When translations are older...

[TCassidy]

Well, the wife and I are out celebrating our 15th anniversary, and stopped by a used book to kill some time before dinner.

Saw a copy of God's Secretaries for only a few bucks and snagged it. Any good?

Happy 15th!

Great book if you are interested in the History behind the KJV.

 

[Rob_BW]

Happy 15th!

Great book if you are interested in the History behind the KJV.

Thanks for the endorsement. I was trying to google up some reviews on my phone in the store, but my search results were heavily secular, not what I would call trustworthy.

 

[rsr]

Well, the wife and I are out celebrating our 15th anniversary, and stopped by a used book to kill some time before dinner.

Saw a copy of God's Secretaries for only a few bucks and snagged it. Any good?

A good read that explains the politics and the philosophy of the translation.

 

[Rob_BW]

A good read that explains the politics and the philosophy of the translation.

I've read Trevor Royle's history The Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and hope that this will serve as a sort of prequel.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.

Right in the sense that both are close enough to the original text to be considered to be accurate and the original text...

lets say one said Give thanks always to the lord Jesus christ, other said just Jesus Christ, think both mean same thing!

 

[Archie the Preacher]

How come when you want a 'reliable' translation in Greek, and say it is more accurate, you refer to 'the oldest' and be done with it - but when you go to English you go the more modern?

This is a rather oversimplified question, so I'll answer it in a simplified manner.

Generally, an 'older' manuscript is closer to the original. One can have a later copy which is errant; or a copy of a manuscript translated into another language (the Peshitta, for instance) from an 'older' manuscript which is correct. But one cannot have a copy of an 'errant' document which is somehow correct.

One looks to the current English version as more accurate, as the words are 'correct' in the modern or current meanings. For instance, some 'older' translations use the word 'meat' where the original word - in Hebrew or Greek - means 'food'. Another great misunderstanding is the Sixth (in the Talmud) Commandment. It is translated in 'older' translations as "Thou shalt not kill" causing no end of confusion about 'killing' in war or self-defense. "You will not commit murder" is a much more correct translation in current English.

Not to mention the English word 'gay' has undergone some alterations in meaning since the early 1960s. It just isn't the same any more.

Just for the record, the English language version(s) probably will need to be 're-translated' in another few years to address the changes in the English language between now and then.

I would further point out God protects His message. Minor changes in word order or spelling or such are not as problematic as changes in the actual message. However, either God takes care of His message, OR, He doesn't or He cannot. I find the latter concept rather futile.

... the oldest English translations, that are more reliable...

That is what is known as an opinion. By what standard are the 'oldest English translations' more reliable? More reliable than what or which 'newer' translations? Are they more reliable than the original texts?

That's why the modern translations don't match up with the older more reliable Bibles.

I think I get it. If the modern translation doesn't match up - to what extent? - to the older (claimed to be by Genevan Baptist) more reliable translation, then it is 'unreliable'?

Is the newer translation 'unreliable' if it doesn't match word for word, or if the meaning has been changed?

 

[TCassidy]

Right in the sense that both are close enough to the original text to be considered to be accurate and the original text...

So you don't want an accurate bible? Just a "close enough" bible?

lets say one said Give thanks always to the lord Jesus christ, other said just Jesus Christ, think both mean same thing!

Nobody is contesting that. But what about changing Son to God? "Only begotten Son" or "Only begotten God." Is making God a begotten being "close enough" for you?

 

[Yeshua1]

So you don't want an accurate bible? Just a "close enough" bible?


Nobody is contesting that. But what about changing Son to God? "Only begotten Son" or "Only begotten God." Is making God a begotten being "close enough" for you?

I would take either choice their, as jesus is THE unique Son of God, and is also God!
Esv/Nasb/Nkjv are all accurate versions to me!

 

[TCassidy]

I would take either choice their, as jesus is THE unique Son of God, and is also God!

So, which one is correct? Is God a created being? Was God "begotten?" If so, by whom? And who was God before God was begotten?

Esv/Nasb/Nkjv are all accurate versions to me!

Yes, we all know that. But "accurate" to what extent? Did Isaiah write both Isaiah and Jeremiah?

 

[Yeshua1]

So, which one is correct? Is God a created being? Was God "begotten?" If so, by whom? And who was God before God was begotten?

Yes, we all know that. But "accurate" to what extent? Did Isaiah write both Isaiah and Jeremiah?

Only Begorren means that whatever Jesus was/is , he is the same "stuff" as God was/is, not JW, a created being!

And all of those I listed are accurate enough to be the word of God to us in English now!

