Spanish

If one stands for anything, regardless of his age, he must be able to support his claims, somthing that asguitarist was unable to do.

 

So is it your contention that any quality Spanish translation must come from the KJV instead of the Hebrew and Greek texts?

If so, which edition of the KJV would you recommend?

Which Spanish Bible would you accept?
Is the 1865 Cipriano de Valera Spanish Bible an acceptable translation?

NO poster, no matter how old, should enter a forum showing disrespect of other posters views, constantly showing disregard with the common "LOL" comments, or refusing to answer legitimate questions.

 

No matter how much else he's standing for that's RIGHT...if he's standing for the KJVO myth, he's also standing for something WRONG. If he took the time to study the origins of the current KJVO myth, & discovered the DISHONESTY of its early authors and the lack of study and knowledge of many of today's KJVO authors, as well as the dishonesty of some of them, he'd come away with a different point of view. Remember, brethren, if you believe the KJVO party line, you're believing a false doctrine conceived from a barge load of errors, disseminated by a heapin' helpin' of dishonesty, I.E. copying from Dr. Ben Wilkinson w/o giving him credit, deliberately trying to conceal the fact that he was a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official.

Do YOU believe the KJVO myth yourself?

Which is closer to the originals...A Spanish version translated from an English translation, or a version translated from all available Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic Scriptural manuscripts?

Should a Spanish version made from the KJV be written in modern Spanish, or in the Spanish used by King Philip of Spanish Armada fame?

 

You or your son shouldn't be discouraged by the admonishments here either.

The BB kitchen gets pretty hot at times (its kinda like real life ).

Now as to the inquiry of your post: The original ancient languages of the Bible (Hebrew/Greek) like modern standard English do not make this distinguish between formal and familiar usage.

Latin is the root of the romance languages.

In late Vulgar Latin however this dictinction can be made and this is probably why the KJV itself makes this distinction from the influence of the Latin Vulgate Bible over the KJV translators.

That 17th century Jacobean/Elizabethan English does make this distinction (formal/familiar) is somehow part of the KJVO "second inspiration" theory although logic would require the opposite.

HankD

 

This makes good sense for an english speaker [sic]. But, Spanish does not speak to an english [sic] speaker's heart. And Spanish does not speak to a spanish [translationally correct] speaker's heart.

This is an example of what I have shared previously on the usage of Greek and Hebrew in studying the NT/OT.

When one learns a language, one can only learn part of it. One seldom learns the "heart" language. Using a language that is not a "heart language" for studying God's Word does not make sense ...

Most Americans would say that using Spanish to study the Bible does not make sense. But, it does if that is a heart language.

 

Further, few can understand the translational difficulties from english {sic} to Spanish ...

Just using Mexican Spanish.

Translate: "American"; "United States"; & "North American"

A "Mexicano" [sic] is an American; He is from the United States of Mexico; and He is definitely from North America.

Further, how often should you use "Real Academia Española" and when should you use Chicago University's Dictionary?

 

El_Guero, are you here to give us lessons in translational difficulties or tell us if you are a King James Only believer, and if so where is your scriptural backing for it?

Do you think a Spanish Bible should be translated from the Greek/Hebrew Manuscripts to Spanish or from an English KJV to Spanish?

Are those questions difficult...or are you going to try to give me a lecture on the Spanish language?

I do not see that you are following the thread itself and answering the questions of the posters.

Just curious.

 

Why would we even discuss translating the Bible into Spanish? Are there not already qualitty Spanish Bibles translated from Hebrew and Greek?

 

GOOOOOOD Morning C4K, that was my question.

I am trying to find out exactly what apson is talking about and why he opened this thread called "Spanish" under "translations".

I am also curious as to whether or not he is a staunch KJVO.

I agree with you that I would prefer to use the Byzantine text type simply because I'm not so certain that things were not left out of the Alexandrian type.

