On going debate, English translations of the Bible

[linehaul]

Selen,

God wants His word translated into different languages, which is why the Apostles were able to speak in different tongues at Pentecost. Translating from one language to another is always a challenge. In my native language, for example, the words "she", "he", and "it" is indistinguishable because we use the same word for all three. We also don't have a word for "priest." And the Chamorro word manako is insufficient because manako in English is translated to mean "elderly." But it is the closest word we have for priest, which also means "elder." Translators often use the closest meaning to the Hebrew and Greek words. And then again, there is the problem with interpretation. You may use my one sentence example to show that people interpret the same passages in the Bible in different ways.....and all these people claim to have the Holy Spirit in them.

Sis,, all I can say in response to this is your in my prayers for a better understanding.

God bless

Linehaul

[Steve_S]

I don't disagree with you in principle and I certainly think that the Holy Spirit guides us in interpretation, but I think that it's for our understanding, not because of the inadequacy of the texts that have been preserved. I think our main disagreement is whether or not there is an accurate version or versions that exist. I would think that anything that God preserved would be wholly adequate and incredibly accurate.

Are there any examples you can give of Bibles you've read being errant in areas that you feel the Spirit has guided you to the truth on, specific verses, etc.?

Ok lets look at God, God is always perfect in what ever He does. God has the perfect way to preserve His word, The Holy Spirit. Where any and all translated Bibles come to gain the flaws has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with man. To fully grasp this you are going to have the study the Hebrew and Greek language. Both of these languages have a similarity to them, they are both languages of picture and persist punctuation.

A good example of err by man is in Romans 3:21-22

As translated in the KJV (my preferred study Bible):

Romans 3:21-22

21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Should read:

Romans 3:21-22

21. But now a righteousness of God without the law is manifested;

22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that faith: for there is no difference:

This a just one of about 35 know miss translated scripture. What I sharing here is nothing new. Just not talked about outside the Seminary and religious studies in our Universities.

Many of the New English Translations like the NIV, NLT, and NASB, change the very language of God's word.. an example of this would be Hebrews 12:7-8.

As translated in the KJV

Hebrews 12:7-8

7. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

In many other translations the wording is changed and/or softened

Verse 7 the word {father} is translated as parent. In context the word father is correct as it refers the disciplinarian of the family

Verse 8 the word {bastards} is translated as illegitimate. In context here bastards is a shock or wake up word. But many in Christianity want to believe that

God would not use a word or fraise the would offend anyone.. This just isn't true. God's word purposely offends folk to get their attention on areas in their life that needs work.

So did God preserve His word, Yes, just not in the written word.

God bless

Linehaul

This is why I don't use the NIV, NLT, or NASB, because they use dynamic equivalence (the translator's interpretation of scripture) rather than formal equivalence (an exact translation of the wording without interjection of attempted interpretation).

As far as your KJV issues, I don't see a problem in either of those sentences.

You're looking at hairs being split as far as "believe" and "have faith" goes, as the greek root word for that is:

pisteuō

from strongs: to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Both are acceptable here and I think that in context believe means have faith. We'll leave that alone for now, though.

With the removal of the last part of verse 21 we have to go into textual criticism, which I really don't want to delve too deeply into, but that's a textual argument which I believe the translators of the KJV are correct on.

The King James Version was translated from the Textus receptus, which is backed by the Byzantine text type (also called the majority text, of which there are more agreeing copies than any other text type, by far). Most other modern Bible versions were translated from the alexandrian text type, which was preserved primarily in Alexandria egypt (hence the name). The differences here are obvious. There's a reason that it's called the majority text and there's a reason that modern translators who use dynamic equivalence choose to use the alexandrian text type as their textual basis for the scripture.

Having said that, I'm not KJV only, but I do prefer majority text translations over alexandrian text translations (and yes, there are more than the KJV, I just personally use the KJV and NKJV).

[linehaul]

Steve_S,

I don't disagree with you in principle and I certainly think that the Holy Spirit guides us in interpretation, but I think that it's for our understanding, not because of the inadequacy of the texts that have been preserved. I think our main disagreement is whether or not there is an accurate version or versions that exist. I would think that anything that God preserved would be wholly adequate and incredibly accurate.

Are there any examples you can give of Bibles you've read being errant in areas that you feel the Spirit has guided you to the truth on, specific verses, etc.?

Ok lets look at God, God is always perfect in what ever He does. God has the perfect way to preserve His word, The Holy Spirit. Where any and all translated Bibles come to gain the flaws has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with man. To fully grasp this you are going to have the study the Hebrew and Greek language. Both of these languages have a similarity to them, they are both languages of picture and persist punctuation.

A good example of err by man is in Romans 3:21-22

As translated in the KJV (my preferred study Bible):

Romans 3:21-22

21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Should read:

Romans 3:21-22

21. But now a righteousness of God without the law is manifested;

22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that faith: for there is no difference:

This a just one of about 35 know miss translated scripture. What I sharing here is nothing new. Just not talked about outside the Seminary and religious studies in our Universities.

Many of the New English Translations like the NIV, NLT, and NASB, change the very language of God's word.. an example of this would be Hebrews 12:7-8.

As translated in the KJV

Hebrews 12:7-8

7. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

In many other translations the wording is changed and/or softened

Verse 7 the word {father} is translated as parent. In context the word father is correct as it refers the disciplinarian of the family

Verse 8 the word {bastards} is translated as illegitimate. In context here bastards is a shock or wake up word. But many in Christianity want to believe that

God would not use a word or fraise the would offend anyone.. This just isn't true. God's word purposely offends folk to get their attention on areas in their life that needs work.

So did God preserve His word, Yes, just not in the written word.

God bless

Linehaul

This is why I don't use the NIV, NLT, or NASB, because they use dynamic equivalence (the translator's interpretation of scripture) rather than formal equivalence (an exact translation of the wording without interjection of attempted interpretation).

As far as your KJV issues, I don't see a problem in either of those sentences.

You're looking at hairs being split as far as "believe" and "have faith" goes, as the greek root word for that is:

pisteuō

from strongs: to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Both are acceptable here and I think that in context believe means have faith. We'll leave that alone for now, though.

With the removal of the last part of verse 21 we have to go into textual criticism, which I really don't want to delve too deeply into, but that's a textual argument which I believe the translators of the KJV are correct on.

The King James Version was translated from the Textus receptus, which is backed by the Byzantine text type (also called the majority text, of which there are more agreeing copies than any other text type, by far). Most other modern Bible versions were translated from the alexandrian text type, which was preserved primarily in Alexandria egypt (hence the name). The differences here are obvious. There's a reason that it's called the majority text and there's a reason that modern translators who use dynamic equivalence choose to use the alexandrian text type as their textual basis for the scripture.

Having said that, I'm not KJV only, but I do prefer majority text translations over alexandrian text translations (and yes, there are more than the KJV, I just personally use the KJV and NKJV).

Like the subject header of this topic says, "On going debate". I fully agree with the majority text translations,, they are by far the closest your going to get.

As far as the splitting hairs,, there is a big differance between the words believe and faith. I noticed you use the Strongs. This can't give you pictures that are contaned in the Greek or Hebrew languages.. When you study the Greek language you'll find that in the scripture example I gave the word "faith" translates into "belief put into action". In other words one can believe in something/anything and do nothing else. But one that has belief and tells others is in faith.

But I'd have to say we're both on the same path, just having to take differant steps to get on down the path. This is one of the Greatest joys of being in the service of our Lord Jesus.. Our Lord puts us in contact so that "Steel can sharpen Steel". I have a good feeling where going to end up teaching each other a few areas within the scripture and our walk with Jesus.

God bless

Linehaul

[Steve_S]

But I'd have to say we're both on the same path, just having to take differant steps to get on down the path. This is one of the Greatest joys of being in the service of our Lord Jesus.. Our Lord puts us in contact so that "Steel can sharpen Steel". I have a good feeling where going to end up teaching each other a few areas within the scripture and our walk with Jesus.

God bless

Linehaul

I agree with this.

[gdemoss]

He doesn't give us revelations outside of scripture, but helps us understand scripture.

On what authority do you make this claim?

Gary

[linehaul]

gdemoss,, I don't understand where this question comes from.. The Holy Spirit is given to us that all truths within the scripture is revieled. You may be reading into what Butero is saying here. Butero is correct in this statement, the Holy Spirit doesn't give us revelations outside the Scripture or Word of God.

