-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A better English Bible.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
The way the writers of Scripture used various ways to translate God’s word from one language to another implies that there are numerous ways to effectively communicate God’s message with authority.
The fact that colloquial translations as well as the frequent use of the Septuagint (which uses a variety of translation methods) was used effectively by NT authors suggests that even those translations were able to carry God’s message with authority.
No translation is perfect, yet a translation draws its authority from the original documents. Since we no longer have the original documents, God has deemed it fit to allow the transmission of his word to imperfect mankind.
Modern textual criticism attempts to recreate the original text; it is a imperfect science and there are debates about the paths that various forms take,
but despite the differences, the Church as a whole has not been left without an authoritative message from God. The differences do not rise to a point that separates the body from God’s message.
The choice of a translation is a personal choice.
But each translation edifies the body of Christ.
Any individual translation’s weakness is swallowed up in a proper communication of God’s word by the body of Christ to the world needing to hear God’s message.
Rob
The fact that colloquial translations as well as the frequent use of the Septuagint (which uses a variety of translation methods) was used effectively by NT authors suggests that even those translations were able to carry God’s message with authority.
No translation is perfect, yet a translation draws its authority from the original documents. Since we no longer have the original documents, God has deemed it fit to allow the transmission of his word to imperfect mankind.
Modern textual criticism attempts to recreate the original text; it is a imperfect science and there are debates about the paths that various forms take,
but despite the differences, the Church as a whole has not been left without an authoritative message from God. The differences do not rise to a point that separates the body from God’s message.
The choice of a translation is a personal choice.
But each translation edifies the body of Christ.
Any individual translation’s weakness is swallowed up in a proper communication of God’s word by the body of Christ to the world needing to hear God’s message.
Rob
37818
Well-Known Member
The problem are the choices of known variants which are not of God for the readings which we should accept. Case by case evidence.
These so called, “problems” have existed from the earliest of times without diminishing God’s witness to mankind.
One can argue about which translation is best or which one they think is authoritative but God has seemed able to use them all to edify his people.
Effective Bible study should employ a variety of translations.
Rob
One can argue about which translation is best or which one they think is authoritative but God has seemed able to use them all to edify his people.
Effective Bible study should employ a variety of translations.
Rob
37818
Well-Known Member
That is what is being done. Doesn't stop a need for an actual better English Bible.
And agreements needs to be found.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Write one, man.
No kidding.
Maybe, start with someone who knows a bunch about a bunch of languages
and yet, who always puts God First,
when seeking His Righteousness in His Message to Mankind, etc.
Last edited:
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Deacon has me on 'ignore', so something is 'racial', or 'prejudiced',
you know, 'just not politically correct', or something.
Dunno what exactly it is.
Anyway, then, my comments on his work
has something that isn't right about it, it seems to me.
And if that doesn't seem right, off Jump Street,
what is someone supposed to think if I make the suggestion
that, in light of his comment here, I believe
that God has EVERYTHING to DO
with what choice of translation we make and
NOTHING to DO with us ever thinking that
'The choice of a translation is a personal choice.'
And, where, oh where, is that 'edification'?
Has somebody learned anything?
What would that be?
I believe that to consent to there being NO ISSUE
'which translation is best or which one they think is authoritative'
would go more along the lines of
"God's Judgment has Fallen on Apostate Christianity",
concerning the overwhelming, vast majority of translations marketed today,
as "The Holy Bible", only as an afterthought and a marketing tool.
you know, 'just not politically correct', or something.
Dunno what exactly it is.
Anyway, then, my comments on his work
has something that isn't right about it, it seems to me.
And if that doesn't seem right, off Jump Street,
what is someone supposed to think if I make the suggestion
that, in light of his comment here, I believe
that God has EVERYTHING to DO
with what choice of translation we make and
NOTHING to DO with us ever thinking that
'The choice of a translation is a personal choice.'
And, where, oh where, is that 'edification'?
Has somebody learned anything?
What would that be?
I believe that to consent to there being NO ISSUE
'which translation is best or which one they think is authoritative'
would go more along the lines of
"God's Judgment has Fallen on Apostate Christianity",
concerning the overwhelming, vast majority of translations marketed today,
as "The Holy Bible", only as an afterthought and a marketing tool.
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version
https://www.amazon.com/Text-Critica...3b-96a5-54c4040d6cfb&pd_rd_i=B0BCD849S5&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Text-Critica...3b-96a5-54c4040d6cfb&pd_rd_i=B0BCD849S5&psc=1
So there are two issues that need to be differentiated in this thread (and I will restrict my post to discussing the New Testament).
1) The variety of translations based upon a similar Greek Text.
2) A difference in translations based upon a differing Greek Text.
Dealing with the first point, translations based upon a similar Greek text; the translators of the KJV in their Preface, respond to this point:
They note that generally people don’t like change. It jars us. It makes us uncomfortable. It means we have to adjust to something different.
Granted, it’s difficult to read a translation that differs from what we are used to. These are their words:
Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world.
It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.
The Introduction of the KJV Preface
It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.
The Introduction of the KJV Preface
Bible translations seek to best communicate God’s word (written in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic) to an audience.
Over time, translations must adapt to the changes that occur in everyday language.
Change, though difficult to adjust to, is good.
Recognise that the NKJV’s New Testament is now almost 50 years old.
The NKJV Preface notes:
…it is also universally understood that our language, like all living languages, has undergone profound change since 1611. Subsequent revisions of the King James Bible have sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech. The present work is a further step toward this objective. Where obsolescence and other reading difficulties exist, present-day vocabulary, punctuation, and grammar have been carefully integrated.
The translators of the KJV AND THE NKJV both understood that as a language changes, a translation needs to adapt in order to better communicate the message to their new audience.
Concerning point #2: Translations based upon a differing Greek Text.
I’d guess that you’ve chosen the NKJV primarily because it is the most popular of the Byzantine Greek text’s translation, …it’s a fair choice.
Recognise that by choosing to use a translation using the Byzantine text, you are in the minority.
Most scholars recommend an eclectic Greek NT text.
You, yourself have observed areas of concern in the Greek text. (See below)
Recognise that by recommending adjustments to the text on a “Case by case…” basis, you are forming an eclectic text.
That work has been happening for centuries.
Our modern translations are the result of those adjustments.
The current Critical Greek Text (Nestle-Aland 28) is a result of those adjustments. Its accompanying apparatus, while complex, it is a vital source of information, noting important variants that one might consider when studying a passage.
Rob
37818
Well-Known Member
A well thought out modern English New Testament. And well explained in its Introduction.
I bought the Kindle edition to decide which print edition, if either I would buy.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes, can and has resulted in most cases as an eclectic type text. Which by mere odds will most likely will the wrong.
I would like to clear up something... Those who have interacted with me know I am strict KJV... And KJV is a translation but what the don't know is the lineage... Its is a compilation of the word of God that went before... Tyndale, Geneva and those before taken from the Old Manuscripts are the word of God... King James gave strict orders that the Geneva not be in the KJV but the translators listened to God and not the King... The Geneva is part of the KJV, so is Tyndale a big part of the KJV... I've heard some say, well the KJV is not in proper English or it is archaic and out of date... My native language is English I have no problem reading it and if I do have a problem I have a concordance... A preacher I know, who was ordained at the age of 16, and went to met the Lord last year at the age of 80, never used one and let the KJV interpret itself... Isn't it interesting, that King James Version of the Bible had been translated into 760 languages... Now I'm not going to tell you to read the KJV because if you don't desire to, why would you?... But in my understanding reading, studying and quoting the KJV... The buck stops here!... Brother Glen
Tyndale1946
Most of us have no problem with whatever translation a person might use.
