Translations.

[Retrobyter]

22 hours 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! 

Shalom, MonicaWife.

The best translation for anyone is the one translation they will read.

That being said, there are also good reasons for many different translations and even paraphrases. They BROADEN the mind to other ideas of what may have been intended by the author of that Bible book. For me, they are in the same category as commentaries. One must just remember that translations and paraphrases are HUMAN works and are therefore susceptible to the interpretations and errors of the translators or paraphrasers. ESSENTIAL translations are the first translations into another language in which no translation had previously existed.

I like the King James Version the best, and here's why:

First, it is public domain. Many translations these days are copyrighted, and one must quote them by previous permission, first! The King James Authorized Version of the Bible has been around since 1611 A.D. and has been used by most of the English speaking world since then.

Second, it PRESERVES the thee's and thou's. Often, translations in the mid to late 20th Century were specifically made to REMOVE the "thee's and thou's." But, this is information that the KJV has that many modern translations have lost!

The "thee's," "thou's," "thy's," and "thine's" are SINGULAR pronouns. The "you's," "ye's," "your's," and "yours's" are PLURAL pronouns. When all of these have been reduced to simply "you," "your," and "yours," we've LOST KEY INFORMATION! We also have the difference between subject and direct object lost, as well. One can verify this by simply comparing the KJV to a Greek NT. One will find that the "thee's" and "thou's" are translations of "su" and "se," while the "you's" and "ye's" are translations of "humeis" and "humas."

Third, the KJV preserves the nomenclature to distinguish between the Hebrew words "adonay" and the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH." It does this simply by translating the word "adonay" as "Lord," and the Tetragrammaton as "LORD," (often written as an upper capital "L-" and lower caps "-ORD").

Fourth, although this is changing, so far, the KJV still has the most study helps available, having been around the longest. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, for instance, is keyed to the KJV. Within an entry, such as ...

3772 ouranos οὐρανός, οῦ, ὁ (oo-ran-os'). Perhaps from the same as oros (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension, heaven (as the abode of God); by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specially, the Gospel (Christianity):
-- air, heaven(-ly), sky

... the words listed after the colon-dash (": --") are the English words used in the translation of "ouranos," for instance, within the KJV. Thus, we see that the word "ouranos" was translated as "air," "heaven," "heavenly," or "sky" in the KJV.

Fifth, it was nearly kept as a word-for-word translation, keeping the translation as close as possible to the Greek and Hebrew texts as one can and still have meaningful translation. Many of the translations that are out today opt rather for a thought-for-thought tranlsation process. However, this is much more susceptible to the interpretations and the biases of the translators than the word-for-word translations are. If the translator doesn't completely understand the nuances of what the original authors intended to convey, it will show up in their translation. Humor in the original manuscript almost ALWAYS suffers in translation!

For these reasons, I prefer to use the KJV. It may not be the "best" translation, in someone else's opinion, but it's a VERY GOOD translation, and the one with which I was raised. Someone may be able to point out its flaws, but I can be sure that the translation he or she prefers will also have its own set of flaws.

[JimmyB]

On 8/10/2022 at 5:27 PM, David1701 said:

Feel free to tell us all how many English translations of the Bible end Mark at 16:8.  I'm sure you know better than the translators.

The majority of Bible translations include the "long ending" of Mark for historical reasons, but the great majority add an explanation giving the reasons that it was most likely added to the gospel.

You snide criticism is ignored.  Why do you feel it necessary to include that garbage?

[JimmyB]

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, MonicaWife.

The best translation for anyone is the one translation they will read.

That being said, there are also good reasons for many different translations and even paraphrases. They BROADEN the mind to other ideas of what may have been intended by the author of that Bible book. For me, they are in the same category as commentaries. One must just remember that translations and paraphrases are HUMAN works and are therefore susceptible to the interpretations and errors of the translators or paraphrasers. ESSENTIAL translations are the first translations into another language in which no translation had previously existed.

I like the King James Version the best, and here's why:

First, it is public domain. Many translations these days are copyrighted, and one must quote them by previous permission, first! The King James Authorized Version of the Bible has been around since 1611 A.D. and has been used by most of the English speaking world since then.

Second, it PRESERVES the thee's and thou's. Often, translations in the mid to late 20th Century were specifically made to REMOVE the "thee's and thou's." But, this is information that the KJV has that many modern translations have lost!

The "thee's," "thou's," "thy's," and "thine's" are SINGULAR pronouns. The "you's," "ye's," "your's," and "yours's" are PLURAL pronouns. When all of these have been reduced to simply "you," "your," and "yours," we've LOST KEY INFORMATION! We also have the difference between subject and direct object lost, as well. One can verify this by simply comparing the KJV to a Greek NT. One will find that the "thee's" and "thou's" are translations of "su" and "se," while the "you's" and "ye's" are translations of "humeis" and "humas."

Third, the KJV preserves the nomenclature to distinguish between the Hebrew words "adonay" and the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH." It does this simply by translating the word "adonay" as "Lord," and the Tetragrammaton as "LORD," (often written as an upper capital "L-" and lower caps "-ORD").

Fourth, although this is changing, so far, the KJV still has the most study helps available, having been around the longest. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, for instance, is keyed to the KJV. Within an entry, such as ...

3772 ouranos οὐρανός, οῦ, ὁ (oo-ran-os'). Perhaps from the same as oros (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension, heaven (as the abode of God); by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specially, the Gospel (Christianity):
-- air, heaven(-ly), sky

... the words listed after the colon-dash (": --") are the English words used in the translation of "ouranos," for instance, within the KJV. Thus, we see that the word "ouranos" was translated as "air," "heaven," "heavenly," or "sky" in the KJV.

