Why so many English versions of the Holy Bible?

[Call me Nic]

I recommend the Greek interlinear also. Even the KJV has some parts that are not as accurately translated as they could be due to the more complicated definitions of some of the Greek words. That with Strong’s concordance can really shed a lot of light. I’ve learned a lot more after studying the Greek texts.

Would you mind sharing some examples, brother? I would personally like to know.

 

[Albion]

Among the research I've done is translating over half the NT from the Greek, and I cannot begin to agree with you on this at all.

Two thoughts worth keeping in mind IMO:

The KJV is clearly the most elegant, beautiful, and uplifting of the translations. If somehow the KJV were to be effectively muscled aside, we would have translations that are lauded because they are readable. Readable! But what does "Peter, you're my guy. I'm counting on you. Everything will be OK" really have over the other translation of Matthew? Certainly this is an exaggeration--but not much of one!

Second, other religions -- the Jews, for instance -- teach their people, their children, what the difficult passages in their sacred literature mean. Why should we just throw in the towel and say, "it's too hard, so here's the simplified version for you"

Some churches spend enormous amounts of time and effort on their Sunday Schools and Bible Study groups and yet when it comes to the Bible (!), it is not worth the effort to tell the people what "that word" means.

 

[Albion]

Most English speakers don't read at a 12th grade level which would explain why you hear people saying that a lot. In the US for example the average person reads at the 7th grade level.

Not a problem. Remediation may be necessary in some cases.

However, the argument about Bible translations--and the decisions that congregations and denominations make--is always a "one size fits all" one.

It is not as though anyone is saying that the TEV or the Living Bible must be banned, you know.

 

[eleos1954]

Most languages have between 1-10 versions, with Spanish having around 20ish.

English has 60+ versions. While the majority of other languages will have less than 10 versions, some even less than 5.

It stuck out so I was curious why so many versions and is it neccessary? I can see it causing confusion to new believers.

I have only 2 versions. KJV and ESV. I used to use the NIV when I was brand new, then heard that it was just a commentary of the Bible, I wanted to get the actual word so I got the ESV instead. Then I wanted the original's so I switched the the KJV.

Not exclusively but largely due to Money - Many editions of the Bible are under copyright due to their unique edition or translation.

 

[Athanasius377]

What about the precision of the language of the Bible’s which use Jacobean? Thee, Thou, and Thy are different from You, Ye, Your. One is singular, and one is plural. And in many cases this determines the context of a passage which the contemporary translations fail to make known. That alone makes the KJV superior. The Hebrew and Greek make the distinction between singular and plural in the second person, so why don’t the modern versions?

Yes, there is the use of the of the informal plural pronouns that have basically been dropped and may cause confusion because of the lack of plural "Ye" in the nominative case. But no more confusion than that of use of "thine" in the Genitive and Possessive cases in the second person informal that cannot be differentiated but can in the second person plural formal using Your and yours. So one gains some precision and loses some either way. I don't see that it makes that much of a difference. What would and does make a difference is having a general editor that modern translation teams utilize to smooth out the translation by translating a word or name more consistently. A good example of this is the KJV insistence on using Hellenized names for the prophets such as Esaias instead of Isaiah for example. Keeping the names consistent would have a greater effect than using obsolete pronouns.

 

[Call me Nic]

Yes, there is the use of the of the informal plural pronouns that have basically been dropped and may cause confusion because of the lack of plural "Ye" in the nominative case. But no more confusion than that of use of "thine" in the Genitive and Possessive cases in the second person informal that cannot be differentiated but can in the second person plural formal using Your and yours. So one gains some precision and loses some either way. I don't see that it makes that much of a difference. What would and does make a difference is having a general editor that modern translation teams utilize to smooth out the translation by translating a word or name more consistently. A good example of this is the KJV insistence on using Hellenized names for the prophets such as Esaias instead of Isaiah for example. Keeping the names consistent would have a greater effect than using obsolete pronouns.

