 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:27 PM (GMT -6) |   | Which Bible translation is the most reliable? Why?
As for me I cut my teeth on the good ol' King James, have studied the NIV, NRSV, NKJV, NASB, Amplified, The Message, and several others whose names I can't recall right now. I generally prefer the NASB, NKJV, and especially like what I have read of the NRSV. I am not a biblical languages scholar, and so as most people, I am quite dependent upon the integrity of the translators of all the above. (I only give my background above in hopes that no one will think I am prejudicial against or for any particular translation).
What are your favorite translation, and why? Thanks.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | NIV, NET (New English Translation found at www.bible.org), NASB, NKJV
I too cut my teeth on the KJV--for many years. The NIV rocks as of late for me because I can get the ghest...gesthal...um, that German word where you get the whole thing at once!
Anyway, I can graps what's going on in bigger pictures with the NIV, then I can go to the NET and NASB for refinement. (Definitely have to give the NRSV another read, too. They still publish it?)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 7/27/2003 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp,
That is sort of a loaded question. There is a distinct difference between reliability and accuracy. The former implies it will always give the same results every time (like a used car for instance). However, if it always gives you the WRONG meaning, then reliability isn't much good to us.
I believe you are referring to accuracy, as in "true intent" of what was written down originally.
Of course, there are certain words that we have no idea what they were because there exists no Rosetta Stone to tell us (certain minerals, animals [or vegetables], musical terms, etc.)
Just about everyone knows that word-for-word translations between languages are a BAD way to translate (the KJV relies heavily on this). In addition, there are certainly more than one way to convey the same idea (such as synonyms).
One example is a passage in Joshua, where God commands the people of Israel to be "strong and courageous" (NIV). The original words in Hebrew however both translate to simply "strong". So if you were to take it literally, it would read "be strong and strong" which to an English speaker doesn't get the idea across (To a Chinese person however...). You could also translate this into just "be strong" however, you miss the emphasis on not just being strong, but very strong (bold, daring, etc.). So that is why it's translated in NIV "be strong and courageous" although "be very strong" would convey the same idea.
Another example is changing an expression which in the native tongue would be understood, but we need a different simile. When Jesus said who by worrying "could change one hair from white to black", that is more understood than the original "could add a cubit to his height".
Finally, there are concepts in themselves which may be alien to us that we need to find the closest equivalent known to us. Such as certain people who may be translated as "arbiter", "magistrate", "cupbearer", etc. Their roles may have been different, but we get the general jist of what that person does.
A major problem I have with some translations (NLT, Amplified, etc.) is that it puts TOO MUCH emphasis of on our societial values into the mix. In doing so, they may be too broad or narrow in their translation. For example, in the NLT it translates of the "lust of the flesh" [KJV] (or "cravings of sinful man" [NIV]) into "the craze for sex". Surely, this is accurate, but doesn't give us the complete picture. Likewise, other translations gloss over certain sins (such as homosexual acts) simply because it is un-PC. I even take issue with the "gender neutral" NIV because although in some instances it would be acceptable (all people being referred to as "children of God" rather than "sons of God" because it includes by default males and females), it's inching towards more men-pleasing (I can see a future iteration referring to God as "He/She/It" or Jesus as the "Child of God").
As you can guess, my favorite translation is the NIV because it translates phrase-by-phrase rather than word-by-word, it adjusts for modern language but doesn't assume too much, and I REALLY like that it even annotates verses with discrepancies with earlier manuscripts and alternate translations (indicating it isn't trying to hide anything). Other translations (like KJ, NKJ, NASB, etc.) are fine with me, but I would stay away from those that are more narrative (at least in sermon or study use) because of the abovementioned reasons.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/27/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | My teeth and taste buds  , still favor the AV/KJV, for all of the available tools I had in print and now find many of at http://www.blueletterbible.org/
Many of the controversies  over different versions as I understand, are over the original text and method of translation [V] from which any translation arrives to me in my language.