 

[Jerome]

when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe. So when you can't find an older Greek manuscript, look for more accurate Hebrew, Spanish, Cretian

Does anybody know anything about these 'Hebrew-Spanish-Cretian-earliest-copies-of-the-NT-spread-when-pentacost-occured' manuscripts being touted by GenevanBaptist?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Does anybody know anything about these 'Hebrew-Spanish-Cretian-earliest-copies-of-the-NT-spread-when-pentacost-occured' manuscripts being touted by GenevanBaptist?

Maybe you shoulda read this last part of my original post?

"It's not about the 'oldest Greek' - it's really about the more accurate way of 'more witnesses' to show that the Greek you use is accurate, regardless of its age."

As my words about Spanish and Cretian were just examples of other languages, I didn't actually think about whether their were such manuscripts in those particular languages.

Since there are some Greek manuscripts that are incomplete or lack some words or verses in them, the translators of the older English Bibles did look into other language manuscripts/scriptures to compare the text to the Greek to see what was missing or lacking.

Just read some title pages and prefaces and you will see phrases such as -

"Conferred diligently with the Greek, and best approved translations in diverse languages"

And in the KJV's 'to the reader', they stress the fact that they didn't refuse any other language manuscript or scriptures as source material for helping determining what scripture said for sure in English. (Page 10, par. 1)

The translators of the KJV said -

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch..."

They looked where they found accuracy.

 

[banana]

It's simple, the oldest English translations aren't based on the oldest manuscripts.

Scholars look at different languages if the manuscripts are older.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

It's simple, the oldest English translations aren't based on the oldest manuscripts.

Scholars look at different languages if the manuscripts are older.

Yes. But they did use the most complete manuscripts - and ones the faithful followers of our Lord used and recopied for centuries. Catholic monks are not the only ones who recopied manuscripts. And accuracy was much more important to a believer than a works oriented lost monk.

 

[rsr]

... But they did use the most complete manuscripts - and ones the faithful followers of our Lord used and recopied for centuries. Catholic monks are not the only ones who recopied manuscripts. And accuracy was much more important to a believer than a works oriented lost monk.

Please satisfy my curiosity. Who do you think were the "faithful followers of our Lord" who produced the manuscripts upon which Erasmus based his Greek text?

Since Erasmus relied primarily on Minuscule 2815 (produced by the Dominicans) and Minuscule 1 (also in the custody of the Dominicans), at what point were they transcribed by "faithful followers"? Did the Dominicans just happen to end up with the proper manuscripts?

 

[rsr]

Does anybody know anything about these 'Hebrew-Spanish-Cretian-earliest-copies-of-the-NT-spread-when-pentacost-occured' manuscripts being touted by GenevanBaptist?

It is common to refer to the ancient translations as witnesses, particularly the Syriac and Old Latin, although the surviving manuscripts are older than the Great Uncials in Greek.

(Correction: What I meant to say was the the surviving translations, generally speaking, are NO older than the Great Uncials in Greek.)

This gives cover for Erasmus' decision to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate verses missing from his manuscript of Revelation. As Edward F. Hills says:

The special providence of God is particularly evident in the fact that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin speaking Church of Western Europe.

 

[rsr]

Translators in previous centuries knew that the NT part of the word of God was penned in, possibly, the Greek originally. Yet they understood when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe.

Possibly in Greek? While there have been some theories that a few of the books were not in Greek originally, that has always been a minority opinion.

"Yet they understood when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe." is either metaphorical or hyperbolic because 1. There were no NT books at the time of Pentecost and 2. There was no need for dozens of different languages early on because Greek, Latin and Syrian sufficed for the vast majority of the Mideast and Europe. The Roman church, for example, used Greek until the third century.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please satisfy my curiosity. Who do you think were the "faithful followers of our Lord" who produced the manuscripts upon which Erasmus based his Greek text?

Since Erasmus relied primarily on Minuscule 2815 (produced by the Dominicans) and Minuscule 1 (also in the custody of the Dominicans), at what point were they transcribed by "faithful followers"? Did the Dominicans just happen to end up with the proper manuscripts?

Interesting that those holding to the superior Kjv base that upon text sources of the church of Rome, such as Greek text of Eramus and the Vulgate!

 

[Yeshua1]

Possibly in Greek? While there have been some theories that a few of the books were not in Greek originally, that has always been a minority opinion.

"Yet they understood when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe." is either metaphorical or hyperbolic because 1. There were no NT books at the time of Pentecost and 2. There was no need for dozens of different languages early on because Greek, Latin and Syrian sufficed for the vast majority of the Mideast and Europe. The Roman church, for example, used Greek until the third century.

ONLY one that I ever read about was that Matthew night have been penned in Aramaic originally?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. But they did use the most complete manuscripts - and ones the faithful followers of our Lord used and recopied for centuries. Catholic monks are not the only ones who recopied manuscripts. And accuracy was much more important to a believer than a works oriented lost monk.

Is that the main reason against Critical text, as the sources used were compiled/from Catholic monks