If the Greek manuscripts used the hellenized names, why wouldn’t the translators, though? The translators saw the Textus Receptus as God’s preserved word, and rightly so; therefore I imagine they thought it behooved them to stay as faithful to the manuscripts as possible. This is my personal speculation, but reading the notes from the translators and understanding their motivations leads me to that conclusion. It’s not as though the hellenized names cause confusion when one compares the OT quotations in the NT with the OT scriptures.

But let’s be honest: if the hellenized names issue is the biggest one found with the King James (as a matter of preference, that is), then it still doesn’t detract the authority of the translation, and the superiority of it in comparison to the obvious contradictions of the contemporary translations.

 

[timothyu]

The words of Jesus are the most important and regardless of translation, few follow them anyway, so does it? really matter? Can an accurate translation cause mankind to reverse their thinking?

 

[Athanasius377]

If the Greek manuscripts used the hellenized names, why wouldn’t the translators, though?

There were translation teams or companies not translators. That's the issue. There was a different team that translated the Gospels as opposed to Isaiah.

Textus Receptus

This didn't exist until 1633. If you are referring to the NT the translation teams used the first 5 editions of Erasmus's Greek NT, 1550 Stephanus and the edition Theodore Beza put out. They also consulted the Latin Vulgate as well as the Douay-Rheims NT. There is no TR that the translation teams would have access to.

But let’s be honest: if the hellenized names issue is the biggest one found with the King James (as a matter of preference, that is), then it still doesn’t detract the authority of the translation, and the superiority of it in comparison to the obvious contradictions of the contemporary translations.

I never said it was the biggest issue. It is one of many that I have with the translation. It comes down to consistency so the reader understands what is being said. The KJV is by no means a bad or even just an average translation. If you like it then use it. I am very familiar with the KJV and when I recite passages what comes out is KJV. But don't try and convince new christians that they have to use a translation that they have to then translate themselves just so they can hear God's word. And if you are going to use the authority issue be aware that is the identical argument Roman Catholics used to keep the scriptures locked up in a dead language (except for the educated) for close to a millenium. So I will ask you then, how the argument for KJV only any different?

and the superiority of it in comparison to the obvious contradictions of the contemporary translations

Show me one of these obvious contradictions using the Greek.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Would you mind sharing some examples, brother? I would personally like to know.

Exodus 20:4 the word “image” is translated from the Hebrew word pecel which is exclusively in reference to idols not images of likeness or resemblance. The words “or any” before the word “likeness” are not present in the Hebrew text.

Many verses use the term “God’s will” when actually the term should be God’s desire. 1 Timothy 2:4 is one example 2 Peter 3:9 uses the word “willing” personally I believe John 6:39 is another example because I don’t believe in eternal security. The words faith, believe, and repent are some other examples. The Greek words that are translated to these words actually have more to their definition than just believe, faith, and repent. These are just a few examples. I can’t go into more detail right now because I’m at work.

 

[Radagast]

why so many versions and is it neccessary?

A big part of it is that the English language changes so quickly.

I used to use the NIV when I was brand new, then heard that it was just a commentary of the Bible

Not true. The NIV is a good translation, in readable modern English.

I wanted to get the actual word so I got the ESV instead.

The ESV is probably the best translation.

Then I wanted the original's so I switched the the KJV.

The originals are in Hebrew and Greek. The ESV would be closer to the originals than the KJV.

The KJV is actually not a particularly good translation, although it's beloved by all those who grew up with it (including me).

 

[Radagast]

What about the precision of the language of the Bible’s which use Jacobean? Thee, Thou, and Thy are different from You, Ye, Your. One is singular, and one is plural. And in many cases this determines the context of a passage which the contemporary translations fail to make known. That alone makes the KJV superior.

Modern versions make the singular/plural "you" difference clear by:

• typesetting (one version uses "y o u" for plural), or
• translating in such a way that it's clear what's intended, or
• adding a footnote

 

[Radagast]

Not exclusively but largely due to Money - Many editions of the Bible are under copyright due to their unique edition or translation.