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/27/2003 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, along these lines, how about everyone telling us how they use online Bibles to quote in these posts. Which are your fav sites and all?
Thanks,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/27/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
I use the KJV almost exclusively, but that is a matter of preference and continuing with the standard that is still so prevalent with the person in the pew. I have almost worn out a New Scofield that I purchased in 1977. My ordination Bible, received in 1975, is a NASB, and I started preaching with a Harper's Study Bible (RSV). I have read Good News for Modern Man (TEV) through several times. In other words, I am not totally uninformed about modern translations.
I have noticed, through the years, that a little knowledge of the original languages seems to be a hazard instead of a help. It's sort of like the saying, "everyone is a mechanic" and then having to work behind and straighten out some of "everyone's" butcher job. Those who lean very heavily on Strong's are similar to Arnold Murray and some of the other Identity types. They have a Strong's amount of Greek knowledge and it gets them and others into trouble.
No matter who it is, they still have to depend on some "expert" to tell them what the original languages mean. Even the "experts" had someone to tell them what words meant before they became an "expert". This is true, because no one speaks the original languages anymore.
There are probably hundreds of modern translations. Why? It's because there are hundreds of ways "experts" perceive the texts. I notice that no one advocates using the New World Translation (Jehovah Witness) or the Douay-Rheims (RCC). Why? Could it be because they are known to be slanted in a particular direction? Knowing the Codex Vaticanus was available for the translation of the Douay-Rheims, was it deemed suitable for that translation? We know it wasn't used in the translation of the KJV and quess what? It wasn't used in Douay-Rheims either. There are at least three conclusions that can be derived from this, 1) Codex Vaticanus is an inferior work, even by RCC standards, 2)Codex Vaticanus is the same wording as the Latin Vulgate used in translating Douay-Rheims or 3)it was more of the same old stuff they (RCC) had been editing for years (Codex Sinaitius and Codex Vaticanus have been edited/corrected/changed numerous times). "That is not to say that we can dispense with later manuscripts of the New Testament. With the exception of Sin. the oldest manuscripts are not complete. Moreover they contain scribal errors of all sorts. P46 is a case in point: it is the manuscript with the largest percentage of blunders on record!" source from Duke University
Now let's consider Honorman's scoffing that the ESV is the product of Calvinists. If that were true, then what makes him think the same thing hasn't happened going a liberal direction with the NIV? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/27/2003 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Here is what I wrote on another threadquote:
Let me share this with all of you. The Online Bible (www.onlinebible.net) has several Greek and Hebrew Texts available free for the downloading or can be ordered on the CD they offer. I have the AV/KJV with Byzantine, Textus Receptus, Greek interlinear, Jewish Publication Society 1917 (OT) and BHM Hebrew Text (Biblia Hebraica Kittel/Stuttgartensia) with most of them keyed to Strong's (like Pelajus used). Wescott and Hort and the Septuagint is also available and if you want a modern translation, it is available, but you have to pay the copywrite royalties to use them. Let me encourage you to get these freebies instead of the hard copies I had to get. It sure makes things a lot easier to have it on your hard drive than to have to go to the bookshelf!
Since I wrote that, I have downloaded the Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament that is keyed to Strong's. I have to depend on a dialup modem, so I don't like having to be online to get the information I want. Everything I have is on my hard drive, but it is still less than 20 megs (with gigabite drives who cares about 20 megs?). I should have said, in addition, that the modern translation are only available on CD. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/27/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | |
Right now I am into the Good News Translation (GNT) which is excellant. I also like the Message, but I didn't like that it didn't have the verses numbered, but Navpress is coming out with The Message-Remix with numbered scriptures and has a great cover. I started out with a RSV a long time ago, but now I use the NRSV, which is great.
Which translation is most accurate? The New World Translation, but of course.
I, too, think it is a loaded question, for I believe ALL translations both suffer and benefit from the intent of the translators. If you try to be too accurate you lose the reader because much of scripture simply cannot be translated literally and make sense. On the other hand, one cannot go too cultural or you end of adopting the morals of the culture. So it is a balance. I don't any translation is perfect but all beneift from each other.
