More accurate?

[Amy.G]

This is a question I've asked before, but never gotten an answer to that I'm aware of. Maybe I missed it, so here it is again.

People are always saying "this or that version translates this or that word or verse more accurately". More accurately than what? Other versions?

How does one know if something is translated more accurately in one version than another?

 

[Crabtownboy]

How does one know if something is translated more accurately in one version than another?

Most of us do not know. We rely on 'experts' to tell us.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You study. There are plenty of study helps out there. Men who have spent the majority of their lives studying the original languages so they can give us insights into the depth of the Scriptures have written volumes about the subject.

We are blessed to have such resources. Sad to say that many Christians never plumb the depths of the Word, but rather are content with the milk.

I make a habit of reading the Bible through from cover to cover in a different translation each year. It makes reading the Bible an adventure for me and forces me to examine why translators make choices of different words.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What's wrong with relying on experts when it comes to God's Word? We have no problem relying upon them for everything else in life that we do not understand.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... How does one know if something is translated more accurately in one version than another?

Good question, even if it was answered before. I will be interested in what other will post after this, but I will make two points --

First, there are clearly translations that are objectively inaccurate. Some intentionally so. But this can also seem subjective.

Second, later versions might take advantage of more recent scholarship, drawn from sources in any number of disciplines.

 

[Salty]

How does one know if something is translated more accurately in one version than another?

You must also consider the literal translation as well.

For example in German the appliance you put milk and other food in is "der Kuehlschrank" a literal translation would be "chilly cabinet" In America, we would call that a refrigerator. So which term would you use?

 

[Amy.G]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. For the "regular" person, such as myself, how do I know that my version is more or less accurate than your version? I am certainly no expert, so when I'm reading my NASB or KJV or whatever, how can I know that what I'm reading is as "accurate" as what someone else is reading in their ESV or NIV?

 

[pilgrim2009]

On Westcott and Hort.

In the last half of the nineteenth century,these two british scholars and textual critics by the names of B.F.Westcott and F.J.A.Hort eagerly set out to produce a new Greek text of the New Testament.Their work would be based almost entirely upon Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) with Vaticanus being their predominant source.

From the extensive work of these two textual critics came the popularization of the modern critical text.Their work was completed in England in 1881.However these two textual scientist were in fact apostates.Some recent Fundamentalist in America have vociferously denied that.

Nevertheless there is definitive evidence to document their liberal theology.
Westcott and Hort never once announced a belief in verbal inspiration of the Scriptures in their voluminous writings.As subtle Liberals of the day they used theological terminology which sounded orthodox.However the private correspondence and ancillary writings of these men will document them as classical theological Modernist.Westcott and Hort did not believe in verbal inspiration of inerrancy.

They did not believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.They were apostate and Liberal yet are the very men who are responcible for the abundance of modern day bible versions and they are the very fountainhead of the modern critical text from whence it has sprung.

When crossing the divide into the twentieth century those who continued work on the critical text were by no means Fundamentalist either.Such text critics as Kurt Aland-Eberhard Nestle-and Bruce Metzer were all theological Liberals in one degree or another.Further-more Carlo Martini who also was one of the primary editors of the United Bible Societies Greek Text is a Roman Catholic cardinal.The United Bible Societies organization has been connected with apostasy - cooperation with the Vatican and the World Council of Churches from its beginning in 1946.The UBS is the primary publisher of the critical Text of the Greek New Testament today.

From that critical text comes most modern day Bible translations.The critical text as a popular etity has existed only about 138 years.From its inception it has been a synthetic text created by collating together numerous and often disparate Greek manuscripts.

(Note)It certainly is not the text of the New Tetament used by the Church of Jesus Christ prior to the twentieth century.Tyndale-Luther-Calvin and Knox did not use it.

Also I find when reading the quotes from the Scriptures of the early Church Fathers of the first 300 years translated into english there quotes translated into english match the reading of the KJV Bible in english.

The KJV is the Word of God in one book.When I read it I dont find a number with the verse missing and putting it into the foot note.If I am a cult member by believing God so-be-it.

God bless you all.

In Jesus.

Steven.

 

[Rippon]

On Westcott and Hort.


From the extensive work of these two textual critics came the popularization of the modern critical text.Their work was completed in England in 1881.However these two textual scientist were in fact apostates.

