I am a KJVOs

[Jordan Kurecki]

I agree with you on the source texts, as you know. But this is a kind of general statement that would be hard to prove. The CSB, NASB, and ESV are not done with dynamic/functional equivalence. (I have read through all three.) My objections to those versions are based on the source texts, not the translation method.

I'm glad you are not using the term "abomination" for any translation. That would indicate that somehow the power of God's Word can be squelched. That would mean that any missionary translation into a non-English language would be ineffective. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that any translation of God's Word, no matter how clumsy or poor, has squelched the power of God. Example: suppose in the pulpit you badly misquote John 3:16 in your salvation sermon. Does that mean then that no one can get saved through your message? Has John 3:16 then been "corrupted"? I'm sure you don't believe that.

I was once at a translation conference (I was not a speaker) where in the Q & A the question of a perfect translation came up. One leader shared the testimony that he was raised believing in a perfect translation, but the first time he sat down with Bible translators into another language, and watched their very hard work and difficult discussion about how to translate a passage, he abandoned that view. In my experience, those who hold to a perfect translation have almost never participated in a missionary translation, and indeed are ignorant of the process.

Yes, however I have found places in the ESV where they did not translate formally.
See 1 Tim 4:7 for an example.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, however I have found places in the ESV where they did not translate formally.
See 1 Tim 4:7 for an example.

I see your point in that verse, and agree. I would suggest that the individual translator who rendered it that way is to blame rather than the "essentially literal" translation philosophy they used. Have you read their book, Translating Truth? It's a good read for a Bible translator, even if we disagree with the ESV source texts.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I see your point in that verse, and agree. I would suggest that the individual translator who rendered it that way is to blame rather than the "essentially literal" translation philosophy they used. Have you read their book, Translating Truth? It's a good read for a Bible translator, even if we disagree with the ESV source texts.

I don’t disagree with their philosophy, I have skimmed one of Leland Ryken’s books on bible translation, it seemed to be good. But like you pointed out, it does not seem like the ESV Translators followed their own philosophy and I am disappointed by that. The Modern English Version has some of the same type of problems.

 

[Yeshua1]

So I suppose you're against the Bible being translated into a great many languages that help bring people from all over the world to God? Would you enroll them in English courses and not only that but of a Shakespeare kind in order to start their discipleship? God actually gave multiple languages to begin with! Genesis 11 Perhaps God was wrong to do such according to you? With all due respect my friend reconsider your position.

Was the Latin Vulgate also word of God, Geneva?

 

[Yeshua1]

yes, it WAS called a "version." the original was & is called the AV 1611" - Authorized VERSION of 1611.

Even the Kjv translators recognized Tyndale and Geneva Bibles as being the word of God in English!

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not? I mean what possible concern could you have that you would need "thee" or "thou" and not YOU? You want precision and accuracy? Jesus didn't speak "thee" or "thou" σύ, σοῦ, σοί, σέ is the word used. It means YOU. Here's the thing to not switch over don't you consider that you're setting up unnecessary roadblocks that can offend the contemporary reader. If you insist upon a "thee" and "thou" translation the current reader will throw it aside and make the claim they can't understand it. If God is only going to provide his documents in what they'd consider gibberish you're increasing the chance they'll say forget it. Not true?

I don't think the originals had thees and thous in them though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thus the NKJV

Except that the KJVO look upon the Nkjv as being another "satanic" version!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you on the source texts, as you know. But this is a kind of general statement that would be hard to prove. The CSB, NASB, and ESV are not done with dynamic/functional equivalence. (I have read through all three.) My objections to those versions are based on the source texts, not the translation method.

I'm glad you are not using the term "abomination" for any translation. That would indicate that somehow the power of God's Word can be squelched. That would mean that any missionary translation into a non-English language would be ineffective. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that any translation of God's Word, no matter how clumsy or poor, has squelched the power of God. Example: suppose in the pulpit you badly misquote John 3:16 in your salvation sermon. Does that mean then that no one can get saved through your message? Has John 3:16 then been "corrupted"? I'm sure you don't believe that.

I was once at a translation conference (I was not a speaker) where in the Q & A the question of a perfect translation came up. One leader shared the testimony that he was raised believing in a perfect translation, but the first time he sat down with Bible translators into another language, and watched their very hard work and difficult discussion about how to translate a passage, he abandoned that view. In my experience, those who hold to a perfect translation have almost never participated in a missionary translation, and indeed are ignorant of the process.

Would you see those 3 versions you mentioned,ones using critical texts, as being solid translations?

 

[John of Japan]

I don't think the originals had thees and thous in them though!

No, they had the Greek singular and plural pronouns, which modern English does not have.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I don't think the originals had thees and thous in them though!

the Greek and Hebrew definately have a distinction for 2nd person singular vs plural.

 

[John of Japan]

I don’t disagree with their philosophy, I have skimmed one of Leland Ryken’s books on bible translation, it seemed to be good. But like you pointed out, it does not seem like the ESV Translators followed their own philosophy and I am disappointed by that. The Modern English Version has some of the same type of problems.

I think in general the ESV translators did follow their philosophy, but since it was a large effort with many translators, it would have been very difficult to insure that every translator in every passage stayed true. Believe me, when you come to a difficult passage, it's easy to try and simplify it--something I oppose.

