Featured Vague Translations, Poor Translations and Mistranslations

I think ease to information can be beneficial but it still comes down to the amount of work people do. I would tend to think that the same issue would still arise. Even with the ease of information, the misunderstandings would still happen, the traditions would still get in the way as well. It would be nice if we could all be on the same page though! I do agree with that.

 

But it doesn't read that way...
and changing the words on the page to fit someone's private understanding of it is not translation, Van.

That is called "paraphrasing", and to me it does violence to the word of God.

But wouldn't that have superimposed their own private understanding upon the text, instead of leaving the understanding of it up to the reader?

Do the extant Greek manuscripts, properly, accurately and faithfully translated into English show what you have stated?
If not, then how can that be considered proper and faithful translation?

Respectfully,
Would it not be better to look carefully at the foundational Greek and translate it as exactly as possible, carrying it over into the English and leaving the context development up to the One who inspired it?

 

No we cannot.

Technology has nothing to do with the problem, Van, and it never will.
The problem is much more simple, and much more complicated, than that...

It is spiritual, not linguistic;
and computers cannot help something that is far beyond technological in nature.

Only the Lord can do that.

 

I remember hearing this a long time ago by a preacher that had been preaching over 60 years, who is now with the Lord and I've never forgotten it... If one scripture contradicts another scripture... Then the interpretation is in the reader, never the writer... Keep praying and studying and maybe someday the Lord will clear it... Brother Glen

 

Respectfully, it generally amazes me when people who should tremble at the fact that they are dealing with God's words, and not man's,
support ( or even outright declare ) that we should purposefully add words into the text that, by rights, should not be there.

What's more, what is considered "vague and ambiguous" to some, is not to others.
For example, I have no problem seeing that 1 Corinthians 2:14 is speaking of the lost man, while 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 is speaking of the spiritually immature believer in Jesus Christ.

Neither passage is vague, nor are they ambiguous to me.

Generally speaking, I disagree and hold that words that added in through the use of italics are not genuinely and absolutely needed for clarity.
If they are not warranted by the faithful translation process, then I am convinced that they should not be there at all.

That is why I usually put them in brackets when I quote them.

I agree.
But I don't see the words, "to be" added into James 2:5 in my Bible:

" Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" (James 2:5, AV).

Would you please specify which translation you are using?

 

I agree...
They can and often do ( especially these days ) make choices that result in sometimes far differing renderings into English, for example, than that which came before.
But to me, the main difference is whether or not faithfulness, rigid accuracy to the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts, and correct translation technique are adhered to, in my opinion.

But adding words into the text to convey one's own private understanding of the Scriptures is not faithful translation, Van.
Shall we as believers not take heed to the example found in Revelation 22:18-19?

I think it wise that we leave His words alone... past rendering them, as closely as possible, into another language.

Again, do the Greek and Hebrew texts warrant the addition of words not found in them, for purposes of context?
I hold that they do not.

On the other hand, I see that adding words into the text ( as you have done in several threads ) is taking liberties that a God-fearing man should not be doing.
To me that is on you, sir, and I would not want to be in your position...
I will not stand at the Judgment and be responsible for anything less that sticking strictly to His words ( and as closely as humanly possible ) if I were to ever be involved in translating them for my brothers and sisters in Christ.


That said, I wish you well despite our disagreements, and I bid you a good afternoon.

 

Ephesians 2:1 And you, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Now you brethren that are avid Bible scholars noticed I left something out because someone on another thread said do you know why some of the word in the KJV are in italics?... Its for clarity sake and left it out and you might as well throw this Bible in the trash... What about you in the text?... hath he quickened... That has to be there if it is not, the Holy Spirit has no purpose and I guess you quicken yourself?... Course some on here think they birthed themselves anyway but that's another subject... And because the italics are added this also applies... I have not found one word in my Bible that is not essential... Then there is this and I live and breathe by it!... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

With respect, I'm not a Calvinist and never have been;
I don't follow the teachings of men, I follow the words of my Saviour alone.

So, if you're going to accuse me of posting what is, to you, as absurdity...
Then please do so knowing that I have no use for John Calvin's ( or John Wesley's ) assistance in believing and understanding my Saviour's words.

God's children have the Holy Spirit for that ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27 ).

Regarding the "KJV",
I use it exclusively, trust it implicitly and post from it fully knowing that it includes italics...
and I disagree, at least in many cases, with their being inserted into the text;
Which is my right under God.

That also includes the use of italics in other translations, even those in other languages.
While I agree that the use of italics by translators can be helpful, they are not and never were ( at least in most cases that I have run across them in my reading ) God's inspired words...
Neither are they mandatory to the text.


Again, I wish you well, Van.

 

Glen,
If you'll look carefully at the passage, is not the word "quickened" and the concept of being made alive by God not established in other passages ( and their clear wording ), as well as being further down in that one?
Here...take a look:

" And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
6 and hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
7 that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." ( Ephesians 2:1-7 ).

As you can see from the text, the fact that God "quickens", or makes alive the believer in Christ is stated further down.
That is why I do not think that the translators having added those words in were ultimately necessary.

However, it does act as an optional "helper", does it not?

Further, are not the words "us" and "his" understood from the text, even though they were added in for clarity by the translators?
I believe that they are, and to me, they are not ultimately necessary for me to understand the text without them being there.

I agree.
All Scripture is given by inspiration;
but I don't see the use of italics as being necessarily inspired by God.

However, if you disagree, then I accept that...
It's not "make or break" for me, it's only a personal preference and belief.

 

The words " [hath he quickened] certainly deserve to be in regular type don't they? I'm @ work and don't have access to a 1611 edition. I guessing but feel confident the words were in regular, or black letter type in 1611.

 

The link HERE will show hath hee quickned in type that would be the equivalent purpose of our italic type today.