Featured What are the specific biblical instructions concerning translating God’s words into other languages

Here are a few English translations and one Greek. Point out the problems that you see in these translations. What is lost in the message of the text as you see it?

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. KJV

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. NKJV

Joh 3:16 For this is the wayN36 God loved the world: He gave his one and onlyN37 Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perishN38 but have eternal life. N39 NET+

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. NIV 1984

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. NRSV

Joh 3:16 For thusG3779 G1063 God lovedG25 G3588 G2316 theG3588 world,G2889 so thatG5620 G3588 [4sonG5207 2hisG1473 G3588 3only bornG3439 1he gave],G1325 thatG2443 every one G3956 G3588 trustingG4100 inG1519 him,G1473 should notG3361 perish,G622 butG235 should haveG2192 [2lifeG2222 1eternal].G166 ABP+

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. BSB

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. NASB

Joh 3:16 οὕτωςG3779 γὰρG1063 ἠγάπησενG25 ὁG3588 θεὸςG2316 τὸνG3588 κόσμον,G2889 ὥστεG5620 τὸνG3588 υἱὸνG5207 αὐτοῦG846 τὸνG3588 μονογενῆG3439 ἔδωκεν,G1325 ἵναG2443 πᾶςG3956 ὁG3588 πιστεύωνG4100 εἰςG1519 αὐτὸνG846 μὴG3361 ἀπόληταιG622 ἀλλ᾽G235 ἔχῃG2192 ζωὴνG2222 αἰώνιον.G166

 

You presume and assume incorrectly. There is a great deal of presumption in your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. You believe some opinions and assertions that are not true and that are not scriptural. It is not asserted that you are not entitled to your opinion. Your opinions and preferences are not a Bible doctrine of God.

You err in your view of the Scriptures if you assume or presume that the Scriptures teach your modern KJV-only opinions.

The translators who produced the NKJV were not unsaved men.

 

Your words here JD "And a Greek translation out of Egypt. Good grief! How bad can it get?"

Which Manuscript Stream Is Most Reliable?
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are categorized into three groups: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. Alexandria, Egypt, was an ancient center for academic excellence and scholarship. Scholars view Alexandrian manuscripts as the best copied and most accurate. Western manuscripts come from a much wider area that extends from North Africa to France and east to Syria. These manuscripts appear to have less oversight over the copying process when compared with Alexandrian manuscripts.

The third category is Byzantine, coming from Constantinople. While 80% of all existing Greek manuscripts are in this category (this is why the Byzantine manuscripts are called the Majority Text), Byzantine manuscripts are considered the least accurate as there is evidence of expanding or smoothing out passages by copyists. The New Testament in the King James Version comes from this class of manuscripts.

Textus Receptus
In 1516, Dutch scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) published the first complete Greek New Testament, Novem Instrumentum omne, a century later dubbed the Textus Receptus, working mainly from Byzantine manuscripts. He used 12th and 13th century Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that were housed in various Catholic locations, such as a Franciscan monastery in Cambridge, England, and a library in Basel, Switzerland, plus some manuscripts since lost.

Erasmus himself noted that there were errors in his translation. No less than four times he edited his own work, in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. Tyndale’s English Bible (1526) and Luther’s German New Testament (1522) relied on earlier editions of Erasmus’ work.

French scholar Robert Estienne, known as Stephanus (1503-1559), edited Erasmus’ work four times, the last in 1551. This was followed by French theologian Theodore Beza (1519-1605) who updated the work nine times between 1565 and 1604. Beza was the successor of John Calvin as the leader of the influential Reformed community in Geneva.

The King James Translation
By the time the King James translators got to work on their new Bible version, the Textus Receptus had gone through over a dozen extensive edits and corrections. They relied on Beza’s work but not exclusively, nor did they always agree with it. There are roughly 200 places in the New Testament where the King James translators parted ways with Beza’s rendering, instead relying on earlier editions of the Textus Receptus. They also relied on earlier English translations, the third edition of the Bishop’s Bible (1602) being the foundational English version from which they worked.

While the King James Version relied on manuscripts from the Majority Text (Byzantine) for its New Testament translation, modern Bible translations use a more eclectic approach, although they predominantly rely upon the Alexandrian type of Greek manuscripts. In fact, other Greek manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV translation. It’s helpful to note, however, that there is 95-98% agreement between the Majority Text used by the KJV and modern critical Greek texts that might be used by other translations.

What Does This Mean For The KJV?
What can we conclude when comparing the King James Version’s New Testament with modern Bible translations? While the King James New Testament is composed from the majority of ancient Greek manuscripts, modern Bible translations use older yet not as many manuscripts; because they are older they are deemed closer to the original. As noted earlier, however, this does not take integrity from the KJV. Keep in mind our earlier statistics, and remember the correspondence between the KJV manuscripts and more modern translations is 95-98%. But do these differences make a difference?

Can I Trust The Bible?
This is what we have with the Bible. We know that over 99% of it accurately reflects the original writings, but in the less than 1% that remains (actually, it is about a quarter of one percent), we are not entirely sure because the manuscript evidence is mixed. But we know where all these passages are, and none of them affects an important Christian doctrine or practice.