I lead a relatively small team, but to keep in my head all of the renderings and how we did certain words is very difficult. I recently discovered that we had several slightly different ways to say "son of God," and two different ways to say "John the Baptist."

What I've wondered, though, is why the ESV folk decided we needed another modern English translation when there are still 1000s of languages with no portion of the Bible. And I'm positive you'll agree with me on that one!

 

[John of Japan]

Would you see those 3 versions you mentioned,ones using critical texts, as being solid translations?

Pretty solid, but not needed and from the wrong source texts.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think in general the ESV translators did follow their philosophy, but since it was a large effort with many translators, it would have been very difficult to insure that every translator in every passage stayed true. Believe me, when you come to a difficult passage, it's easy to try and simplify it--something I oppose.

I lead a relatively small team, but to keep in my head all of the renderings and how we did certain words is very difficult. I recently discovered that we had several slightly different ways to say "son of God," and two different ways to say "John the Baptist."

What I've wondered, though, is why the ESV folk decided we needed another modern English translation when there are still 1000s of languages with no portion of the Bible. And I'm positive you'll agree with me on that one!

Probably die to them seeing how successful business wise the Niv has shown to be for Zondervan and whoever owns them now!

 

[Yeshua1]

Pretty solid, but not needed and from the wrong source texts.

that is fine, as I still see the Kjv/Nkjv as being good translations, just from "inferior sources"

 

[Yeshua1]

the Greek and Hebrew definately have a distinction for 2nd person singular vs plural.

Do you see the TR behind the Kjv as being a perfect Greek text?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Do you see the TR behind the Kjv as being a perfect Greek text?

At the very least I see the TR as far superior to the critical text. Sorry but I dont trust people like Bruce Metzger, Kurt and Barbara Aland, or Eberhard Nestle to decide what the accurate and best readings are of the New Testament considering that they are heretics and apostates. For example Metzger questions that Peter even wrote the epistles that bear his Name

“KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33). “

Kurt Aland also doubted the canonicity of several New Testament Books.

Not the kind of guy I want editing the Greek text behind my bible translation.

See page 5 and following of this link http://www.bibelgriechisch.info/Aland.pdf
Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)

“Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (nearly 30 different editions now), rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.”

Kurt and Barbara Aland

“Partner with Eberhard Nestle (above), he and his wife are also contributors the UBS. Aland does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, and that the Old Testament and the gospels are full of myths that were not inspired by God but merely a naturalistic process. Kurt Aland does not believe that the canon of Scripture is complete or settled.”

The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White


The people behind modern textual criticism are largely apostate heretics and the evangelicals involved are piggy backing off of unbelieving scholarship.

Textual Criticism Drawn From the Wells of Infidelity

The NASB you use is translated from the Nestle Aland text.

 

[Yeshua1]

At the very least I see the TR as far superior to the critical text. Sorry but I dont trust people like Bruce Metzger, Kurt and Barbara Aland, or Eberhard Nestle to decide what the accurate and best readings are of the New Testament considering that they are heretics and apostates. For example Metzger questions that Peter even wrote the epistles that bear his Name

“KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33). “

Kurt Aland also doubted the canonicity of several New Testament Books.

Not the kind of guy I want editing the Greek text behind my bible translation.

See page 5 and following of this link http://www.bibelgriechisch.info/Aland.pdf
Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)

“Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (nearly 30 different editions now), rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.”

Kurt and Barbara Aland

“Partner with Eberhard Nestle (above), he and his wife are also contributors the UBS. Aland does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, and that the Old Testament and the gospels are full of myths that were not inspired by God but merely a naturalistic process. Kurt Aland does not believe that the canon of Scripture is complete or settled.”

The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White


The people behind modern textual criticism are largely apostate heretics and the evangelicals involved are piggy backing off of unbelieving scholarship.

Textual Criticism Drawn From the Wells of Infidelity

The NASB you use is translated from the Nestle Aland text.

So all of the translation team members on the nas/Esv/Niv were those holding to apostate doctrines?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So all of the translation team members on the nas/Esv/Niv were those holding to apostate doctrines?

You obviously do not understand the point I am making.
The text underlying those translation has been produced by apostate heretics..I am not necessarily talking about the Translators, (though I’m sure the NIV had some on their translation team)

The point is, you are using a bible that has been translated from a Greek text that has been edited and changed by blatant apostate heretics and you think that text is somehow superior to the texts traditionally used by bible believers.

 

[rsr]

The NKJV has a completely different textual basis for the Old Testament than the KJV, and it also departs from the TR in the NT, and there are a lot of translational choices in both the OT and NT that are poor. The NKJV fails to be an adequate update/revision of the KJV.

NKJV Word Changes

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvdepartsfromtr.htm

I know Will loves to ride that hobby horse, but it's not accurate. He believes that every translational choice reflects a different underlying text, but it doesn't.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I know Will loves to ride that hobby horse, but it's not accurate. He believes that every translational choice reflects a different underlying text, but it doesn't.

It is a matter of fact for sure that Old Testament does not follow the Masoretic text, these difference I have seen in my own past studies.