Inconsistencies Regarding Posts Dealing With Bible Versions

[Rippon]

There used to be rules that were enforced concerning inflammatory language aimed at any Bible translation.
As posters we could inform mods of the violations and particular posters would have their comments flagged or removed. Those posters would also get a warning from a mod or administrator. But such rules are not being enforced now. Mods and Admins are asleep at the wheel.

A certain poster regularly says disparaging things about the HCSB and NIV and there is nary a word of rebuke.

Why should remarks like the following be allowed here regarding any Bible translation in the mainstream?

"a lously and corrupt translation"
"the deplorable"
"the ____is pervasively twisted from cover-to-cover."
"the ___ is often dumb for no appartent reason."
"There are many bad translations like the ___ and ___"
"the ___ is produced by people I don't trust."
"Same lousy ___."

What has happened to the standards that used to be held to before?

Put the shoe on the other foot. I have wake some of you up.
What if the following were said regarding these translations?

The KJV is a lousy and corrupt translation.

The deplorable NKJV.

The NASB is pervasively twisted from cover-to-cover.

The ESV is often dumb for no apparent reason.

There are many bad translations like the NASB and NKJV.

The ESV is produced by people I don't trust.

Same lousy KJV.

If those last seven lines offended you --then why weren't you offended when those sentiments were expressed regarding the NIV and HCSB? There is a clear double-standard that needs to be exposed.

 

[Jerome]

From the preface of Calvin and Beza's Bible de Geneve:

"Satan has found as many translators as there are frivolous and impudent minds; and he will probably find even more, unless God give them pause before it is too late. If the reader asks me for an example, let me refer to Sebastian Castellio's translation of the Bible. . . . We therefore regard it as a conscientious duty to break the silence we have hitherto kept, and to warn all Christians against this man, the chosen of Satan."

 

[Rippon]

John Calvin is not a poster on the Baptist Board J.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Some translations are lousy and corrupt that's why. Why are we so blind to think Satan won't corrupt Gods words?

 

[Smyth]

Some translations are lousy and corrupt that's why. Why are we so blind to think Satan won't corrupt Gods words?

There were a couple hundred English translations made in the 20th century and the pace of new translations is only increasing. The vast majority of them are so amateurish or corrupt (deliberate changes away from what the Bible teaches) that they are never known to the general public.

The HCSB is ambitious and backed by the largest protestant denomination, otherwise it would have been a relative unknown translation because it's lousy. But, it'll be forgotten anyway. Apparently, they're planning a "new translation" of the HCSB, the CSB. I hope they really do mean a new translation, rather than a simple revision, and aren't engaged in more incompetent abuse of the language the fills the pages of the HCSB.

 

[Yeshua1]

[Part of the problem though is when someone like myself makes legit concerns on your favorite version, get blasted back about the same!

 

[JonC]

There used to be rules that were enforced concerning inflammatory language aimed at any Bible translation.
As posters we could inform mods of the violations and particular posters would have their comments flagged or removed. Those posters would also get a warning from a mod or administrator. But such rules are not being enforced now. Mods and Admins are asleep at the wheel.

A certain poster regularly says disparaging things about the HCSB and NIV and there is nary a word of rebuke.

Why should remarks like the following be allowed here regarding any Bible translation in the mainstream?

"a lously and corrupt translation"
"the deplorable"
"the ____is pervasively twisted from cover-to-cover."
"the ___ is often dumb for no appartent reason."
"There are many bad translations like the ___ and ___"
"the ___ is produced by people I don't trust."
"Same lousy ___."

What has happened to the standards that used to be held to before?

Put the shoe on the other foot. I have wake some of you up.
What if the following were said regarding these translations?

The KJV is a lousy and corrupt translation.

The deplorable NKJV.

The NASB is pervasively twisted from cover-to-cover.

The ESV is often dumb for no apparent reason.

There are many bad translations like the NASB and NKJV.

The ESV is produced by people I don't trust.

Same lousy KJV.

If those last seven lines offended you --then why weren't you offended when those sentiments were expressed regarding the NIV and HCSB? There is a clear double-standard that needs to be exposed.

Perhaps they were too occupied dealing with such comments as"

“Your statement is utter foolishness”
“You speak as a foolish woman”
“Even more nonsense from your keystrokes”
“There is no warrant for your lying and hateful screeds”
"You are either super-stubborn or slow”
“You are making no sense”
“You are unhinged”
"You are constantly imbible in nonsense”
“You live in fantasy land”
“When will you ever say something at actually make [sic] sense?”
“You come up with the craziest things”

I noticed that those unchristian comments have been deleted (or addressed), so maybe the ones that concern you will be addressed shortly. I personally agree with you (I think that a member should be banned for disgracing the Word of God) I suppose the member who posted those idiotic insults should also be banned, but I guess time will tell. .

It is amazing that someone could speak so defensively when the Word of God is attacked while being so forward in attacking a child of God. Funny how we pick our battles.

Sometimes it seems the biggest offenders are the biggest complainers.

 

[Rippon]

Some translations are lousy and corrupt that's why.

Care to name which ones? And please be sure to give valid reason for your reckless charges.

Please note that when translations have different wordings than the KJV --that does not invalidate them.