Paul, two points. Try not to judge the intents of people you don't know. You cannot possibly know why we have so many modern translations, nor why the scholars did them. Judge not lest you be judged. Given that the NIV, NLT, NRSV have brought many to Jesus Christ the one true God, that they all give glory to God and all basically say the same thing, I find your criticism of "modern translations," unloving, dividing and not at all god honoring. I call you to repent and quit such nonsense. It has no benefit but to divide the body when the body should be united in Christ.
Oh BTW, you can admit that you are a KJV only. We'll all still love you.
BTW 2, what church do you go to? I know none that use the KJV in pew?
"A litte knowledge of the original languages seems to be a hazard." You have never spoken truer words... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
So far, you are the most uncharitable individual I have meet on this board. But, you have the nerve to tell me to be more loving?
I don't judge fruit, I just inspect it. Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
EDIT: At 4:50 pm today I posted a message that clearly states that I am NOT KJV only. Maybe your reading comprehension is part of the reason you have problems with the KJV. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace said:
That is sort of a loaded question. There is a distinct difference between reliability and accuracy.
John replies:
I honestly don't see a difference in the terms when used with reference to Bible translations. When we say a Bible version is reliable, it seems to me we are implying it is accurate.
I was not intending to mislead by my original question.
I appreciate all the comments so far.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Paul, I attest to honorman's uncharitableness. You are not alone in receiving it. Interestingly, there are three or four of us who have been literally appalled at honorman's word choices yet he continues to unswervingly toot his horn at the expense of others. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Why thank you Paul and Fleetwood. Paul, your attitude toward Bible translations that you consider modern is appalling to me. It disregards the love and care that those translators put into them and how God has used them in the name of some purity you believe in. You judge the translators saying it is how they "preceive" them, not knowing why any of these translators do their work. I have done my research on translations such as the NIV, TNIV, the NLT translation and others. I have met with those who make their living selling them, heard and seen first hand how God has changed lives through them. I have also compared and contrasted new and old and have found nothing of substance different. I therefore find your criticism empty and worse, unloving towards the translators of these works and, even worse, disrupting to those who have placed their trust in these translations (and rightfully so). I said what I said because you really have not done your research on these "modern" translations and really do not understand the difficulties of and the task of biblical translation as a whole.
Since, however, I have not been able to convince you read up on the subject I will not be dialoguing on the subject again. I would only hope that you would avoid the subject as well. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/28/2003 1:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Textus Receptus The Greek text that formed the basis of the King James Version in 1611. This complete manuscript of the Greek Bible was put together by Erastmus in 1515-16 AD from 6 partial manuscripts of the New Testament. These 6 manuscripts were of the majority text type and thus the resulting manuscript was basically the Majority Text. However, because he did not have more than two manuscripts of any one portion of the New Testament and in many cases only one, the Textus Receptus differs slightly from the Majority Text as a whole in a few minor places.
By far the most significant difference occurs in 1 John 5. It is generally agreed that a portion of 1 John 5:7-8 was inserted by Erastmus in the Textus Receptus under pressure from the Roman Catholic Church. No other Greek manuscripts prior to his work contain the inserted words.
Majority Text The text of the Greek New Testament represented by over 80% of the extant (available) hand written Greek manuscripts. These 4,000 plus manuscripts are of amazing conformity with very few variations between them in spite of age differences in cases of over 1,000 years.
"The exercise of my preaching from any text would boil down to what is essentially a further translation into today's language." – by Leave me Alone
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/28/2003 1:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul5388
quote:
I have noticed, through the years, that a little knowledge of the original languages seems to be a hazard instead of a help. It's sort of like the saying, "everyone is a mechanic" and then having to work behind and straighten out some of "everyone's" butcher job.
 So true. I think a lot of knowlege of the original language can be a big help but a little is like learning just enough psychology to tell your siblings what's wrong with them.