You are being totally irresponsible with your slanderous remarks. A retraction must be made.

 

[robycop3]

Pilgrim2009: The KJV is the Word of God in one book.

So is every other valid version.

When I read it I dont find a number with the verse missing and putting it into the foot note.If I am a cult member by believing God so-be-it.

I dunno if you're a cult member or not; that's not germane to this discussion. But if you believe the KJVO doctrine, you DO believe something that is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, a TOTALLY FALSE, TOTALLY-MAN-MADE DOCTRINE.

Now, who's the SOURCE of all doctrines of worship not found in God's word?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

The "Accuracy" question...

I'd say "More accurate than another version". For example, in Acts 12:4, "Passover" in the NKJV is more accurate than "Easter" in the KJV. And the NKJV's "the love of money is *A* root of *ALL KINDS* of evil" is more accurate than the KJV's "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil."

 

[pilgrim2009]

You are being totally irresponsible with your slanderous remarks. A retraction must be made.

Retract the truth?

You really need to read some of the writings and letters from the above mentioned men and you will see they were Liberal and Apostate.

Westcott and Hort from their own mouths.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/westcott_and_hort_exposed.htm

Steven.

 

[Amy.G]

The "Accuracy" question...

I'd say "More accurate than another version". For example, in Acts 12:4, "Passover" in the NKJV is more accurate than "Easter" in the KJV. And the NKJV's "the love of money is *A* root of *ALL KINDS* of evil" is more accurate than the KJV's "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil."
[/B]

So basically we decide what is more accurate based on nothing more than what we think?

What about the verse brought up in another thread?

KJV - Zec 13:6 -
And [one] shall say unto him, What [are] these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [Those] with which I was wounded [in] the house of my friends.

NKJV - Zec 13:6 -
And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?'* Then he will answer, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'
Footnote:
* Or hands

NLT - Zec 13:6 -
And if someone asks, `Then what are those scars on your chest*?' he will say, `I was wounded at the home of friends!'
Footnote:
* Or scars between your hands.

NIV - Zec 13:6 -
If someone asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your body*?’ he will answer, ‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.’
Footnote:
* Or wounds between your hands

ESV - Zec 13:6 -
“And if one asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your back?’* he will say, ‘The wounds I received in the house of my friends.’
Footnote:
* Or on your chest; Hebrew wounds between your hands


In these versions we've got wounds in your hands, wounds between your arms, scars on your chest, wounds on your body and wounds on your back. They are all different. Which one is more accurate and how is the average Christian who has no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew supposed to know? In fact, he probably doesn't even know he should be asking the question.

 

[preachinjesus]

People are always saying "this or that version translates this or that word or verse more accurately". More accurately than what? Other versions?

I've always suggested that there is no possibility for a literal translation of the Bible into English. If for no other reason than you are moving the text from an inflected language to a non-inflected language.

How does one know if something is translated more accurately in one version than another?

lol...learn Greek, learn Hebrew, learn Aramiac. Otherwise you're just taking someone else's word for it. :smilewinkgrin:

Honestly, I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If I might suggest a really good book, check out: How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth (here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310278767/?tag=baptis04-20 )

Also, read good commentaries. Really good commentaries. Just a few suggestions.

to add: One thing to remember is that the authors of Scripture didn't write in verse format. They wrote in a diversity of genres and formats. Maybe we should remember this in understanding formats and how to read them.

 

[TC]

So basically we decide what is more accurate based on nothing more than what we think?

Or, he may have studied the issue and came to the conclusion that the NKJV better represents what the manuscripts in the original languages say.

What about the verse brought up in another thread?

Zec 13:6 (cut for brevity)

In these versions we've got wounds in your hands, wounds between your arms, scars on your chest, wounds on your body and wounds on your back. They are all different. Which one is more accurate and how is the average Christian who has no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew supposed to know? In fact, he probably doesn't even know he should be asking the question.

There are many resources on the Net for studying the original languages that the Bible was written in. It will take a lot of work on your part. The only other choice I can see is to pick the scholars that you like best and stick with the translation they put out.

 

[Rippon]

The only other choice I can see is to pick the scholars that you like best and stick with the translation they put out.

But a number of scholars who you may highly respect might have worked on several different versions.