 

[Deacon]

Perhaps they were too occupied with dealing with such comments as"

“Your statement is utter foolishness”
“You speak as a foolish woman”
“Even more nonsense from your keystrokes”
“There is no warrant for your lying and hateful screeds”
"You are either super-stubborn or slow”
“You are making no sense”
“You are unhinged”
"You are constantly imbible in nonsense”
“You live in fantasy land”
“When will you ever say something at actually make [sic] sense?”
“You come up with the craziest things”

I noticed that those unchristian comments have been deleted (or addressed), so maybe the ones that concern you will be addressed shortly. I personally agree with you (I think that a member should be banned for disgracing the Word of God) I suppose the member who posted those idiotic insults should also be banned, but I guess time will tell. .

It is amazing that someone could speak so defensively when the Word of God is attacked while being so forward in attacking a child of God. Funny how we pick our battles.

Sometimes it seems the biggest offenders are the biggest complainers.

I could "like" Jon's post.
I could "agree" with the post.
I could choose "funny"
I might choose "angry"

A poster that makes unwholesome comments reveals more about themselves than they realize.

Proverbs 17:28 — Even a fool who keeps silent shall be considered wise; he who closes his lips is intelligent.​

Rob

 

[Rippon]

There were a couple hundred English translations made in the 20th century and the pace of new translations is only increasing. The vast majority of them are so amateurish or corrupt (deliberate changes away from what the Bible teaches) that they are never known to the general public.

Care to identify any of them? You claim to have knowledge of them unlike the general public.

The HCSB is lousy.

More trash from your keystrokes.

Apparently, they're planning a "new translation" of the HCSB, the CSB. I hope they really do mean a new translation, rather than a simple revision

Why would you think it will be a brand new from-the-scratch project? Of course it will be a revision.

, and aren't engaged in more incompetent abuse of the language the fills the pages of the HCSB.

Boy, you sure have filled a niche here on the BB as the most rabid abuser of Bible translations.

 

[Rippon]

It is amazing that someone could speak so defensively when the Word of God is attacked while being so forward in attacking a child of God.

Would a child of God attack the Word of God?

 

[JonC]

I suppose the answer to your question would be the same as "would a child of God attack another child of God?" My answer is "only in ignorance or rebellion".

 

[Smyth]

Of course it will be a revision.

So, you're accusing the HCSB of incompetence and abuse of the English language in describing the CSB as a "new translation" rather than a "revision"? I agree.

The ESV is a new translation of the RSV. The NKJV is a new translation of the KJV. These translations are so different from their base that it's fair to call them new translations. The CSB could likewise be different enough from the HCSB to call it a new translation. And, Heaven knows, the HCSB needs to be left in the dust of history. If they want to salvage some of the novelty of the HCSB and use it as base for the CSB, fine.... but they repeatedly said it will be a new translation. They gave it a new name. Their press release speaks of the great diversity and breadth of the translators of the CSB.

 

[Rippon]

So, you're accusing the HCSB of incompetence and abuse of the English language in describing the CSB as a "new translation" rather than a "revision"?

It's an update --a revision. It's not a brand new translation.

The ESV is a new translation of the RSV.

No, it is a revision of the 1971 RSV. It is not a new translation.

The NKJV is a new translation of the KJV.

That might be fair to say.

The current NIV is a revision of both the 1984 edition and the TNIV. It is not accurate to say it is a new translation.

The KJV was a revision of English Bibles that came before it. It was not a brand new translation. It basically revised William Tyndale's work. Tyndale wasn't able to do a translation of all 66 books, but from the ones he was able to do --the KJV revisers merely altered it a little. Most of the time they should have left well enough alone.

 

[TCassidy]

The KJV was a revision of English Bibles that came before it. It was not a brand new translation. It basically revised William Tyndale's work.

No. The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, the "Authorized Version" which preceded the AV of 1611. Prior to the Bishops' Bible being the "Authorized Version" of the Church of England The Great Bible held that position. The Bishops' Bible, although being "authorized to be read in churches," was never very popular and most English speakers preferred the Geneva Bible. When King James was approached on April 5, 1603, on his way to London, by a delegation of Puritan ministers who met James, asking him to hear their grievances against the Church of England. James consented, and on January of 1604, four Puritans came to express their troubles at Hampton Court, in front of King James and over 50 Anglican (Church of England) officials. One by one each request was rejected, until the Puritan group's leader, John Rainolds said these famous words: "May your Majesty be pleased to direct that the Bible be now translated, [since] such versions as are extant [are] not answering to the original."

As James hated the Geneva Bible and its decidedly anti-Monarchy marginal notes, he agreed to a new translation much to Bishop Bancroft's ire. But as the King insisted Bancroft eventually agreed and the KJV was the result. The 3rd and final "Authorized Version."

The Church of England no longer authorizes any specific bible version. Their web site states:
While the Church of England authorises the Lectionary - what passages are to be read on which occasion - it does not authorize particular translations of the Bible. Nevertheless, among the criteria by which versions of Scripture are judged suitable for reading in church during the course of public worship are the following:

Faithfulness in translating the Hebrew or Greek
Resonance with the language of prayer used in the particular authorized service
Suitability for reading aloud in a public gathering
Use of familiar language in well-known quotations or figures of speech
Familiarity to the listener
Intelligibility to the listener
Appropriateness to the linguistic register of the particular congregation

 

[Rippon]

Quoting from Alister McGrath's book : In The Beginning :

"The fifteen rules by which their translation would be governed [Richard Bancroft's rules] specifically directed them to base themselves on earlier versions, especially the Bishop's Bible, but also taking into account others. Thus the fourteenth rule specified that. 'These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishop's Bible, Tindoll's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.' In that each successive translation drew upon those that preceded it, the earliest of the translations --that of William Tyndale --can thus be seen to have had a considerable effect on its successors." (p.176)