I use NASB because
1. it's based on older manuscripts than KJV
2. it's more modern English than KJV
3. it's more word for word than these modern colloquial interpretations (see the crap that Rick Warren quotes)
4. oooo, look at the pretty leather cover
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/28/2003 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | The New Testament was originally written in the common Greek language of Jesus' day while the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. There is little question concerning the accuracy and reliability of the Hebrew Old Testament in spite of the fact that it is much older than the Greek New Testament. Much of the Old Testament was given during a thousand year period between 1440 B.C. and 440 B.C. However God miraculously preserved the accuracy of the Old Testament text by putting it into the hearts of meticulous Jewish scribes to painstakingly copy the Bible through the ages--even counting the letters of various books to insure accuracy.
However the Lord chose not to preserve the Greek New Testament in the same manner. God has accurately preserved the Greek New Testament and there need be no doubt about the actual words that God gave the apostles. The Lord has preserved His Word through its accurate copying by thousands of Christian scribes dispersed throughout the world of that day.
The problem that likes to be emphasized is that there are variations between the various thousands of manuscripts. Most of these are of no significance; for example--misspelled words, changes in the order of adjacent words, words or lines accidentally left out while copying and other such common copying mistakes that are quickly and easily detected when the manuscripts are compared with each other. Most scholars or people that do that kind of stuff, agree that the types of variations among the manuscripts affect no question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
However, Satan uses these insignificant variations to shake the faith of many sincere Christians and causes many others to be hurt through needless division and misunderstanding. I am convinced that the facts, when properly presented, will greatly bolster our faith in God's Word, not weaken it.
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2003 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/28/2003 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not familiar with the New King James Version. What/how did they revise it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
The largest change to the NKJ was to moderize the English itself so instead of "thee's" and "thou's" you have "you" and "yours". However, most of the other changes are minor. You can probably see on their website for a complete list of changes.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/28/2003 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | thomas nelson did the updating and owns the copyright to it. Its a good updating to the KJV versions, correcting some of its translating errors and rid it of thees amd thous...I believe it was done in the mid 80s. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/28/2003 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
The NKJV has done the average reader a disservice when they took out the "thee's" and "ye's". It was one of the features missing in modern translations, the ability to distinguish between you-singular and you-plural. It was pretty easy to remember that it is singular if it starts with a "t" and plural if it starts with a "y". I don't think they did like what we do to make that difference in the south, you and y'all (of course, I have heard youse and youins guys up north)! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/29/2003 1:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
Laika,
The NKJV has done the average reader a disservice when they took out the "thee's" and "ye's". It was one of the features missing in modern translations, the ability to distinguish between you-singular and you-plural. It was pretty easy to remember that it is singular if it starts with a "t" and plural if it starts with a "y". I don't think they did like what we do to make that difference in the south, you and y'all (of course, I have heard youse and youins guys up north)!
O.K. I'm out on a pizza/bowling outing with the wonderful young adult group from the First Baptist Church of Altus, Oklahoma back in summer of 1979 and one of the southern gals is sitting there going "y'all" this and "y'all" that and I asked: "excuse me, 'you all', is that singular or plural?" and they all replied "both".
The Mennonites I worked for said "how's come" instead of "why".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/29/2003 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2003 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
I have also noted that lack of distinction between the singular and plural "you" in modern English. However, I think this has more to do with the development of modern English than with the propriety of the KJV's use of the archaic form, "thee/thou." Interestingly, one of my favorite modern translations, the NASB, uses thee, thou and thy when addressing Deity, as in, "Thou art worthy, O Lord..."
That said, it is usually quite clear from the context whether the object of a particular sentence is plural or singular, and as in modern English this distinction is no longer maintained, I see no reason why this should be seen as "a disservice" to modern English readers.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/29/2003 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/29/2003 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
How about this verse, I Cor. 3.16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?(NIV) Is "you" singular or plural? Or even this verse, I Cor. 6.19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;(NIV)
EDIT: How many temples does the Holy Spirit have, since the NIV says "your body is a temple"? | | Back to Top | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:30 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|