 

[TC]

True, but that does not help Amy answer the question of how to decide what the most accurate translation is. The only way to do that is to take the time to learn the original languages that the Bible was written in and then evaluate each translation based of that knowledge. The only other choice is to trust that the scholars who took the time to study the original languages and then translate the manuscripts into English did it right.

 

[Tater77]

A lot of people simply use multiple translations. You have study Bibles (literal) and reading Bibles ( dynamic equivalence and paraphrase).

Its not good to get hung up on words all the time. The best way to put it is not to miss the forest for the trees.

To answer your question about Zec 13:6 the words in question are:
בין ידיך

bêyn yâd meaning "between hand/arms" indicating the chest or back depending on whether your looking at ones front or backside. Basically wounds on the body.

Just find which one or ones work the best for you then there are resources available to help you through problems when you find them.

 

[Amy.G]

lol...learn Greek, learn Hebrew, learn Aramiac. Otherwise you're just taking someone else's word for it. :smilewinkgrin:

I think we have a winner. :laugh:

This is what it boils down to IMO. When average Joe Christian goes into the bookstore wanting to buy a bible, he is bombarded by different versions. So he asks the sales person for help and is told that so and so version is the most accurate and readable. He purchases it and goes home thinking that is true and will take everything he reads in his new bible as accurate, having not a clue there may be other versions that are more accurate.

What bothers me about all this is that practically every day a new translation appears on the book shelves and some are very bad, "The Voice" for example. People assume (and rightfully so) that anything called a "bible" is the word of God, yet that is certainly not so. Members of the BB are not in the same category because we are seekers of questions that most people never even think about. That's why this board exists. What will the Bible look like in another 50 years? Apostasy is taking place rapidly in the church and certainly these substandard bible versions are playing a part.

I don't know what the answer is, but it is a genuine concern of mine. I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say here.

 

[preachinjesus]

One recommendation that I might toss out there is to use several translations in studying. Go out and get four or five translations from a variety of interperative styles and use them together. Some thing like:
NASU
HCSB
NIV
NLT

Also, I recommend the NET Bible (over at bible.org) for anyone interested in understanding translation methodology better. There is a free download of their translation and it has something like 70,000 translators' notes. I highly recommend it, if for no other reason than the translators were guided by staying faithful to the text and given room to explain their decisions.

 

[preachinjesus]

I think we have a winner. :laugh:

lol...well I always recommend learning the languages. If for no other reason that it has helped me know that most of the major translations are faithful and reliable. Oh, and it has strengthened my faith tremendously.

This is what it boils down to IMO. When average Joe Christian goes into the bookstore wanting to buy a bible, he is bombarded by different versions. So he asks the sales person for help and is told that so and so version is the most accurate and readable. He purchases it and goes home thinking that is true and will take everything he reads in his new bible as accurate, having not a clue there may be other versions that are more accurate.

I completely agree. One of the primers that every church should offer its people is one on how to choose a translation.

Most Christian bookstores are pretty good about not carrying strange and marginal translations. The chances of getting a bad one are pretty rare...but they still exist.

What bothers me about all this is that practically every day a new translation appears on the book shelves and some are very bad, "The Voice" for example. People assume (and rightfully so) that anything called a "bible" is the word of God, yet that is certainly not so.

One of the reasons why our pastors should be pastor-theologians is that they can know what is good and what is not. There are some resources out there, like the text I mentioned above. What scares me to death is the scenario you mention. Not too long ago I exchanged Bibles with a young guy in our ministry who had gone out and picked up a copy of some random (and bad) translation. He ended up with a bright and shiny NIV and I got something that is as useful as a paperweight.

Members of the BB are not in the same category because we are seekers of questions that most people never even think about. That's why this board exists. What will the Bible look like in another 50 years? Apostasy is taking place rapidly in the church and certainly these substandard bible versions are playing a part.

I think your question is an outstanding one. We can speculate all day about it. I would suggest most firmly that we will see the translations continue to embrace the atrophy of the English language (i.e. more idiom less specificity.) Also, I believe that most of us will be carrying (as I already do) Kindle type devices to church that can hold several translations and receive content every Sunday.

Other than that, I'm fascinated to hear input.

I don't know what the answer is, but it is a genuine concern of mine. I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say here.

Thank you for being willing to ask a big question. :thumbs: