word of authority in a language that we can know like English. The KJB fits this bill in many ways. Most do not want to see this because they respect higher education. Just trust the learned religious men and do not study to show yourself approved unto God. Yet, 2 Timothy 2:15 is neutered like a cat out of Modern Translations. The enemy does not want folks to study to show yourself approved unto God.

 

[pescador]

I agree that greek and hebrew languages are much more important than English.

Why are they "much more important"? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I've started rereading "The Catholic Bible Study Handbook" by Jerome Kodell OSB, just to remind myself of a few things.

He commented in "Types of Translations" that

"Scholars speak of two ways of translating the Bible: the formal equivalence method and the dynamic equivalence method. In formal equivalence, the translator tires to match word for word and phrase for phrase as closely as possible while still making the text readable. In dynamic equivalence, the translator is not concerned about matching words so much as matching thoughts. The translation give meaning for meaning instead of word for word...."

He gave some examples -

Revised Standard Version (1952); New Revised Standard Version (1991). The RSV has the reputation among English translations of being the closest in wording to the original languages. Therefore it, and its revision, the NRSV, are the favorites for Scripture classes in seminaries and universities. The RSV is the modern heir of the King James tradition. KJV was the Bible of the Protestant English-speaking word for almost three hundred years before the discovery of more ancient manuscripts and the archaisms of the language prompted a revision....

.... Editions entitled The Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha include all the biblical books used by Catholics: this translation was approved for Catholic use by the imprimatur of Cardinal Richard Cushing in 1965..."

Someone commented that translation is a difficult business. The RSV for example was finished in stages - it was commissioned by the National Council of Churches in 1937. The NT appeared in 1946 (no doubt the war years delayed the project), the OT in 1952 and the Apocrypha in 1956. It took over 10 years to finish.

Creating a new and accurate version of the Bible is not a trivial project. The translators have to decide if they're going to lean towards formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence, and consistently lean towards that bias. They also need to be clear what their other aims are, and what new sources there are, if any.

Personally I don't care which translation people want to use, but Mr. Kodell pointed out two "Un-Bibles" namely The Living Bible and The Readers Digest Bible (1982), which is abridged in typical Reader's Digest fashion. He commented that "...the TLB makes good spiritual reading, but it's not a Bible".

For those who want a bit of background on the KJV - DR versions dogfight, this article might be of some help.

Library : Uncomfortable Facts About The Douay-Rheims

 

[pescador]

The OP says "Most accurate bible translation confusion". This is dependent on what "most accurate" means. There is no one-to-one equivalence between the source languages (plural) of the Bible and the destination language. There are significant differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, etc. Also, we live in an entirely different culture than that of thousands of years ago and our language, understanding, thought process, and lifestyle reflect that. The art and science of translation is to communicate to us living in the 21st Century (in every aspect of our lives) what the authors intended when they wrote the manuscripts.

That is a difficult undertaking, best left to professional translators who have knowledge, not only of the languages, but also of the culture. What did the Bible "books" mean to the people living when they were written? Can that meaning be accurately and fully communicated to us?

I have a healthy disrespect for people who take a few verses -- there were no chapters or verses in the earliest manuscripts -- out of context and, with no training in translation or interpretation, tell the rest of us what they mean and what doctrine they prove.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Why English is my native language is Greek?

 

[1watchman]

Both the KJV and the NKJV state in Isaiah 54:10 that "the mountains SHALL depart" ---not MAY depart. See a sound Bible Dictionary, which confirms that. God says what He means. I know many Christians say MAY, due to following some scientists ( those Atheists ones) who acquaint such to earthquakes causing movements, but the Word of God is firm if rightly translated. See the Scofield KJV Study Bible for some understandings. The scientists who are Christians at Institute Of Creation Research confirm such as SHALL. Why is this important" It seems to me that there is a movement against the certainty of terrible upheaval on earth in the end time. God is saying in Isaiah that THOUGH terrible judgment shall come, we need to be faithful and trust God. We need to hold to reliable Bibles and not just ones that put everything into modern language for simple convenience.

 

[pescador]

Both the KJV and the NKJV state in Isaiah 54:10 that "the mountains SHALL depart" ---not MAY depart. See a sound Bible Dictionary, which confirms that. God says what He means. I know many Christians say MAY, due to following some scientists ( those Atheists ones) who acquaint such to earthquakes causing movements, but the Word of God is firm if rightly translated. See the Scofield KJV Study Bible for some understandings. The scientists who are Christians at Institute Of Creation Research confirm such as SHALL. Why is this important" It seems to me that there is a movement against the certainty of terrible upheaval on earth in the end time. God is saying in Isaiah that THOUGH terrible judgment shall come, we need to be faithful and trust God. We need to hold to reliable Bibles and not just ones that put everything into modern language for simple convenience.

The NET states...

"Even if the mountains are removed
and the hills displaced,
my devotion will not be removed from you,
nor will my covenant of friendship be displaced,”
says the Lord, the one who has compassion on you.

 

[1watchman]

Yes, there are various ways to say that, though I believe God wants man to know the mountains SHALL be removed; for He WILL bring much judgment and changes to set forth a new order. When we change words to make it less than what God says, we are opening the door for more uncertainty, which man likes to imagine (minimizing judgments) ---not a good way to study the mind of our God, I believe. I think we need to pay attention to reliable Bible scholars and teachers over the years. Well, 'to each his own thoughts'.

 

[BlessedCreator]

The only English Bible I trust (made after 1610) is the King James Bible. There is a reason the KJV has such a loyal following. It is trustworthy.

Many modern Bibles make many grave errors in altering or removing verses of key scriptures, such as concerning the doctrines of the virgin birth, personal responsibility of sin, the second coming of Christ, the deity of Jesus Christ, Christ's incarnation, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, the ascension, the trinity, the inerrancy of scripture, the masculine deity, the sanctified life, prayer, the judgment, Hell, and more...all of which I document on a page of my ministry website, which I am unsure if I am allowed to post on here.

 

[1watchman]

I agree! I also like to use the Scofield KJV Study Bible, which does not change the wordings, but explains words and meanings to correct some poor wording from original writings; and upholds proven Bible scholars and Bible history. This book can be purchased through Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL - USA.