Translating Translations

[Rippon]

Yeah you heard me. There is the need to translate ancient forms of English into contemporary,natural English. It can be done with dignity. Just because a version is in modern speech does not mean it uses debased English. Aside from notable exceptions like The Message and Cotton Patch Gospels, most modern English translations do not use much slang (which becomes dated very soon). A good English Bible translation needs to be in common English parlance.

This OP is not specifically directed toward KJVOs. How much time is spent by preachers who use the KJV --in unraveling the complexities of that translation? In other words, the ministers of said version have to translate the translation before getting into the meat of the Word. That wastes time. A 40-minute sermon actually might be half that time in the real substance of the message. How much more practical and profitable would it be to preach from a vulgar version? LOL! Before application there must be understanding.

I have the distinct feeling that a KJV preacher in the course of explaining a text will often use phraselogy very much like that of the NIV if not the NLT! How ironic.

If I was a wagering man I would bet that some KJV preachers might translate somewhat like the following:

"Brethren --that means you sistern too! Ha Ha.Brothers and sisters is what the text means."

"Waxing confident has nothing to do with the kind of waxing we do on our cars. It simply means becoming confident."

"It is meet means it's right for me."

"She painted her face and tired her head means old Jez slapped some makeup on and arranged her hair --in 21st English."

I am sure many of you can think of other ensamples --examples! LOL!

Why go through all the hoops --taking undue sermon time to unscramble old-fashioned lingo when there are fine Bible translations in the vernacular? They get to the heart of the matter using modern,natural English while remaining faithful to the original autographs.

 

[prophet]

Yeah you heard me. There is the need to translate ancient forms of English into contemporary,natural English. It can be done with dignity. Just because a version is in modern speech does not mean it uses debased English. Aside from notable exceptions like The Message and Cotton Patch Gospels, most modern English translations do not use much slang (which becomes dated very soon). A good English Bible translation needs to be in common English parlance.

This OP is not specifically directed toward KJVOs. How much time is spent by preachers who use the KJV --in unraveling the complexities of that translation? In other words, the ministers of said version have to translate the translation before getting into the meat of the Word. That wastes time. A 40-minute sermon actually might be half that time in the real substance of the message. How much more practical and profitable would it be to preach from a vulgar version? LOL! Before application there must be understanding.

I have the distinct feeling that a KJV preacher in the course of explaining a text will often use phraselogy very much like that of the NIV if not the NLT! How ironic.

If I was a wagering man I would bet that some KJV preachers might translate somewhat like the following:

"Brethren --that means you sistern too! Ha Ha.Brothers and sisters is what the text means."

"Waxing confident has nothing to do with the kind of waxing we do on our cars. It simply means becoming confident."

"It is meet means it's right for me."

"She painted her face and tired her head means old Jez slapped some makeup on and arranged her hair --in 21st English."

I am sure many of you can think of other ensamples --examples! LOL!

Why go through all the hoops --taking undue sermon time to unscramble old-fashioned lingo when there are fine Bible translations in the vernacular? They get to the heart of the matter using modern,natural English while remaining faithful to the original autographs.

Please, let them take all the 'undue sermón time' that they can, cause later on someone will have to take undo sermón time fixing what they say later.

 

[Rippon]

Please, let them take all the 'undue sermón time' that they can, cause later on someone will have to take undo sermón time fixing what they say later.

I think you need to translate the above. LOL!

 

[Rippon]

Here's one from Genesis :

And he took and sent messes unto them = Joseph sent portions of food to his brothers.

 

[prophet]

Here's one from Genesis :

And he took and sent messes unto them = Joseph sent portions of food to his brothers.

We still call military meal time "mess".

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah you heard me. There is the need to translate ancient forms of English into contemporary,natural English. It can be done with dignity. Just because a version is in modern speech does not mean it uses debased English. Aside from notable exceptions like The Message and Cotton Patch Gospels, most modern English translations do not use much slang (which becomes dated very soon). A good English Bible translation needs to be in common English parlance.

This OP is not specifically directed toward KJVOs. How much time is spent by preachers who use the KJV --in unraveling the complexities of that translation? In other words, the ministers of said version have to translate the translation before getting into the meat of the Word. That wastes time. A 40-minute sermon actually might be half that time in the real substance of the message. How much more practical and profitable would it be to preach from a vulgar version? LOL! Before application there must be understanding.

I have the distinct feeling that a KJV preacher in the course of explaining a text will often use phraselogy very much like that of the NIV if not the NLT! How ironic.

If I was a wagering man I would bet that some KJV preachers might translate somewhat like the following:

"Brethren --that means you sistern too! Ha Ha.Brothers and sisters is what the text means."

"Waxing confident has nothing to do with the kind of waxing we do on our cars. It simply means becoming confident."

"It is meet means it's right for me."

"She painted her face and tired her head means old Jez slapped some makeup on and arranged her hair --in 21st English."

I am sure many of you can think of other ensamples --examples! LOL!

Why go through all the hoops --taking undue sermon time to unscramble old-fashioned lingo when there are fine Bible translations in the vernacular? They get to the heart of the matter using modern,natural English while remaining faithful to the original autographs.

We alrready have done that, see Nkjv/nasb/esv/Hcsb/Niv etc!

 

[clark thompson]

Some modern English translations are easier to understand but less accurate though for the most part.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Unfortunately this does tend to dumb down the message.
a good example is John 3:16.

Most modern translations say "one and only son."

The KJV says "only begotten son"

there is a great difference in these 2 phrases.

