Translations.

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, Hopefully said:

When the Bible is translated to the Chinese or say Islamic language, what version is it translated from? If anyone knows.

 

Ideally they would use the same source documents that we used to translate into English.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, MonicaWife said:

Why do you think the NIV is a more accurate translation? 

I read the NIV for pleasure.  I study God's word using the NASB and ESV primarily.  The NIV is a phrase-to-phrase translation, whereas the NASB is a word-by-word translation which is harder to read and less accurate because there isn't always a one-to-one equivalent.  The HCSB, CSB and ESV are more than acceptable compromises, in my opinion.

[Deadworm]

Almost any translation but the KJV and NKJV!  Not because of their various translation errors (and there are plenty!), but because of the corrupt Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used for their translation.  These translations are based on the latest and most error-filled Byzantine texts.  In the early 1600s very few of the presently available older and more accurate manuscripts were available. 

The most regrettable error is the inclusion of the bogus ending of Mark 16:9-20, which is strikingly missing from key early manuscripts of Mark.   In one Greek manuscript even identifies the forger, Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD).  Do you really think Jesus would identify snake-handling and poison-drinking with impunity as an actual "sign" of the true believer as opposed to, say, a life of agape love?   One of the first things you learn in evangelical seminaries is how corrupt the KJV/ NKJV really are.

[Ani Tefillah]

32 minutes ago, Deadworm said:

Almost any translation but the KJV and NKJV!  Not because of their various translation errors (and there are plenty!), but because of the corrupt Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used for their translation.  These translations are based on the latest and most error-filled Byzantine texts.  In the early 1600s very few of the presently available older and more accurate manuscripts were available. 

The most regrettable error is the inclusion of the bogus ending of Mark 16:9-20, which is strikingly missing from key early manuscripts of Mark.   In one Greek manuscript even identifies the forger, Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD).  Do you really think Jesus would identify snake-handling and poison-drinking with impunity as an actual "sign" of the true believer as opposed to, say, a life of agape love?   One of the first things you learn in evangelical seminaries is how corrupt the KJV/ NKJV really are.

Unfortunately there's no perfect translations, and that's why I compare many of them. 

[David1701]

4 hours ago, Deadworm said:

Almost any translation but the KJV and NKJV!  Not because of their various translation errors (and there are plenty!), but because of the corrupt Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used for their translation.  These translations are based on the latest and most error-filled Byzantine texts.  In the early 1600s very few of the presently available older and more accurate manuscripts were available. 

The most regrettable error is the inclusion of the bogus ending of Mark 16:9-20, which is strikingly missing from key early manuscripts of Mark.   In one Greek manuscript even identifies the forger, Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD).  Do you really think Jesus would identify snake-handling and poison-drinking with impunity as an actual "sign" of the true believer as opposed to, say, a life of agape love?   One of the first things you learn in evangelical seminaries is how corrupt the KJV/ NKJV really are.

Mark 16:9-20 is present in hundreds of Greek manuscripts (with slight variations).  It is omitted in only THREE that contain the ending of Mark.  Only two of the three that omit it are held in any regard (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and they are riddled with copyists errors (they disagree with each other more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone).

Oldest and best?  No!

[Guest]

I'm looking to buy a new ESV Study Bible in large print.  I've got a Reformation Study Bible in ESV but the study notes are by R. C. Sproul.  I have differences with Sproul on a number of issues.  I like the reviews on Amazon.

[JimmyB]

Although I regularly read several translations (NIV, NRSV, NASB) my favorite is the NET.  It is very well-written and -> has more than 60,000 translator's notes <- that accompany the text.  They explain many translation decisions and clarify the meanings of the source documents if there is any disagreement.

Also, the main font used is very legible, although the accompanying notes us a very small font.

[Deborah_]

On 8/2/2022 at 4:07 PM, Hopefully said:

When the Bible is translated to the Chinese or say Islamic language, what version is it translated from? If anyone knows.

 

It is translated direct from the Hebrew and Greek texts, just as English language Bibles are.

And modern translators use the latest version of the Greek text (the same one used by the NIV / NET and other modern versions).

[Deadworm]

On 8/3/2022 at 2:45 PM, David1701 said:

David1701: "Mark 16:9-20 is present in hundreds of Greek manuscripts (with slight variations). "

Mostly later and highly corrupted manuscripts.  

David1701: "It is omitted in only THREE that contain the ending of Mark.  Only two of the three that omit it are held in any regard (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)..."

And those 2 (supported by many others) are decisive.  Only 4 very late Byzantine manuscripts were available to the KJV translators.  Please notice, readers, that David ignores the important point that one Greek manuscript even identifies the forger of Mark 16:9-29, Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD).

David1701:  "and they are riddled with copyists errors (they disagree with each other more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone)."

The Byzantine manuscripts are eve more riddled with contradictory readings.  Indeed, there are 400.000 contradictory readings in NT Greek manuscripts.

It is so ironic that evangelicals with the highest view of biblical inspiration often prefer the translation based on the most corrupt texts and have sadly never read a standard book on Text Criticism that documents the evidence for this claim in painstaking detail.  

 

 

[David1701]

7 hours ago, Deadworm said:

Mostly later and highly corrupted manuscripts. 

No: mostly later and much less corrupted manuscripts.

Quote

And those 2 (supported by many others) are decisive.  Only 4 very late Byzantine manuscripts were available to the KJV translators.  Please notice, readers, that David ignores the important point that one Greek manuscript even identifies the forger of Mark 16:9-29, Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD).

Those two (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are only supported by ONE other manuscript, re. them ending Mark at 16:8. 

By the way, do you honestly believe that Mark ended his gospel at 16:8?  I don't think so...

Mark 16:8 (EMTV) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Who cares what the KJV translators had available to them?  What does this discussion have to do with the KJV?

So, one Greek manuscript makes a completely unsubstantiated claim, in a comment.  Well, thanks for admitting the paucity of your evidence!

Quote

The Byzantine manuscripts are eve more riddled with contradictory readings.  Indeed, there are 400.000 contradictory readings in NT Greek manuscripts.

No, the Byzantine manuscripts are widely acknowledged, by the experts, to be in far greater agreement than the few surviving earliest ones.

Quote

It is so ironic that evangelicals with the highest view of biblical inspiration often prefer the translation based on the most corrupt texts and have sadly never read a standard book on Text Criticism that documents the evidence for this claim in painstaking detail.  

Hubris...

Edited August 8, 2022 by David1701