God bless

Linehaul

[gdemoss]

gdemoss,, I don't understand where this question comes from.. The Holy Spirit is given to us that all truths within the scripture is revieled. You may be reading into what Butero is saying here. Butero is correct in this statement, the Holy Spirit doesn't give us revelations outside the Scripture or Word of God.

God bless

Linehaul

You don't understand the question of authority? On what authority do you say what you have said here? Your own? God's word? Show me, please so I can know. I ask because the same spirit that teaches me what the scriptures mean also tells me where to go and what to do in my own life many times. He takes me to places on the internet and reveals information that I am lacking so that I might better understand things. He guides me into all truth, whether it is within the covers of the bible or somewhere in the world...he guides, I follow.

Gary

[Willa]

Even Paul, who received the Gospel taught by the Holy Spirit in the wilderness for several years, went back to the elders at Jeruselem to make sure that he was preaching the same Gospel that they preached. He passed the test and was sent back to the Gentiles with the blessing of the Jeruselem church.

I am acquainted with the child of a man who claimed to be taught by the Holy Spirit in Africa with no Bible. His followers formed a cult like movement based on his writings. Dozens were ordained as part of their "ministerial associations" and a few even admitted that they had done it for tax deduction purposes. The teaching of this sect did not always match the Bible and where they differed the guy's writings were held as superior.

Weird stuff happens when we don't stay grounded in God's word.

I do believe that the things of the Spirit can only be revealed by the Spirit. as in 1 Cor 2:9-16. But I limit this to the revelation which is contained in Scripture. I also believe that Scripture interprets Scripture better than any of man's commentaries.

As to interpretaions. I don't find the Authorized KJV of 1769 to be easy to read. I am dyslexic and lose my place a lot as well as the train of thought. So I never got much out of stumbling through thee and thou and all the eths on words. I stick to NKJV and NASB which also put the words in italics that have been supplied by the interpreters. For instance, in the book of John Jesus repeatedly answers those who ask "who do you say that you are" by answering I AM he. Jesus is claiming to be the I Am who Moses spoke with in the burning bush. The translators did not make this connection so thought they had to supply the he for it to make sense. So I X out the he in my Bible.

Jesus did say that not one jot or title would not be fulfilled, and we are warned not to add to or take away from the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Most of the New Testament was written as a series of letters to churches and individuals for the purpose of being passed around and read in the churches. They were all inspired verbally, plenery, using each mans abilites and personalities to create a perfect revelation from God in the original Greek and Aramaic. Our interpretaions are limited to the limitations of the language being used, as our sister from Guam has said. I remember one Wickcliff ?sp? interpreter said one island had no source of fresh running water. They drank from the dew. So to interpret "rivers of living water" they had to used the word for a blow hole. It was the closest they could come to something these people could comprehend. So Selene and I will pray for your understanding, too.

So, you lovers of KJV, please don't think that you have to pray in church in King James to be spiritual like they did in the church in which I grew up. They sounded more like the Pharasees. While the guy who couldn't speak so eloquently wouldn't even use a mike as he muttered a few words of a humble prayer. Of course, he could have been a Catholic priest praying in Latin for all we knew. But I somehow felt that his heart was reaching God's throne.

[nChrist]

The Holy Bible has been translated into just about every known language of man, and there is NO TRANSLATION that serves as a standard. The STANDARD is the originals in Hebrew and Greek. This explains why most serious Bible students still refer back to the Hebrew and Greek. So, the accuracy of any translation in any language is determined by comparing it to the ORIGINALS - not other TRANSLATIONS. I'll just give thanks that English speaking people have many excellent translations of the Holy Bible to choose from.

[other one]

The Holy Bible has been translated into just about every known language of man, and there is NO TRANSLATION that serves as a standard. The STANDARD is the originals in Hebrew and Greek. This explains why most serious Bible students still refer back to the Hebrew and Greek. So, the accuracy of any translation in any language is determined by comparing it to the ORIGINALS - not other TRANSLATIONS. I'll just give thanks that English speaking people have many excellent translations of the Holy Bible to choose from.

Not all the hebrew and greek agree with themselves.