Translations

[Andrewn]

The argument I saw was preferring the NET translation "since", and it continues to happen ever since the creation.

Re Rev 13:8, NRSV and several modern translations read "from the foundation of the world." This doesn't sound very different from "since the foundation of the world."

The bigger issue with this verse is whether it should read, "all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" or "all whose name have not been written in the book of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world."

The 2nd rendering is found in KJV, NKJV, and NIV. It's clearly less Calvinist but Meyer's Commentary and many others prefer the 1st reading.

The 1st reading is also similar in meaning to:

Rev 17:8 Those who dwell on the earth—whose names have not been written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world—will be astonished when they see the beast, because he was and is not and is to come.

And,

Eph 1:4 He chose us in the Messiah before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.

The 2nd reading bears similarity to the following but there is significant difference in meaning:

1Pe 1:19 but with precious blood like that of a Lamb without defect or spot, the blood of Messiah. 20 He was chosen before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

"Chosen" is not exactly the same as "slain" and the concept of being "slain from the foundation of the world" is hard to understand.

 

[Davy]

I know that most people here will say KJV is their favourite translation, but what are some other good translations? I personally like NLT and the message(despite the controversy lol). Just wondering.

See this, and you might understand why you should stay with the KJV:

Modern Bible Versions, and Westcott and Hort (27-5) – APOSTOLIC INFORMATION SERVICE


All the following versions are incomplete, and have missing Scripture that exists in 5000+ manuscripts which the KJV used. (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation).

You may think you're getting the same Bible with modern versions using the Wescott & Hort texts, but you're not.

 

[hedrick]

See this, and you might understand why you should stay with the KJV:

Modern Bible Versions, and Westcott and Hort (27-5) – APOSTOLIC INFORMATION SERVICE


All the following versions are incomplete, and have missing Scripture that exists in 5000+ manuscripts which the KJV used. (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation).

You may think you're getting the same Bible with modern versions using the Wescott & Hort texts, but you're not.

It's a matter of perspective. More likely the modern version is right, and the KJV has passages not in the original. Obviously if you assume that the KJV is right, modern translations omit. But if you believe textual criticism, modern translations are right, and the KJV has additions.

The problem with counting manuscripts is that there were in effect manuscript factories. Whatever they used as their master became dominant. If you want to count, the critical text wins, because modern print editions outnumber manuscripts. There's no reason to treat printing differently than hand copying. It's just faster and more accurate.

 

[Davy]

More likely the modern version is right, and the KJV has passages not in the original.

That statement doesn't make sense.

More than likely the modern versions using the Wescott & Hort translation is WRONG, and can be proven WRONG.

The Wescott & Hort translation is from only FIVE Greek texts that do NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.

The KJV NT uses the MAJORITY TEXT, which means 5000+ Greek texts that DO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

That statement doesn't make sense.

More than likely the modern versions using the Wescott & Hort translation is WRONG, and can be proven WRONG.

The Wescott & Hort translation is from only FIVE Greek texts that do NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.

The KJV NT uses the MAJORITY TEXT, which means 5000+ Greek texts that DO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.

Sorry, the KJV uses the TEXTUS RECEPTUS not the Byzantine Majority which is what I read as my official NT scriptures are the authorized 1904 text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text in 1,838 Greek readings, of which 1,005 represent "translatable" differences.

Byzantine text-type - Wikipedia

 

[hedrick]

The argument for the majority text assumes that every manuscript is copied the same number of times. We know that's not true.

 

[Davy]

Sorry, the KJV uses the TEXTUS RECEPTUS not the Byzantine Majority which is what I read as my official NT scriptures are the authorized 1904 text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text in 1,838 Greek readings, of which 1,005 represent "translatable" differences.

Byzantine text-type - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?? really good source huh? Not.

What is the Textus Receptus?