One and only is more dumbed down and yes it is easier to understand, but it is not as accurate, in fact "one and only son" is not even doctrinally correct, the bible says as many as recieved him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. So Jesus is not God's one and only son, however he is God's only begotten son.

For example, When a Lamb gives birth it always gives birth to a lamb, or "begets" a lamb, a dog always begets a dog, and a cat always begets a cat.

Jesus is the only begotten son because God begets God, The word begotten really is helpful in showing the deity of Christ and shows his unique relationship to the father.

 

[Rippon]

Unfortunately this does tend to dumb down the message.

Quite the contrary Jordon. It makes things plain and true to the original.

a good example is John 3:16.

Most modern translations say "one and only son."

The KJV says "only begotten son"

And the Tyndale translation (from which the KJV revisers borrowed liberally) has it as "only Son."

One and only is more dumbed down and yes it is easier to understand, but it is not as accurate,

Because it is different from the KJV rendering you charge it with being dumbed-down. That's silly on your part Jordon.

This whole issue on what monogenes really means has been discussed a multitude of times on the BB --nothing new about that. But the singuarity of Christ is what it means.

Here is a bit of the NET Note on this:"Thus the word means 'one-of-a-kind' and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT...Jesus is God's Son in a one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14,1:18,3:16, and 3:18)."

 

[Rippon]

Some modern English translations are easier to understand but less accurate though for the most part.

To which of the mainstream translations are you referencing? And what does the term accuracy mean when it comes to Bible translation?

 

[Rippon]

Some NT Samples

I will give some snips from the KJV and the NIV.

Ephesians 2:13
K -- ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh
N -- once were far away have been brought near

Philippians 1:9
K -- in all judgment
N -- depth of insight

Colossians 2:18
K -- voluntary humility
N -- false humility

1 Thess. 2:7
K -- as a nurse cherisheth her children
N -- as a nursing mother cares for her children

2 Thess. 2:7
K -- he who now letteth will let
N -- the one who now holds back will continue to do so

1 Tim. 3:13
K -- purchase to themselves a good degree
N -- gain an excellent understanding

1 Tim. 6:20
K -- oppositions of science falsely so called
N -- the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge

Titus 2:10
K -- not purloining
N -- not to steal

Philemon 8
K -- that which is convenient
N -- do what you ought to do

Philemon 12
K -- mine own bowels
N -- who is my very heart

 

[Yeshua1]

How about the upcoming Modern English version,most "complete/upfated KJV in history?"

 

[prophet]

How about the upcoming Modern English version,most "complete/upfated KJV in history?"

If they actually update the KJV, without any CT bias, halelujah!

If they pretend to update, and work in NA/CT translations, then what do we need another NKJV for?

 

[prophet]

Jn 3:16
16 Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado á su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna.

Hmmmm. Guess a 3rd of the Earth's population get's only begotten in their Bible.

 

[prophet]

Dont forget this gem:
16. Epij shauendu su Kishemanito iu aki, ogionjimi giuenun iniu etu tetebinaua Kaoguisijin, aueguen dush getebueienimaguen jibnnatizisig, jiaië4 dush go iu kaki nik pimatiziuin.

 

[Yeshua1]

If they actually update the KJV, without any CT bias, halelujah!

If they pretend to update, and work in NA/CT translations, then what do we need another NKJV for?

They will be using same textual basis as the Nkjv, as the Nkjv used JUST what was available to the 1611 translators!

 

[Van]

A modern English translation of the Byzantine Text would be the World English Bible (WEB).

Note, it differs from both the NKJV and the KJV, where they are based on corruptions.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (WEB)

 

[prophet]

Or this great translation:
Chippewa
John 3:16
Apeech zhahwaindung sah Keshamune doo ewh ahkeh, ooge-oonje megewanun enewh atahtatabenahwa Kahoogwesejin,wagwain dush katapwayainemahgwain chebahnahdezesig, che ahyong dush goo ewh kahkenig pemahtezewin.

 

[JamesL]

Unfortunately this does tend to dumb down the message.
a good example is John 3:16.

Most modern translations say "one and only son."

The KJV says "only begotten son"

there is a great difference in these 2 phrases.

But the text does not use "Son" at all. It has a single word - Monogenes

Mono = one, only, single, alone, etc
Gene = kind, type, substance

One and only is more dumbed down and yes it is easier to understand, but it is not as accurate, in fact "one and only son" is not even doctrinally correct, the bible says as many as recieved him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. So Jesus is not God's one and only son, however he is God's only begotten son..

One and Only is far more faithful to the original. And the only reason it seems dumbed down is that there has been an enormous betrayal of what "son" means in OT language

In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac was called Abraham's "monogene"
Go back to Genesis and look at what Isaac meant to Abraham, compared to Abraham's fear regarding Eliezer.

Abraham was worried that one form his house would be his HEIR, to which God promised that one would come from his loins

Abraham was commended for not withholding his "one and only"

Only by the church adopting a Greek understanding of "son" instead of the Hebrew understanding did this become a mess.

Has nothing to do with the translation, but the paradigm

 

[Sapper Woody]

I grew up KJVo, and have since become KJVp. Personally, I have no problem with an updated translation, as long as the translation is NOT a translation of a current version, but goes back to the "original" texts for the translation.

The thing (not necessarily "problem") is that if we update the language, we really need to do it on a schedule, say every generation, or every 20 years, or every whatever, as English is changing. That is one reason (hopefully not starting a debate) that I am KJVp. The old English is dead, and won't change. Once you understand it, you understand it.

Off Topic: so that we don't derail the thread, could someone pm me with their opinion on a Spanish (Mexican) translation? I am learning Mexican Spanish, and reading the Bible in Spanish I think would speed the process up.