Do you compare new versions with other versions?

[Paul1611]

I have noticed in the majority of reading that I do whether it be in commentaries, bulletins, internet, or what ever, that the majority of authors will compare their version to the KJV but not to other versions. Why is this? I dont think I have ever read a book where the author says now the NASV has made a mistake here and it is translated properly in the NIV or the NIV has made an error here but the ESV has corrected it. Why is it that many authors make it a point to point out mistakes or errors in a KJV but will not in the NIV, NASV, ESV and so on. For instance, I was reading a commentary on the book of I John not too long ago and the author spent a paragraph talking about the mistranslation of a number of words in the bok of I John, and he only mentioned the KJV, but when I looked in the ASV and RV it had the same words, yet the author didnt mention that that the ASV and RV had the same "error". Just find it a little strange.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is a Catholic conspiracy against the KJV. Everybody knows that.










:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Which specific commentaries would you be referring to?:godisgood:

 

[Keith M]

It is a Catholic conspiracy against the KJV. Everybody knows that.










:smilewinkgrin:

Neanderthals, Martians and little green men from Alpha Centauri are in on it too!

 

[mcdirector]

Do you compare new versions with other versions?

I don't do that when I read the NASB. I just read it.

 

[mcdirector]

Neanderthals, Martians and little green men from Alpha Centauri are in on it too!

**snicker**

 

[StefanM]

It's because of the traditional prominence of the KJV. I've seen commentaries reject readings in modern versions, too, whenever warranted.

 

[go2church]

You need to broaden you reading horizons, it happens all the time. Also of note most commentaries are based on one particular version for obvious reasons and so they correct accordingly. Why would a commentator correct the ESV if the work they are doing is based on the NIV?

 

[Askjo]

I have noticed in the majority of reading that I do whether it be in commentaries, bulletins, internet, or what ever, that the majority of authors will compare their version to the KJV but not to other versions. Why is this? I dont think I have ever read a book where the author says now the NASV has made a mistake here and it is translated properly in the NIV or the NIV has made an error here but the ESV has corrected it. Why is it that many authors make it a point to point out mistakes or errors in a KJV but will not in the NIV, NASV, ESV and so on. For instance, I was reading a commentary on the book of I John not too long ago and the author spent a paragraph talking about the mistranslation of a number of words in the bok of I John, and he only mentioned the KJV, but when I looked in the ASV and RV it had the same words, yet the author didnt mention that that the ASV and RV had the same "error". Just find it a little strange.

See bold above. I noticed that, too. They said "mistranslation" or "manuscript evidences lack," etc.

 

[TCGreek]

It's because of the traditional prominence of the KJV. I've seen commentaries reject readings in modern versions, too, whenever warranted.

1. I have seen commentators who favor the Alexandrian text type go for the longer reading in Acts 19: 9-10, "But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus, fromt he fifth hour to the tenth."

2. Following the Western text, which follows a 6th-7th MS reading at Acts 19:9.

 

[Salamander]

I have always heard it was an all out attack on the word of God.

 

[robycop3]

I have always heard it was an all out attack on the word of God.

Yes, Onlyism is.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Ahh, the usual headache of the version discussion. To answer the thread title, I don't compare new versions with other versions, I stick to one.

 

[PastorFaulk]

Tradition or sience

Most of the newer translations NASB, NIV ect. are based on older manuscripts, where the KJV, ESV ect are translated from the Authorized manuscripts. I guess it is a matter of church history whether you trust synods and councils or trust modern scolarship. I personally use NASB, but ocasionally read along with the ESV.

Edit for clarification....

The KJV and friends are the authorized manuscripts.

 

[TCGreek]

Most of the newer translations NASB, NIV ect. are based on older manuscripts, where the KJV, ESV ect are translated from the Authorized manuscripts. I guess it is a matter of church history whether you trust synods and councils or trust modern scolarship. I personally use NASB, but ocasionally read along with the ESV.

Edit for clarification....

The KJV and friends are the authorized manuscripts.

1. Aren't the NASB and ESV and NIV to an extent, from the same MSS?

2. How can the ESV and KJV be from the same MSS and differ so much?

3. Doesn't the ESV resemble the NASB more than the KJV?

4. What do you mean by authorize manuscripts?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Most of the newer translations NASB, NIV ect. are based on older manuscripts, where the KJV, ESV ect are translated from the Authorized manuscripts.

From www.esv.org

"The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland."

No translational scholar here, but I don't think the KJV New Testament was translated from the same Greek textual body.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have noticed in the majority of reading that I do whether it be in commentaries, bulletins, internet, or what ever, that the majority of authors will compare their version to the KJV but not to other versions. Why is this? I dont think I have ever read a book where the author says now the NASV has made a mistake here and it is translated properly in the NIV or the NIV has made an error here but the ESV has corrected it. Why is it that many authors make it a point to point out mistakes or errors in a KJV but will not in the NIV, NASV, ESV and so on. For instance, I was reading a commentary on the book of I John not too long ago and the author spent a paragraph talking about the mistranslation of a number of words in the bok of I John, and he only mentioned the KJV, but when I looked in the ASV and RV it had the same words, yet the author didnt mention that that the ASV and RV had the same "error". Just find it a little strange.

I am not a Hebrew/Greek scholar so my choice of version is based on the manuscript body and translational philosophy, not on comparing English translations.

 

[Psalm 95]

I have noticed in the majority of reading that I do whether it be in commentaries, bulletins, internet, or what ever, that the majority of authors will compare their version to the KJV but not to other versions. Why is this? I dont think I have ever read a book where the author says now the NASV has made a mistake here and it is translated properly in the NIV or the NIV has made an error here but the ESV has corrected it. Why is it that many authors make it a point to point out mistakes or errors in a KJV but will not in the NIV, NASV, ESV and so on. For instance, I was reading a commentary on the book of I John not too long ago and the author spent a paragraph talking about the mistranslation of a number of words in the bok of I John, and he only mentioned the KJV, but when I looked in the ASV and RV it had the same words, yet the author didnt mention that that the ASV and RV had the same "error". Just find it a little strange.

For my own study I compare newer translations, there are interesting differenses between never translations I see that I get more out of the text by compareing several translations.

 

[RevGKG]

For my own study I compare newer translations, there are interesting differenses between never translations I see that I get more out of the text by compareing several translations.

I have made it a habit to immerse myself in a passage by reading it at least 50 times before I begin studying and then eventually teach. It is very helpful to me to use 5 different translation during the immersion/reading phase. Helps me to really absorb and understand the passage before I open any commentaries.

 

[thomas15]

I would like to know the answer to this one also...

1. Aren't the NASB and ESV and NIV to an extent, from the same MSS?

2. How can the ESV and KJV be from the same MSS and differ so much?

3. Doesn't the ESV resemble the NASB more than the KJV?

4. What do you mean by authorize manuscripts?

Good questions.