Either way, however, a Bible translated in to Spanish SHOULD be translated directly from one of the original text types.

I do think his use in interpretation from a Spanish phrase to "How art thou" was quite interesting, because he seems to be translating from Spanish to Elizabethan English, rather than modern English. Am I wrong?

 

First of all, I believe that any translation (Swahili, Arabic, Spanish, or what have you) should be based on the "best" (I know there's a difference of opinion as to what is "best") SOURCE MANUSCRIPT available. I also think that the translation team needs to include those whose "mother tongue" is the receptor language. El Guero makes a good point in that only (IMHO) a native speaker can fully understand the subtleties/nuances of a certain language, and that these must be taken into account.

I say that, to say this: If any group seeks to re-translate the bible into another language from an English text (and I refer specifically to the KJV) SIMPLY FROM A STANDPOINT OF BIAS; then we are doing the people we are trying to reach a grave dis-service.

I agree with C4K, in that there are good, scholarly translations available to the Spanish speaking world.
Therefore, re-translating the KJV (or any other version) IMHO must be viewed as suspect.

 

Question for a native Spanish speaker.....

I understand the difference in usage between "Usted" and "Tu", but in all my travels I've never heard "tu" being translated as "Thou".

Am I missing something?

 

Absolutely!

I have only seen ONE possible exception and this is weak, but it does make some sense. On one particular area of land there were unreached people-groups with about 100 dialects from one side of the country to the other. Many of these dialects were so different the people could only understand the one in their particular tribe. In this case a missionary would work with people trying to learn each dialect and providing a translation. Often these people were not Greek scholars and didn't have any choice but to translate in English. Nor were there enough Greek scholars available to help with translating so many of these unknown dialects. Therefore, some translation was done from English, just to get them a Bible.

I think that in a case like this, until time and scholars can learn these unknown languages, it would be okay. Not great, just okay. It would be better than nothing.

Some of these groups are just now getting Bibles printed in their own languages and are having to rely on an English translator for their church services. Most can't even read, but the native pastors are usually educated enough to read.

At least this is the story a few missionaries gave me about (specifically) some of the Asian areas that are just now being reached by American missionaries.

 

Phillip,
I agree with you...in the past (I don't know about today) godly men endeavoured to translate the bible into indigent languages from English, as their bible was the only tool available for the work at hand; and they should be commended.

I would submit that their motive was/is quite a bit different from the motive behind re-translating the KJV into Spanish....

"What sayest thou?"

 

I agree, a translation from any English (or Spanish, or Dutch or whatever) is better than no translation, but it is not best.

 

Nevertheless, Greek and Hebrew are the languages of God's choice as to the inspired text.

This is the major KJV translators answer to those who questioned them as to why they went back to original languages instead of just upgrading the English of currently existing English bibles:

HankD

 

Thou hath missed somethingeth.

 

apson,

I agree that this type of informal/formal is good and use to exsist in the old english forms but yeah modern english has gone too the dogs. Spanish is my second language and i am fluent in it. I found a good resource on the subject http://www.answers.com/topic/t-v-distinction

I would love to see a good spanish translation of the KJV seeing how there are spanish translations of the asv and niv.

Its funny how everyone is bent on bashing the KJV when they have no problem singing those Great Hymns of the Faith every sunday "Come,Thou Fount of every blessing, Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;"

...

 

Saul^Paul

Thanks for the link....I see what apson was getting at now. I was thinking in only the "modern" sense of the word. (Learn something new every day!)

P.S. I love the KJV and would not "bash" it.

My contention is that translations should be made from originial manuscripts/original languages in order to avoid (as much as possible) the transmission of errors or idioms that almost unavoidably enter into various translations......

Would you not agree that it would be more difficult to translate an English idiom into a receptor language, than it would be to translate directly from the original language?

If not, I would be interested as to your reasoning. Thanks

 

Bashing the KJV - not this KJVo#2