-
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!
The major problem with modern English translations.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
A like issue is with the KJV (while modern English does not always specify in spelling the tenses, neither does the English of the KJV specify all tenses found in the Greek language).
I don't know that most readers of the KJV are familiar with this weakness, or that some of the words used in this antiquated English have changed in meaning (at least in the "normal reading" of the text). I use "most" here from experience (most I have encountered are unaware that a "normal reading" of the KJV sonetimes results in error).
Studying the Bible requires.....well....study.
Rye
Active Member
True, modern English readers likely wouldn’t be able to make this distinction where it could be important. A good example of this is shown in Exodus 16:28. God isn’t signaling out Moses here, He’s speaking to the whole nation of Israel.
Exodus 16:28 (KJV) - And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
Exodus 16:28 (NASB) - Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?
Perhaps modern versions should have a footnote included.
Exodus 16:28 (KJV) - And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
Exodus 16:28 (NASB) - Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?
Perhaps modern versions should have a footnote included.
Early Modern English (EME)
Nevermind.
There have also been debates over some KJV choices in the plural or singular.
The funniest thing they did was the double plural words - like "seraphims" where seraphim is already plural....."seraphims" would indicate several types of seraphim (like "fish" is plural already, but "fishes" means several species of fish).
37818
Well-Known Member
Give a case example.
The problem really isn't with "modern translations" but with the modern English language.
In modern English, the meaning of 'you' (whether it is signal or plural) is generally understood within the context of the message.
You've brought this up in posts repeatedly.
Translations are imperfect, there will always be reason to question them and compare them.
The next step, and the real solution, would be to begin to learn the biblical languages and reference them as you study.
Rob
37818
Well-Known Member
In Exodus 16:28, God addressed Moses in the plural, not merely the person Moses.
37818
Well-Known Member
Not always the case. Mostly not.
Jesus didn't say solely to Nicodemus he alone must be born again in John 3:7.
Rye
Active Member
As time goes on, I’m really coming to appreciate the NLT. I was always told to avoid that one but in cases like this, a paraphrastic translation renders this verse in a more literal meaning.
I will put a footnote in my KJV that says these guys don't understand that God speaks to his people Israel in many cases as if they are a collective one, because that is the way he sees them. He sees the church of Jesus Christ the same way. The NASB comes from the philosophy that was birthed in Ge 3:1 when these words appeared, "Yea, hath God said."
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
When Israel was born as a nation and delivered from Egypt every single one of them, including every proselyte were delivered and not one left. It is a singular, physical son who, like all sons, must be born again. This will occur sometime in our future, though it hasn't yet. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "ye" must be born again and then explained it will be by the instrument of the cross of Christ.
The world is cursed because of the singular reason that men do not / will not believe what God has said.
Last edited:
Hazelelponi
New Member
The ESV is good. I have a tendency not to trust people who cast doubt upon the Scriptures - whether by criticism of translations or not...
But, that's probably because it took God for me to trust the Scripture... Many people the world over make casting doubt on God's word a hobby. It's because they hate God and His Word, and Scripture states, we were enemies.
How do you reconcile running around the Internet casting doubt on God's word when it makes it more difficult to share the Gospel with people, after you convince them it's corrupt?
Just a curiosity really... I always wondered.
I mean, if a Muslim says the Scripture is corrupt it's one thing, but it's another when your a Christian, because then your stuck explaining to people why they should trust a Book you have no faith in.
Last edited:
Good question. A continual and never ending reinterpretation of what God said is not a practice that inspires confidence and trust IMO. It creates doubt in at least some of them. This practice is a new end-times doctrine and we have been warned about it in Bibles that Christians still believe.
Think about it since the subject was brought up. In concert with my last post, God said he was going to save his firstborn son, Israel, with a new birth by using the word "ye," and no one with new Bible translations who are posting on this board believes it. Not a one. Most of them teach that the church is spiritual Israel/Jacob and there is no longer a physical Israel to be born again, even though God has never said that. Translators and professors say it.
Hazelelponi
New Member
Well, technically Jesus IS Israel (your singular ye one would imagine). The singular seed the Bible speaks so much about.
So, your profile says you're Baptist. Is this still true?
Last edited: