People say we need to learn the original languages, and then point out the ready availability of these resources on the net. I ask this question: what about the poor farmer 50 years ago. All he could afford was one bible for his house. What did he do? Which translation should he go with? How is he to know which one is more "accurate"?
-
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!
More accurate?
- Thread starter Amy.G
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely.
The Voice is published by Nelson and I am assuming that Lifeway carries it. I've been trying to search for it on their website, but it's down right now. I'll check back later, because I may be wrong about them selling it. The scary thing about false teachings is that they creep in unaware as Jude says. The Voice is a "translation" done by the Emergent Church and they are definitely spreading false teachings. But they sound good to itching ears, so it goes unnoticed. Sadly, bookstores are in the business of making money, not in preserving God's word.
True.
This is what concerns me also. That young guy probably had no idea that what he was reading was a bad translation.
Thanks for the kind words! I think we have all got to be watchdogs, so to speak, of the faith once delivered. It's a scary time we live in. The Christian faith is being ripped apart by false teachers like the Emergent Church folks, just to name one. Surely God holds those of us who know better responsible for defending the faith.
Overlooked in this is that Jesus was scourged (Matt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Jn. 19:1) with what was most likely a long apparatus on the order of what is known as a 'Cat- o'-nine-tails', which would have wrapped around him even cutting into the flesh of the chest area and his sides, as well as his back, had nails driven through his Hands (Jn. 20:25), and a spear thrust into His side (Jn. 19:34), after He was dead. Thus any and all of these renderings, at least here, happen to be accurate, when rendered into English, as to an extent of the 'scars' (stigmata) on His body.
The post of Tater77 is illuminative, here.
That is not to say that there are places where one version or another makes a poor rendering of Scriptural words, for clearly, this does happen, unfortunately. Also words also do sometimes change in basis understanding over time, so that for example, one is usually unlikely to use a rendering as say found in the WYC or TYN over a more modern version, at least for the most part.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
I see your really trying to do your homework on this Amy. But if you cant make a singular decision then I just suggest buying several and use them all.
I suggest one of these:
Literal Study Bibles:
KJV - with a dictionary or Strong's or Thayer's concordance so the old words don't get you confused. The KJV comes in a huge variety of flavors. Get one with concordance.
NASB 95 Edition - You can get a word study, life application study and many others. Great notes in the word study and very neutral with only a general Christian overtone without a denominational slant. You can find the 77 edition still on Christianbook.com. It is flat out as literal as it gets. When the 95 edition actually tells you in notes when DE is used by giving the literal in a note. Very extensive language notes in a good print.
NKJV - comes in the same flavors as the KJV
ESV - not as literal as the NASB or KJV but still considered so. Very easy to read.
(Holman) Christian Standard Bible after 2001- as far as I can tell with literalness its about the same as the ESV. It reads very similar. Good choice but with only one downside for some. It uses Yahweh for the name of God. But you can just say LORD like the Jews did when reading lol. If you don't agree with that pronunciation then this one might not do well for you.
Reading Bibles using dynamic equivalence and paraphrasing:
NIV - using a nice mix of literal and DE in translation. It delivers the point sense for sense quite well. I highly recommend using it with a literal Bible.
NLTse - It has been updated to be more literal. Very smooth reading. I love using it in the Old Testament. Very good sense for sense translation.
Amplified Bible - not even sure where to place this one. But a very helpful Bible indeed.
CEV- Good for reading casually for an overview. Recommended for kids too.
I suggest one of these:
Literal Study Bibles:
KJV - with a dictionary or Strong's or Thayer's concordance so the old words don't get you confused. The KJV comes in a huge variety of flavors. Get one with concordance.
NASB 95 Edition - You can get a word study, life application study and many others. Great notes in the word study and very neutral with only a general Christian overtone without a denominational slant. You can find the 77 edition still on Christianbook.com. It is flat out as literal as it gets. When the 95 edition actually tells you in notes when DE is used by giving the literal in a note. Very extensive language notes in a good print.
NKJV - comes in the same flavors as the KJV
ESV - not as literal as the NASB or KJV but still considered so. Very easy to read.
(Holman) Christian Standard Bible after 2001- as far as I can tell with literalness its about the same as the ESV. It reads very similar. Good choice but with only one downside for some. It uses Yahweh for the name of God. But you can just say LORD like the Jews did when reading lol. If you don't agree with that pronunciation then this one might not do well for you.
Reading Bibles using dynamic equivalence and paraphrasing:
NIV - using a nice mix of literal and DE in translation. It delivers the point sense for sense quite well. I highly recommend using it with a literal Bible.
NLTse - It has been updated to be more literal. Very smooth reading. I love using it in the Old Testament. Very good sense for sense translation.
Amplified Bible - not even sure where to place this one. But a very helpful Bible indeed.
CEV- Good for reading casually for an overview. Recommended for kids too.
Thanks Tater. I guess you could say that I've already made my choice of versions. After trying most of them, I have decided to use the KJV and NASB. My husband uses the NKJV, so I have that available also. I tried the NIV for a couple of years, but it is just bla to me. No offense to anyone who likes it, it just isn't for me.
My NASB is the 1977 edition. It is the Key Word Study Bible.
I used the NLT for a couple of years, but I really like the more literal translations.
I just worry about all the new versions that are coming out and the next generation that will buy them. They will be unaware of the all the dangers that you guys know about regarding translating as closely to the original languages as possible.
This has been a great discussion! Are we really in Versions Debate Section?:laugh:
My NASB is the 1977 edition. It is the Key Word Study Bible.
I used the NLT for a couple of years, but I really like the more literal translations.
I just worry about all the new versions that are coming out and the next generation that will buy them. They will be unaware of the all the dangers that you guys know about regarding translating as closely to the original languages as possible.
This has been a great discussion! Are we really in Versions Debate Section?:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
pilgrim2009
New Member
A really good bible for those who cant seem to understand the KJV Archaic words is the defined KJV Bible by DR DA Waite.Large or medium print and is a very nice Bible.
Search the KJV Store and check it out you can look on the inside.
One of the co-foundersof the NASB Frank Logson I think his name finally came to reject it and made the comment on audio of how correct is the KJV Bible?100% correct and thats as correct as you need to be.
God bless.
Steven.
His opinion on how correct the KJV is doesn't count, plus since he has gone to his reward I'm sure he has changed his mind.
I have the King James Study Bible and it also defines the archaic words. I really like this Bible so I doubt that I'll change, but I'll check out the Defined Bible though, just 'cause I like to see what's available.
Thermodynamics
Member
Hi Amy, Something else you may want to check out are some of the Bibles published by the Trinitarian Bible Society that have "Bible Word Lists" in the back. They list all of the words that are considered difficult or that have changed meaning since 1611. They publish some very nice, well bound Bibles at prices that are nothing short of amazing. You can get a "Windsor Text Bible" with the word list and a "Bible Reading Plan" bound in genuine calfskin leather for $30 (that is not a typo, thirty dollars)!
Stop that! :laugh: I don't need another bible! Sigh. Oh well.....I guess I'll just have to check into it. :tongue3:
That sounds too good to be true!
Do you have a link?
pilgrim2009
New Member
Sister in Jesus Amy remember Zech 13:6 prophecy in other bibles?
Read this it should shock you to.You can do a search and find the complete article.
This all began while I was in India in 1991. During a Sunday morning service I was asked to read the verses for communion. I did not like what I read from my NASB in 1Corinthians 11:24. It said: "This is my body, which is for you.
" A key word was missing, the word "broken". It should have read "This is my body, which is broken for you (KJV)." It’s the most important part of the verse. It gives the application, and purpose. That put some questions in my mind and spirit concerning this translation. I have read other verses that were not perfect in the NASB, as there are in the KJV. However, this is a verse of critical importance to me.
I began studying and with some research I have come up with numerous mistranslations in the NASB and NIV; all in key areas of importance. These areas have to do with the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, the blood of Jesus, His second coming, and judgment of the saints. All are in areas having to do with our faith, salvation and hope. I started researching Bible translations and texts used to translate, who did the translations, etc. I came up with some interesting facts and intend to continue pursuing this area of study.
I knew something was wrong in the NASB; because key verses were either changed, or had missing words.
In simple language, the NASB and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the ‘minority’ texts. From the original, many copies were made. Most agree, and are the ‘majority’ texts.
A few are different, that’s the minority texts. Their reasoning for using these texts is that they are supposed to be the oldest known copies (translations). The original copies of the scriptures are not available.
They are held by the Catholic Church, who is and has long been behind the effort to destroy the Word of God that we have. Don’t forget all the men who endangered their lives and suffered and some being martyred by the Catholic Church for trying to give the common man the Word of God in their own language, to give them worship music in their own language, and teach them that they could and should read the Bible for themselves without having a Catholic priest to interpret it for them.
Etc etc............
Thermodynamics
Member
I just bought a new Trinitarian Bible today. I went to a local bookstore that has some very cool Bibles, they had a Concord Reference Bible in black Calfskin, judging from the old style box I'd say it has been there 5-10 years, very nice deep grain leather. Look for the Windsor Text Bible on the website, I ordered the calfskin with metrical Psalms (only $32 or $30 if you don't want the metrical Psalms).
Here is the link to the TBS website:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
Lets see about that.
1 Corinthians 11:24 (King James Version)
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
With the key phrase underlined.
1 Corinthians 11:24 (New American Standard Bible)
And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
And "broken" not being after "which is" and that is your complaint. This is a quote from the last supper as recorded in Matthew, Luke and Mark. So lets look at those verses that this one quotes in the KJV.
Matthew 26:26 (King James Version)
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mark 14:22 (King James Version)
22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Luke is the Key one here having the complete record.
Luke 22:19 (King James Version)
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:19 (New American Standard Bible)
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
Lets look at the key phrase as found in Luke which is "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me". The word "broken" is not in there at all in the same place as found in 1 Cor 11:24. With the exception of the word "given" which is implied in the verse as found in the NASB it almost perfectly matches the original words quoted. The usage of "brake" in the KJV proceeds the quoted words themselves.
The use of brake, breaking or broken in this context refers to the bread which Christ passed out symbolically as His Body at the Last Supper. Not the breaking of His physical body which was still hours from happening. This verse quoted in 1 Cor 11:24 as found in the KJV seems to imply a broken physical body post Crucifixion. Which is not the actual case here.
This is a manuscript issue not a translational one. The Alexandrian texts simply have the correct quote here. The verse in the TR almost seems to change the meaning in 1 Cor 11:24.
You could see it as a paraphrase of the quote from Luke in the KJV. But thats about it. In the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul is talking about the Last Supper and its symbolic meanings.
Manuscript support:
TEXT: "This is my body which is for you."
EVIDENCE: p46 S* A B C* 33 1739*
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B
NOTES: "This is my body which is broken for you."
EVIDENCE: Sc C3 Db,c G K P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739margin 1881 2495 Byz Lect three lat syr(p,h)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn
You can refute it all you want, its right there in black and white. Which translation and Greek texts record the accurate quote from Luke?
Last edited by a moderator:
pilgrim2009
New Member
The Alexandrian text has the correct translation my foot.
Again:
The modern translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek intellectuals from England. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort hated the Textus Receptus Greek Text (the foundation for the King James Bible) and consequently created their own Greek text. Their text was based primarily on a text type known as the Alexandrian text, so named because of its origin in Egypt. The Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai) were the two texts that influenced the Alexandrian text type the most.
It is important to understand that the attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in one location - Alexandria, Egypt. Such pagan Greek “scholars” as Origen and Clement of Alexandria were the men that had the greatest adverse affect on these texts. In AD 313, the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of the “word of God” from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius, who was a devout student of Origen's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God found in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. The corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian") found its way into the Vatican manuscript, then into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and eventually into the new bible versions found in almost every local Christian bookstore.
Jeremiah 44:27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.
God allows us to find the truth through a search of the scriptures. The LORD wanted His people out of Egypt. He consumed any of them that remained there. The modern critic wants us to believe that God then used this same region to preserve His word through the Roman Catholic Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
Lets see, in one short paragraph you’ve managed to slander “modern translations”, B.F. Westcott, F.J.A. Hort, the Alexandrian Textform, Egypt, Codex Vaticanus, the Pope, Codex Sinaiticus.
Here's a paragraph in like nature to yours.
The Authorized Version of King James was the idea of Anglican Richard Bancroft, a relentless enemy of the Puritan church, and his team of modern 16th century scholars, who hated the widely accepted Geneva Bible (a translation that challenged the notion of the “divine right of kings”) and consequently created their own translation from the few Greek texts available at that time. The text they used came to be known as the Byzantine text, so named because of its origin in the Byzantine (Catholic) Church of Constantine.
There is not one single Greek manuscript that follows the text of the AV exactly.
Neither Paragraph tells the whole story.
Both paragraphs twist the truth to sway the argument.
I think Amy has done an admirable job explaining things
It requires a thoughtful answer from you rather than the lazy mudding-of-the-waters response you gave.
If the best you can do is say something like, "It's bad because it's not the KJV" then I challange you to show us why the difference in the text makes you a better Christian.
Rob
What no slander on papyri P46 which is the oldest witness from the late 2nd century (175-225)? Alexandrian is properly known as a text type that originated in Alexandria. A manuscript can be Alexandrian because of its text type (letters/font) but not actually be from anywhere near Alexandria, Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46
The above link is provided if you dont know much about P46. Then there is also P75 and P66 which both predate mss Aleph, A, B and C.
You harp on Wescott & Hort a lot but what about Nestle & Aland? After all MV's are based on the NA series that improve on W&H. Quite a few W&H readings are disregarded now due to newer discoveries since the late 19th century.
Most importantly you never answered the question.
Which reading more accurately quotes Luke 22:19?
I have twisted nothing and only provided you with hard facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46
The above link is provided if you dont know much about P46. Then there is also P75 and P66 which both predate mss Aleph, A, B and C.
You harp on Wescott & Hort a lot but what about Nestle & Aland? After all MV's are based on the NA series that improve on W&H. Quite a few W&H readings are disregarded now due to newer discoveries since the late 19th century.
Most importantly you never answered the question.
Which reading more accurately quotes Luke 22:19?
I have twisted nothing and only provided you with hard facts.
pilgrim2009
New Member
The most accurately Greek is the TR in Luke 22:19 and 1st Cor 11:24.It is not a translation issue but a manuscript issue.You try and base your arguments on what modern day bibles are translated from to correct the KJV in english.You need to take the TR and and correctly add the deleted words back to the text in the modern day bibles.Better yet its already done in the KJV English.
I guess you completely ignored the article of where the vidicon camera technology shows where the manuscripts used to translate modern day bibles
has been edited in the 12th century by at-least two different editors.{I.E.ERASER}-{I.E.ADDING}
Interesting indeed.
http://www.kjbible.net/emtv.htm
pilgrim2009
New Member
There you go putting words in my mouth.I never said such.
I dont need but one bible to understand God`s will and His purpose for my life.The KJV was good enough for my grand parents and their grand parents etc.
During the 1800`s all kinds of things were being born to confuse Gods Church.Things are being accepted and taught and believed that was missing from God`s preachers for 1800 years.I call the 1800`s the century of deception.New so-called manuscripts were found along with a so-called re-discovered interpretation of the Scriptures etc.Fact is the RC Church hates the KJV Bible and the historist view of the book of Revelation.
It can be repeated.Most all roads do lead to rome.
Who died to give you the manuscripts that were bought with someones blood so you could have your NASB or NIV Etc?
God bless you in Jesus.
Steven.
- Status