This is simply not true.

Most modern translations are produced by nonprofit companies. For example:

• NIV: Biblica, formerly called the International Bible Society
• ESV: Good News Publishers/Crossway Books
• CSB: B&H Publishing Group/LifeWay Christian Resources, the publishing division of the Southern Baptist Convention

 

[Athanasius377]

Modern versions make the singular/plural "you" difference clear by:

• typesetting (one version uses "y o u" for plural), or
• translating in such a way that it's clear what's intended, or
• adding a footnote

Exactly. This is a better answer then the one I offered.

 

[timothyu]

"My dad's bible can beat up your dad's bible." Kids!

 

[eleos1954]

This is simply not true.

Most modern translations are produced by nonprofit companies. For example:

• NIV: Biblica, formerly called the International Bible Society
• ESV: Good News Publishers/Crossway Books
• CSB: B&H Publishing Group/LifeWay Christian Resources, the publishing division of the Southern Baptist Convention

There's articles about copyrights etc. bible versions, how they differ ... if you're interested you can do your own research.

Regardless I think a very good idea to compare translations. Also, checking the greek and hebrew lexicons as those languages have a lot more depth and meaning than the english language and I've found some rather surprising things in that regard .... lots of good study tools at biblehub.com

 

[Radagast]

There's articles about copyrights etc. bible versions, how they differ

And many articles that one finds online turn out to be full of blatant lies.

The three organisations I listed are the actual publishers of the NIV, ESV, and CSB.

And one function of copyright is to prevent unauthorised changes to translations. That's not a bad thing.

Regardless I think a very good idea to compare translations.

Indeed it is.

Also, checking the greek and hebrew lexicons as those languages have a lot more depth and meaning than the english language and I've found some rather surprising things in that regard .... lots of good study tools at biblehub.com

I read Koine Greek, actually. When I say that the ESV is the best translation, that's from comparing the ESV to the Greek.

You are coming across as a little patronising.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A big part of it is that the English language changes so quickly.



Not true. The NIV is a good translation, in readable modern English.



The ESV is probably the best translation.



The originals are in Hebrew and Greek. The ESV would be closer to the originals than the KJV.

The KJV is actually not a particularly good translation, although it's beloved by all those who grew up with it (including me).

I used to think the ASV was a good translation until I ran across a website point out so many passages that are omitted in the ASV. I hadn’t realized this before so lately I’ve been bouncing around NASB, KJV, ESV, and Greek Interlinear. Usually confirming everything with the Greek tho. I need to find something like a Hebrew Interlinear so far I haven’t been able to. I’d love to find something close to the Greek Interlinear app I have on my phone. It’s been very helpful but my Hebrew resources are pretty limited right now

 

[Radagast]

Readable! But what does "Peter, you're my guy. I'm counting on you. Everything will be OK" really have over the other translation of Matthew?

I don't believe that even the loosest paraphrase has that.

Not even the late Reverend Eugene Peterson.

Second, other religions -- the Jews, for instance -- teach their people, their children, what the difficult passages in their sacred literature mean.

Other religions teach their children to read "sacred literature" in the original languages, like Hebrew and Arabic. What you're giving is an argument to teach all Christian children Koine Greek.... which has some point to it.

 

[Radagast]

I used to think the ASV was a good translation until I ran across a website point out so many passages that are omitted in the ASV.

It would be more accurate to say that the KJV (or rather, the texts that it's based on) adds passages that were not originally there (usually by accidentally copying a few words from somewhere else in the Bible).

 

[Radagast]

Modern versions make the singular/plural "you" difference clear by:

• typesetting (one version uses "y o u" for plural), or
• translating in such a way that it's clear what's intended, or
• adding a footnote

And I'm waiting for the Southern Baptists to bite the bullet and just translate the plural "you" as "y'all."

Maybe in a few more decades...