• Textus Receptus is the name given to a series of Byzantine based Greek texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900
• The name Textus Receptus was first used, to refer to editions of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633. The name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type
• Textus Receptus was established on the Byzantine text-type, also called the Majority Text, which represents over 90% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today

Erasmus did not invent the Textus Receptus, but simply collated a collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition. The first Greek New Testament to be collated was the Complutensian Polyglot in (1514), but it was not published until eight years later, Erasmus' was the second Greek New Testament collated and was published and printed in (1516).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Wikipedia?? really good source huh? Not.

• Textus Receptus was established on the Byzantine text-type, also called the Majority Text, which represents over 90% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today

Did you read your own quote? The TR is BASED on the Byzantine Majority only used a small handful of the manuscripts.

 

[pescador]

I know that most people here will say KJV is their favourite translation, but what are some other good translations? I personally like NLT and the message(despite the controversy lol). Just wondering.

My two favorite translations are the NET Bible and the NRSV. Both are excellent renditions and are accompanied by extensive documentation. The NET has over 60,000 translators' notes!

The NLT and The Message are excellent translations to convey the meaning of the Bible, although they are often not literal.

 

[prodromos]

Wikipedia?? really good source huh? Not.

What is the Textus Receptus?

• Textus Receptus is the name given to a series of Byzantine based Greek texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900
• The name Textus Receptus was first used, to refer to editions of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633. The name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type
• Textus Receptus was established on the Byzantine text-type, also called the Majority Text, which represents over 90% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today

Erasmus did not invent the Textus Receptus, but simply collated a collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition. The first Greek New Testament to be collated was the Complutensian Polyglot in (1514), but it was not published until eight years later, Erasmus' was the second Greek New Testament collated and was published and printed in (1516).

The Wiki article has an extensive list of references. Your article has none.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

My two favorite translations are the NET Bible and the NRSV. Both are excellent renditions and are accompanied by extensive documentation. The NET has over 60,000 translators' notes!

The NLT and The Message are excellent translations to convey the meaning of the Bible, although they are often not literal.

I just took a look at the NET online. Dang, those are some extensive notes!! I could seriously geek out on their material!

 

[pescador]

I just took a look at the NET online. Dang, those are some extensive notes!! I could seriously geek out on their material!

I'm glad that you like it! I am of the opinion that it's a very difficult process to translate the ancient Biblical sources and -- very important -- other sources from the same time period into the equivalent language and (especially) the meaning into 21st Century English (and other languages of course). Many people have devoted their careers into giving us, regardless of our education and degree of understanding, the wonderful translations that we have today. I doubt that any time in history has given us such a wealth of Bible translations from which to choose, considering our level of education and experience.

The NET's 6,000+ notes (some of which are above my level of comprehension) are IMHO a real blessing.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm glad that you like it! I am of the opinion that it's a very difficult process to translate the ancient Biblical sources and -- very important -- other sources from the same time period into the equivalent language and (especially) the meaning into 21st Century English (and other languages of course). Many people have devoted their careers into giving us, regardless of our education and degree of understanding, the wonderful translations that we have today. I doubt that any time in history has given us such a wealth of Bible translations from which to choose, considering our level of education and experience.

The NET's 6,000+ notes (some of which are above my level of comprehension) are IMHO a real blessing.

Exactly, translation (from any language) is NOT looking up a Greek-English dictionary and then plugging in the correct word. A different translation of John 1:1 could be read as

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In source was the rational word and the rational word was with the God and God was the rational word.

And λόγος is not the only term that means "word", λέξις (lexis) is the term used for the grammatical sense of "word". Personally, in our hymns, when a hymn uses the word "λόγος", I will use Logos in the English as I believe "Word" in a Greek speaking church simply loses its meaning.
For example, Τὸν συνάναρχον Λόγον, I keep as "Let us worship the Logos" rather than the translation of "Let us worship the Word".

And translating idioms or sayings can be very tricky because a word for word translation may lose the entire meaning of the phrase. There is a hymn in the Greek funeral service known as the final kiss where the congregation comes to the casket and have their final moment.