Fifth, it was nearly kept as a word-for-word translation, keeping the translation as close as possible to the Greek and Hebrew texts as one can and still have meaningful translation. Many of the translations that are out today opt rather for a thought-for-thought tranlsation process. However, this is much more susceptible to the interpretations and the biases of the translators than the word-for-word translations are. If the translator doesn't completely understand the nuances of what the original authors intended to convey, it will show up in their translation. Humor in the original manuscript almost ALWAYS suffers in translation!

For these reasons, I prefer to use the KJV. It may not be the "best" translation, in someone else's opinion, but it's a VERY GOOD translation, and the one with which I was raised. Someone may be able to point out its flaws, but I can be sure that the translation he or she prefers will also have its own set of flaws.

I have read many posts about the King James translation and why some people prefer it to others.  This is the best one that I have read on the subject!  Most of the time it's KJVOs saying that the King James Bible is the word of God.

I prefer modern translations for several reasons...

1) They are written in the language that you and I and virtually every other English-speaking/reading person understands most clearly.  IMHO, it is the understanding of Scripture that is paramount.

2) They are based on the most extensive source evidence, including non-Scriptural sources that illuminate the meaning within the culture in which the Biblical texts were written.

3) Because of the differences in word meaning, verb tenses, idioms, etc. the idea of a "word-for-word" translation is impossible.  Idioms particularly are a problem.  For example, if I said "it's raining cats and dogs" to someone not familiar with English, they would consider me insane.  The same principle holds true for the Bible source language cultures.

4) I'm sure you're aware that translations are created to be understood within specific cultures.  For example, recently I have been reading the "First Nations Version" of the NT, which translates the Biblical concepts into Native American thought patterns.  I also have friends that translated the Bible into the language and thought patterns of New Guinea tribespeople.  Our English translations were created to be understood within our culture but, and this is important, the culture of early 17th Century England no longer exists.  As you correctly state, the KJV pronouns may be more precise, but we no longer use plowshares or pruning hooks, nor de we understand the strength of a unicorn.

5) For these reasons, I prefer modern translations, created for me, in my language, to be understood by my culture.  I also rely extensively on translator's notes, which is one reason I especially like the NET Bible, which has more than 60,000 notes to accompany the (modern English) text.

[Alive]

Years ago in the realm of the Pentecostal denomination I was a member of, there was a running joke, that some folks--old-timers mostly---"if it was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me"

For many  years in my early study and sermon preparation and such, the Holy Spirit had no problems helping me understand the KJV.

:-)

I still hear it in my head. Nowadays, I consult several translations, as well as the originals we have and lexicons. There has never been such riches available as there is for His children who study scripture.

I am thankful for it all and am quite convinced that the Lord has preserved for us---just what we need.

That last cannot be over-emphasized. Every Christian ought to be sure of that in heart and mind.

[missmuffet]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:15 AM, MonicaWife said:

During the years with the Lord, I've seen many different Bible translations, both in Norwegian and English, and I have compared them to each other, and first of all to the origin text. 

I have an neat and useful Bible study app, called "My Bible", where I can (from the app/after I have installed it) download many different versions (translations) of the Bible, and many study tools too. Have you heard about this app? 

I've read that many like the KJV (King James Version) translation, but I must admit that there are some words in there that I can not agree with :

*For example the word "church" ; should it not be "congregation or assembly"? 

*And the word "Holy ghost 👻" (yes, the word ghost 👻, makes me think of a ghost 👻). Should it not be "Holy Spirit"? 

For me these two words are important, so I am not satisfied with that part of the KJV. 

Have you found a Bible version which is very similar to the origin text? 

A Bible translation need to be true to the Word of God. Some Bible translations can be a problem teaching what God wants us to know.

[Alive]

27 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

A Bible translation need to be true to the Word of God. Some Bible translations can be a problem teaching what God wants us to know.

Mm…I have always distinguished between a translation and a bible version. We have several good translations and some lousy versions.

[David1701]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

The majority of Bible translations include the "long ending" of Mark for historical reasons,...

If that's true, then "the majority of Bible translations" obviously aren't paying any attention to the warnings about adding to, or subtracting from, God's word.  If they honestly believe that Mark should end at 16:8, then they have absolutely no right to include verses 9-20.  Of course, even the ones based on the Critical Text do not usually claim that verses 9-20 are not Scripture.  They usually say that verses 9-20 are not included in some of the oldest Greek manuscripts, or something to that effect.

One of the few modern translations with an honest note, at this point, is the NKJV.

"Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them."

This is factually accurate and does not contain misleading and biased statements like "not in the oldest and best manuscripts".

Quote

...but the great majority add an explanation giving the reasons that it was most likely added to the gospel.

No, "the great majority" do not do that; in fact, very few indeed do that, thankfully.

Quote

You snide criticism is ignored.  Why do you feel it necessary to include that garbage?

I hate it when professing Christians cast doubt on parts of God's word.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  That is the garbage.

[JimmyB]

13 minutes ago, Alive said:

Mm…I have always distinguished between a translation and a bible version. We have several good translations and some lousy versions.

Okay, what is the difference to you between a translation and a version?  I have my own idea what you mean but I would appreciate some clarification.

[Alive]

ESV also has great notes about Mark 16.

[David1701]

13 hours ago, Deadworm said:

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.

 

Here's one example: the CT reading for Luke 3:33.  Who is "Arni" and is he really a Terminator?

Luke 3:33 (ESV) the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

Quote

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.

Yes, it is useful and interesting to know about mistranslations, especially if they change the meaning of something important.