Translations.

[OneLight]

36 minutes ago, Alive said:

Yes--there is no possible way that the Lord does not give His own, what is needed for His purposes. I am actually more and more encouraged by the various sources of study on these things, than doubtful. I see the Lord in all of it.

CARM sure does have a lot to offer, for those who dare enter the waters ...

[JimmyB]

15 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

I loved it. 

So?  That is just your opinion, and in my mind, is unfortunate.

[JimmyB]

13 hours ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

I have made scripture comparisons over the years primarily with the NIV (arguably the most popular version next to the KJV) so I really haven't considered other translations. I will make comparisons with other versions on a parallel Bible app. I am just at peace with the KJV. God the Holy Spirit has shown me ( and a great many others) many truths with this version.

Oh, I would never depend on the NIV, or any Bible that paraphrases the Holy scriptures.

If you claim that the NIV "paraphrases" the Holy scriptures, then you must also include the KJV.  If you knew anything about the art/science of Bible translation, you would know that is is impossible to translate the ancient languages into English without altering them.  There are simply too many differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to come up with a perfect translation.

Don't you realize that the King James version was largely based on earlier versions, such as the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, as well as the limited sets of source documents available to them?  Beyond that, of course, the KJV is a political document, created under orders of the secular king to make the Bible conform to his concept of Protestantism (which glorifies the king's rule).  Those who disagreed with his interpretation were punished or fled for their lives, bring their Geneva Bibles with them.

Modern translations are almost exclusively based on the excellent work of committees of scholars,  using the best sources that have ever been available, combined with extensive knowledge of the languages and the ancient societies' understanding of what they meant. The NIV, the NET, the NRSV, and many others are truly excellent Bibles!

The KJV was okay for its time, but that time has passed.

[Prevenient Grace Receiver]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:41 PM, Mama Etna said:

For me translations are a matter of personal preference.  I prefer the KJV because it is more of the word for word type of the translation. 

The KJV is obsolete. It had it's day in the sun.

There are now much better word for word type translations. There are two reasons for this, the FROM and the TO.

The translation TO modern American cannot be surpassed compared to the olde English of half a millenia ago. It is not merely the words but the sentence structures. We simply do not talk that way today.

One of the most common mistakes KJV advocates claim is modern translations translate from KJV. Untrue. Modern translations go back to the oldest known manuscripts, which are even older than in King James times. See Dead Sea Scrolls.

We understand the language we are translating FROM much, much better than in the days of King James and our access to older manuscripts is more contemperaneous than what they had to rely on. The KJV has many errors, most famously 1 John 5:8.

I generally prefer thought translations rather than word translations for readability. I find the importance misplaced because the Bible is a highly figurative book. So, translating word for word the many archaic idioms are lost in 'literal' translations.

An example of readability came from my Japanese friends and knowledge of Spanish. Whereas, we say 'big house' the Spanish say 'house big' (La Casa Grande). The Japanese language reverses the object and subjects of sentences. Whereas, we might say, 'this is my book' they say, 'book is mine.' Hebrew and Greek are likewise. So, a totally literal word for word translation would be highly unreadable as it is not consistent with modern American.

[JimmyB]

7 hours ago, Alive said:

This may be of interest to some. Not complete, but informative.

https://carm.org/the-bible/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations/

The article about the history of Bible translations is well-written and informative.  Everyone should read it, especially those who cling to the King James as being the pure word of God.

Thanks for providing the link!

[JimmyB]

2 hours ago, Prevenient Grace Receiver said:

The KJV is obsolete. It had it's day in the sun.

There are now much better word for word type translations. There are two reasons for this, the FROM and the TO.

The translation TO modern American cannot be surpassed compared to the olde English of half a millenia ago. It is not merely the words but the sentence structures. We simply do not talk that way today.

One of the most common mistakes KJV advocates claim is modern translations translate from KJV. Untrue. Modern translations go back to the oldest known manuscripts, which are even older than in King James times. See Dead Sea Scrolls.

We understand the language we are translating FROM much, much better than in the days of King James and our access to older manuscripts is more contemperaneous than what they had to rely on. The KJV has many errors, most famously 1 John 5:8.

I generally prefer thought translations rather than word translations for readability. I find the importance misplaced because the Bible is a highly figurative book. So, translating word for word the many archaic idioms are lost in 'literal' translations.

An example of readability came from my Japanese friends and knowledge of Spanish. Whereas, we say 'big house' the Spanish say 'house big' (La Casa Grande). The Japanese language reverses the object and subjects of sentences. Whereas, we might say, 'this is my book' they say, 'book is mine.' Hebrew and Greek are likewise. So, a totally literal word for word translation would be highly unreadable as it is not consistent with modern American.

Great post!  Both true and wise!

[Alive]

47 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

The article about the history of Bible translations is well-written and informative.  Everyone should read it, especially those who cling to the King James as being the pure word of God.

Thanks for providing the link!

You are welcome.

[Fidei Defensor]

On 2/16/2022 at 5:08 PM, grahampaul said:

Wat is your inferance in the words  Should and Shall in john 3.16..i wondered what the diferance would mean.

Shall is an absolute, that you “absolutely will,” while should is less certain, as in I should quit drinking milk as lactose intolerant person. 
 

I believe Shall is the proper and correct word in John 3:16. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Fidei Defensor

[other one]

6 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Shall is an absolute, that you “absolutely will,” while should is less certain, as in I should quit drinking milk as lactose intolerant person. 
 

I believe Shall is the proper and correct word in John 3:16. 

It isn't in the original Greek.   It should literally say should not perish for the word translated not is a qualified not.  There is a Greek word for an absolute not.   Thus the proper translation is "should not" instead of "shall not".        

There truly is more to it than just believe.   If you believe in him, you should not perish, but not necessarily so.  It's just the first step.

[Fidei Defensor]

6 hours ago, other one said:

It isn't in the original Greek.   It should literally say should not perish for the word translated not is a qualified not.  There is a Greek word for an absolute not.   Thus the proper translation is "should not" instead of "shall not".        

There truly is more to it than just believe.   If you believe in him, you should not perish, but not necessarily so.  It's just the first step.

Actually believe is sufficient: 

“They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Acts 16:31) 

“For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8) 

“No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:11) -Council of Jerusalem, They Decided Its Grace. 

“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” (Philipoians 3:9) 

“For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40) 

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:21)

We are saved by grace, God’s unmerited favor when He died on the cross & through faith (believing in Him, His salvic work at the cross and tomb, and that he gives us this gift of grace and salvation). Its not works, Its Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus. 
 

Christ gave us the free gift of salvation, we have faith or believe it and in Him, we are then saved, made Elect, and Born Again.