New Testament Manuscripts and the KJV

While you may not like the modern translations textual scholars would disagree with you.

 

Maybe it's only your opinion that we have not answered the OP. If by the OP do you mean, are you asking if we are commanded to translate the Bible? I feel I answered it fully by going to the Great Commission, but you refuse to interact with what I wrote.

Or maybe you just did a poor job of writing the OP. Did you mean translation methodology? If so, I answered that too with my list of translations directly in the Bible; they are all literal translation.

Now you are apparently calling everyone here but you an apostate. Do you actually know what an apostate is Biblically? If so, please share your meaning, because I'm sure not getting it from what you wrote. Is it your opinion that everyone who disagrees with you is an apostate? I'm not sure. Please elaborate: what do you mean by "apostate," and why are we apostate?

 

JD the more you write the more you prove that you really do not know what you are speaking to. I asked you to show me what was the difference between the teachings of the translations that I posted. Your response was to attack me rather than deal with the question.

Attack those that disagree with your personal view seems to be the only recourse you have as you can not defend your position.

 

I have been clear with my views but it seems that you are unable to accept them. You have this mistaken idea that the KJV is an inspired text. It is not. It is just one of many translations. Some good some bad but none of them raise to the level of inspired.

 

You continue to disprove your assertion regarding the KJV. Did you not say that God would only want one English translation? So why did they make the KJV which would just be another English translation.

 

That's not what the KJV Translators thought.

But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.

The Translators to the Reader

Matthew
2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeareth to Ioseph in a dreame, saying, Arise and take the young childe, and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and bee thou there vntill I bring thee word: for Herode will seeke the young childe, to destroy him.
2:14 When he arose, he tooke the yong childe and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
2:15 And was there vntill the death of Herode, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt haue I called my sonne

Out of Egypt haue I called my sonne

 

a quote from you
“I am trying to get you to see that God is not the author of these many translations in the same language.” Post # 78

So answer the question, why did they need to make the KJV since they already had English translations? Your KJV onlyism is vapid and illogical. Your own words show the error of your thinking.

 

No offense, but this sounds like hyper dispensationalism, which denies the validity of the Great Commission to this dispensation (and says it is "so-called." Do you follow Cornelius Stam?

At any rate, it does not answer my point satisfactorily. Too little too late. Well, the thread is almost over. I guess this is going to be all I get from you.

I don't recall ever saying to you or anyone else here on the BB that I believe in uninspired translations. And I have written about translation within the Bible itself. I wrote about the saying of Jesus on the cross and how the Bible translates itself, but you chose to ignore that.

Where does the Bible say anything about Bible translations and apostasy?

 

This is a very strange way of saying something.

Please answer this one question.

What translation of Scripture do you read?

 

What was so wonderful about the gift of tongues (other peoples languages) other than present the gospel to other peoples?

To say we are not taught to present the gospel, plainly, clearly and boldly to other nations, is to make a mockery of God's word.

1Co 14:8
For if the trumpet produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?

1Co 14:9
So you too, unless you produce intelligible speech by the tongue, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will just be talking to the air.

1Co 14:10
There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and none is incapable of meaning.

1Co 14:11
So if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be unintelligible to the one who speaks, and the one who speaks will be unintelligible to me.

1Co 14:12
So you too, since you are eager to possess spiritual gifts, strive to excel for the edification of the church.

To deny translators are not "striving to excel for the edification of those to be called out" is poppycock. How often do we need to update our translations such that the vocabulary is consistent with the knowledge base of the current generation of reader? I would guess every 15 to 25 years.

Romans10:15
But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”

What are "feet?" Are they what is used to traverse the gap between those who have the gospel and those who do not? How are the barriers to spreading the gospel crossed. Land barriers, Sea barriers, Language barriers?

1 Corinthians 14:27
If anyone speaks in a tongue, it must be by two or at the most three, and each one in turn, and one is to interpret;

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp that to "interpret" is to translate what was said into something understandable by the audience. For example, Acts of the Apostles 9:36

 

As far as I know, I am the only actual Bible translator on this thread, so this is a direct attack against me. You said that I had been mean to you, etc. I asked you to show me where and I would apologize, but you never did. So, I think you were simply spouting off, and not offended at all.

Yet here you are, being vicious to me, though you don't know the slightest thing about how I translate the Word of God. I am not careless with the Word of God, and I have not corrupted the Word of God.

 

You have claimed that there can only be one inspired English translation and you have made the errant assumption that the KJV is that one. Two problems 1] since there were English translation prior to the KJV what makes you think God did not inspire one of those? 2] How do you know that God did not inspire one of the translations made after the KJV?

For an inspired text {your KJV} it sure did need a lot of corrections the KJV was done in 1611, and then redone in 1629 & 1638 & 1760 & 1769 which one do you consider to be the inspired one. Or did God just not get it right the first, second, third, or fourth time. Or perhaps those translators were just careless with the words of God.
If you want to use the KJV then do so but to claim that it is the only true translation of the word of God is just foolish on your part.