Translations.

[Ani Tefillah]

Shalom! I started this thread some time ago, and I wanted it to be a place where we could share about different translations of the Holy Word, and not a place to quarrel and accuse each other etc. 😔 

So, please think before you answer, OK? 

Shalom! 

[Deadworm]

8 hours ago, David1701 said:

 

David1701: "1 John 5:7,8 is not the subject of discussion, although there is plentiful evidence for it in the Latin manuscripts and ECFs."

The NT was written in Greek, not Latin, and the Greek textual evidence for 1 John 5:7-8 is negligible.  I challenge you to find even one modern critical commentary just on the Johannine epistles that considers it authentic--just one!

David1701: "Then you should know that the Byzantine text type manuscripts, in general, agree better and have fewer copyists errors than the tiny number of oldest extant Greek manuscripts."

The agreement of late and highly corrupt Byzantine manuscripts with each other is irrelevant to the question of the original reading.  You are apparently blissfully ignorant of the various criteria used to identify original readings.  Prove me wrong.

 

[just_abc]

1 hour ago, MonicaWife said:

Shalom! I started this thread some time ago, and I wanted it to be a place where we could share about different translations of the Holy Word, and not a place to quarrel and accuse each other etc. 😔 

So, please think before you answer, OK? 

Shalom! 

To everyone..

I am thinking perhaps it might be good if we all respect this OP wishes?

Just my thoughts.   No offence intended.   Thanks.

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by just_abc

[Willa]

17 hours ago, David1701 said:

I have all three of those translations (well, I have the ALTD, which is easier to read than the ALT3, because the notes don't clutter up the text), and several more besides.  It's good to have various translations to compare.

The World English Bible (WEB) is also quite a good, freely available translation, based on a Majority Text (in the NT); and the English Majority Text Version is a good New Testament, also based on a Majority Text.

Thank you, good to know about EMTV--not familiar with it.  I used to use WEB but it didn't upload to my E Sword, which gave me KJV text but labeled it WEB.  In 1958 I cut my teeth on AMP; ALT3 reads a little like it but without opinion. A very good study reference.  I wish they had a sample of ALTD that I could read, like a page so I could compare.   Have you seen any of Zeolla's Old Testament translations?

[David1701]

8 hours ago, Willa said:

Thank you, good to know about EMTV--not familiar with it.  I used to use WEB but it didn't upload to my E Sword, which gave me KJV text but labeled it WEB.  In 1958 I cut my teeth on AMP; ALT3 reads a little like it but without opinion. A very good study reference.  I wish they had a sample of ALTD that I could read, like a page so I could compare.   Have you seen any of Zeolla's Old Testament translations?

I've not seen Zeolla's OT translations; but, they're from the Septuagint and I don't think I'll bother.  I have two translations of the Septuagint (one in a full, printed Bible called "The Logos Bible", which also has the EMTV NT, and another in a Bible programme) and, having read some of it, I don't trust the Septuagint, at least, not the version available nowadays (e.g. read Psalm 151 and see if you think it's inspired - I don't).

Here's a link to Zeolla's page about the ALTD, there are some sample passages lower down the page.

https://www.zeolla.org/christian//books/preview/altd.htm

The Bible programme "theWord" is very good, free to download and the WEB (amongst many others) works fine in that (you can download and install many modules).

Edited August 11, 2022 by David1701

[David1701]

9 hours ago, Deadworm said:

The NT was written in Greek, not Latin, and the Greek textual evidence for 1 John 5:7-8 is negligible.  I challenge you to find even one modern critical commentary just on the Johannine epistles that considers it authentic--just one!

I know that 1 John 5:7,8 is doubted by many (primarily because of the lack of Greek manuscript evidence); but, we should be willing to consider the other available evidence as well.  After all, some Critical Text readings have only one or two Greek manuscripts as supporting evidence.

Quote

The agreement of late and highly corrupt Byzantine manuscripts with each other is irrelevant to the question of the original reading.  You are apparently blissfully ignorant of the various criteria used to identify original readings.  Prove me wrong.