One line normally reads
For he has departed from the bosom of his kin; and he hastens to burial,

However, I had grabbed a different translation and it read:
He/she is taken for burial, and lies six feet under, * dwelling in the darkness now, buried alongside the dead. *

Which to my sense "lies six feet under" was a "What did I just read" moment (you can imagine what I was really thinking).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Actually, as I think about it, I'd love to see a translation that leaves words that have some theological importance in the original language. Think of the passage of "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which is given it's own translation in the Gospels. It would be more of an editors choice, but for a student learning important lessons, it could be a handy guide.

 

[Davy]

Did you read your own quote? The TR is BASED on the Byzantine Majority only used a small handful of the manuscripts.

"Erasmus did not invent the Textus Receptus, but simply collated a collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition."

 

[GreekOrthodox]

"Erasmus did not invent the Textus Receptus, but simply collated a collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition."

Erasmus had maybe dozen Greek manuscripts to work with

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

"Second, assuming that the majority text is the original, then this pure form of text has become available only since 1982.18 The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places—and in fact has several readings that have “never been found in any known Greek manuscript,” and scores, perhaps hundreds, of readings that depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.19"

The biggest is Johannine Comma which only appears in Erasmus's TR and NOT in the Byzantine majority text.

"The problem is that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for this longer reading prior to around the 16th century. It seems to be a carryover from the Latin, where it was perhaps added as an interpolation. At any rate, whatever the origin of the reading, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a part of the Majority Text. This is a good example of a stark and significant difference between the TR and M-text." - Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus | carm.org

In fact, Luther's German translation does not include the Comma and he was using an early printing of the TR.

 

[Davy]

Erasmus had maybe dozen Greek manuscripts to work with

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

"Second, assuming that the majority text is the original, then this pure form of text has become available only since 1982.18 The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places—and in fact has several readings that have “never been found in any known Greek manuscript,” and scores, perhaps hundreds, of readings that depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.19"

The biggest is Johannine Comma which only appears in Erasmus's TR and NOT in the Byzantine majority text.

"The problem is that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for this longer reading prior to around the 16th century. It seems to be a carryover from the Latin, where it was perhaps added as an interpolation. At any rate, whatever the origin of the reading, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a part of the Majority Text. This is a good example of a stark and significant difference between the TR and M-text." - Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus | carm.org

In fact, Luther's German translation does not include the Comma and he was using an early printing of the TR.

I think it strange that you would deny the 'Majority Texts' is from over 5000 existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. That's why it's called the MAJORITY text, because it makes up the majority of 'known' Greek NT texts! And you're trying to establish that doesn't include the Byzantine texts?!? What foolishness you speak!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I think it strange that you would deny the 'Majority Texts' is from over 5000 existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. That's why it's called the MAJORITY text, because it makes up the majority of 'known' Greek NT texts! And you're trying to establish that doesn't include the Byzantine texts?!? What foolishness you speak!

They are collectively called the Byzantine Majority. Erasmus only had a dozen or so manuscripts to translate the Textus Receptus. My official text is the Greek 1904 Ecumenical Patriarchal edition which is based on church lectionaries and manuscripts used in Orthodox churches dating from the 9th to 16th century.
Greek New Testament - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

My apologies if we are talking past each other. I just have a real problem with people who think that the KJV is the only Scripture anyone should use.

 

[Joseph Rico]

I know that most people here will say KJV is their favourite translation, but what are some other good translations? I personally like NLT and the message(despite the controversy lol). Just wondering.

I want to encourage you to think about what criteria you use to decide which bible translation is better. KJV can be difficult to read for people who did not grow up with KJV language. NLT goes a long way to fixing that, and the people comfortable with KJV language will criticize the NLT.

So how do we decide? Language style is important but it is not the only criteria we should think about. If you are interested, you could read some books on how we got the bible

 

[Joseph Rico]

My favorite translation is the NET (2.1) It is carefully written in modern English ...

The NET translation is good, but I don't personally like it. It seems that it has been unrestrained in its "academic progressiveness". It is more willing to adopt more controversial translation options. This has pro's and con's.

For study I like it, but for personal daily reading im not a fan.