I have my preference, you have yours:
both of us are reading translations of God’s word.
One of the first New Testaments I purchased as a teenager, new believer, had four versions, side by side, KJV, Living, NASB, and NRSV.
It wasn’t hard (even as a youth) for me to recognize that translations can convey a similar message using different words.
In my Bible study group we had a wide variety of translations.
There was an older gent who used a KJV.
The leader used a NKJV.
The church recommended the NIV, and a few used that.
At that time I used an ESV.
An old college friend of mine, (a visiting missionary who served in France) used a French version, translating it on the fly when he needed to read out loud.
We all got along just nicely.
The variety of translations occasionally encouraged deeper discussions.
Rob
Most of us have no problem with whatever translation a person might use.
I have my preference, you have yours:
both of us are reading translations of God’s word.
One of the first New Testaments I purchased as a teenager, new believer, had four versions, side by side, KJV, Living, NASB, and NRSV.
It wasn’t hard (even as a youth) for me to recognize that translations can convey a similar message using different words.
In my Bible study group we had a wide variety of translations.
There was an older gent who used a KJV.
The leader used a NKJV.
The church recommended the NIV, and a few used that.
At that time I used an ESV.
An old college friend of mine, (a visiting missionary who served in France) used a French version, translating it on the fly when he needed to read out loud.
We all got along just nicely.
The variety of translations occasionally encouraged deeper discussions.
Rob
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
@tyndale1946,
Our KJV 1611 was primarily a revision of the Bishops Bible. Now Tyndale was the first to give us an English translation from New Testament Greek. Wycliffe gave us the English from the Latin.
Our KJV 1611 was primarily a revision of the Bishops Bible. Now Tyndale was the first to give us an English translation from New Testament Greek. Wycliffe gave us the English from the Latin.
37818
Well-Known Member
The variant readings noted [*] in the English translation are not on each page, but in the Appendix B.
And I agree but I still have this question... A preacher I know who is strict KJV but so are a lot of other preacher but him and other preachers who are strict KJV, have sent out a challenge every year... Him and other preachers were ready to defend the KJV... In all the years they have doing that, no response... WHY?... They say they can measure up to the KJV, then defend yours against it... After preaching for over 60 years, he left us and went to the Lord... The challenge, has since died out, lack of interest... I'm not a defender, I don't have the steel for it and I rarely come here... And us strict KJV's don't need to toot our own horn because our KJV movement is alive and well... Under the surface... Brother Glen
And I agree its not the KJV per say it's the lineage of it... Was every Bible before the KJV the word of God?... Someone would have to be blind if it wasn't... But God preserved it and gave it to the English speaking people... Is the KJV in English?... I rest my case... Brother Glen
37818
Well-Known Member
@tyndale1946,
The KJV uses the term "hell" to refer to three different places. That in itself is no big deal. But to disallow non KJV Bibles to use different words other than "hell" to describe the other two places is nonsense.
Do you understand what I am getting at? It cannot be the KJVonly use of the term "hell."
The KJV uses the term "hell" to refer to three different places. That in itself is no big deal. But to disallow non KJV Bibles to use different words other than "hell" to describe the other two places is nonsense.
Do you understand what I am getting at? It cannot be the KJVonly use of the term "hell."
Give me examples and I'll see if I can explain it to you... If hell is used in three different places there is a reason... If I can't discern it, I have many resources where I can find the interpretation to my satisfaction... If not we'll both be in dark... I very seldom concern myself with hell but I'm game... Brother Glen
Why? It’s a bit like asking your mother to prove which of their children they love the most.
Each and every version has strengths AND weaknesses.
Demonstrating the weaknesses of a certain version may be an exciting challenge but it can also weaken the faith of a brother who is struggling.
(Confession - I’ve been guilty of it).
Instead we should be sharing how, with our versions, we effectively communicate God’s word to those in desperate need.
(Guilty of abstinence)
Rob
- Status