Look, I don't doubt your erudition; but, you are looking at this from only one angle (the angle used by Critical Text supporters).  I know about the criteria that CT supporters use to determine the best readings, but I don't agree that they are all sound; in fact, some contradict each other.

As far as proving you wrong is concerned, since you appear to have a lot of knowledge in this area, you will know that proof is one thing that is very hard to come by, in the field of Textual Criticism: evidence - yes; proof - no.

The decisions as to which readings are the best attested, depend upon the criteria used to determine best attestation.  Critical Text supporters (like Metzger and Wallace) use different criteria from those used by Majority Text supporters (I'm sure you know all this, and much more besides, but I want you to be aware that I know it as well).

Have you ever read scholarly Textual Criticism books, by experts who support something other than the Critical Text (and please don't say that there aren't any, because there are)?  I'm not referring to King James Only nonsense, but proper, scholarly works.

I recommended a couple of such books in an earlier post; if you haven't read them before, then I would suggest them to you now, to get a different perspective.

"The Ancient Text of the New Testament", by Prof. Jakob van Bruggen

"The Identity of the New Testament Text", by Dr. Wilbur Pickering

These can both be found on the Web, as free PDF downloads.

[Philologos]

I’m fairly certain that none of us believe any English Bible is a perfect translation. I think we all choose and use versions that fit our comfort level, for whatever reasons.

I believe, though, that if someone is teaching/preaching they should use a version that is not confusing to the listener, (or the speaker, lol).

I personally use the Apostolic (LXX) for accuracy in translation and source text, which matches with DSS in areas where bibles derived from the Masoretic text have added, removed, or altered the text. Using this, I have found some passages of scripture have “lost something in translation.”

I find it more valuable in comparing the traditional translations, post-1000 AD, by noting the word choices made by people who actually read scripture in Hebrew during that period.

I use NIV and NASB for “bulk” reading and devotional studies.

 

[Deadworm]

When @Willa and others call for a less argumentative discussion of preferred translations, they are in effect admitting that they could care less whether the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts used are in fact the Word of God.  With 400.000 contradictory readings, textual corruption is a serious issue. 

When I attended a celebrated evangelical seminary for a year (before transferring to Princeton), the professors would plead, "We've got to educate church lay people about critical biblical sources."  The typical response of my fellow students was, "Nope!  Church folks just aren't ready to hear that!"  

Gordon Fee is an Assembly of God NT professor who wrote a good book on Text Criticism.  My aunt attended Fee's Bible studies when he was still a pastor.  He'd encourage members to bring their KJV, but would then read its texts and sometimes say, "Stroke that out of your Bible; it's not the Word of God!"  Then he would patiently explain how Bible scholars knows this.

[David1701]

4 hours ago, Deadworm said:

When @Willa and others call for a less argumentative discussion of preferred translations, they are in effect admitting that they could care less whether the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts used are in fact the Word of God.  With 400.000 contradictory readings, textual corruption is a serious issue. 

When I attended a celebrated evangelical seminary for a year (before transferring to Princeton), the professors would plead, "We've got to educate church lay people about critical biblical sources."  The typical response of my fellow students was, "Nope!  Church folks just aren't ready to hear that!"  

Gordon Fee is an Assembly of God NT professor who wrote a good book on Text Criticism.  My aunt attended Fee's Bible studies when he was still a pastor.  He'd encourage members to bring their KJV, but would then read its texts and sometimes say, "Stroke that out of your Bible; it's not the Word of God!"  Then he would patiently explain how Bible scholars knows this.

Gordon Fee is another Critical Text supporter.  There is nothing wrong with reading CT supporting books; however, I would always recommend people to read books by experts with different views, then make an informed decision.  Reading only one side of the argument will not lead to an informed decision.

[Deadworm]

David, I like the tone of your debating style, but feel compelled to challenge you to produce even one text accepted in the CT that is as pathetically tenuous as the Johannine Comma.

What I suspect would interest you and readers more is the case for doctrinally and spiritually significant mistranslations in widely accepted Bible versions.  Some of these mistranslations occur in all versions!  I will start a new thread to illustrate these and even include the case (other than a Greek manuscript's claim) for Aristo of Pella as the forger of Mark 16:9-20.