Translations.

[Retrobyter]

52 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I do not like having to translate archaic english just to read the bible. I see no reason to read the bible in a foreign language. 

Shalom, ayin jade.

That's understandable. Just remember, though, that it is WE who are reading the "foreign language" of English! Our language is JUST AS DIFFERENT TO HEBREW-SPEAKERS as Hebrew is to us, and EVERY ONE of the authors of the books of the Bible spoke Hebrew (or its cousin Aramaic)! We read in the wrong direction; we use letters that aren't even close to the letters used in the original Hebrew; and we have an ENTIRELY different grammar style!

With the exception of some of Paul's letters, most books were originally penned in Hebrew or Aramaic and TRANSLATED into Greek! Then, after they were translated into Latin by the Roman church, many of the original Hebrew and Aramaic writings were BURNED, because of anti-Semitism in the 200s and 300s!

[David1701]

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, David1701.

One should ALWAYS check one language against another!

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,

versus

1 Chronicles 2:1-11 (KJV)

1 These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, 2 Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

3 The sons of Judah (Hebrew: Yhuwdaah); Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. 4 And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez (Hebrew: Perets) and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.

5 The sons of Pharez; Hezron (Hebrew: Hetsrown), and Hamul. 6 And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all. 7 And the sons of Carmi; Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed. 8 And the sons of Ethan; Azariah.

9 The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram (Hebrew: Raam), and Chelubai. 10 And Ram begat Amminadab (Hebrew: `AmmiynaadaaV); and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; 11 And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz, 12 And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse,

So, the actual list is: `AmmiynaadaaV, Raam, Hetsrown, Perets, Yhuwdaah.

This can be confirmed with Genesis 46:12; and Ruth 4:18, 19.

Furthermore, there are several different Greek versions that are out there:

Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) says that Luke 3:33 should be ...

τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, τοῦ Ἀράμ, τοῦ Ἑσρώμ, τοῦ Φαρές, τοῦ Ἰούδα,

Transliterated into English lettering this is ...

tou Aminadab, tou Aram, tou Hesroom, tou Fares, tou Iouda,

Translated into English, this is ...

of-the Aminadab, of-the Aram, of-the Hesrom, of the Fares, of-the Juda,

and the King James Version renders it ...

Luke 3:33 (KJV)

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

And your point is...?

My post was made to point out that a portion of Luke 3:33, in the Greek Critical Text (using the ESV as an English translation) has a reading with no Greek manuscript support.  I'm unsure why you posted your reply to me, although it does support my case.

[David1701]

14 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Mentioning Easter, does that for me!

Yes indeed!  Easter, unicorn, bishop; them that have the rule over you; avoid all appearance of evil, etc.  There is a small number of poor translation choices, in the KJV; but, overall, it's a very good translation.

[Alive]

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, ayin jade.

There are a few words that are "archaic," like "wot" and "trow"; however, for the most part it's a more pure form of English than we have today. The 1611 English, which was the contemporary English of William Shakespeare, has case as well as gender and number, like many European languages. Modern English had degenerated into its current form and has LOST so much information in the process. There are legitimate reasons for the various endings of the verbs in 1611 English. It's not just the "thee's" and "thou's"; it's also the verb endings that go along with them, verbs that end with "-est" and "-eth" have their place, too, just as much as "-ed" and "-ing." We should be striving to understand the older forms of English as much as we should understand Greek or Hebrew.

The New American Standard Bible is as a good word-for-word translation as the King James Version. However, one should also note that the NEW American Standard Version is as different from the American Standard Version as the New King James Version is different from the KJV.

The meaning of the word "unicorn" is "one-horn"; it was a word commonly used for the rhinoceros.

The meaning of the word "corn" is found in the fact that it comes from the same root as "kernal." It is also related to the "Old English, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch koren and German Korn," and "kernal" is from the "Old English cyrnel, diminutive of corn." It's ...

"a softer, usually edible part of a nut, seed, or fruit stone contained within its hard shell."

So, don't be misled by the current definitions of words used in the 1600s to translate the Scriptures. A few things have changed since then.

Sometimes, we tend to think that the OLD is archaic and the New is more "sophisticated." But, actually, it's more like the NEW is more degenerate and decayed than the more pure OLD. Our English language has devolved into what it is today.

Interesting points.

[Alive]

For many years, now--my primary bible has been the NAS. I trust both the roots of it being the KJV 1611 and the integrity of the first revision of the KJV done by English scholars and called the RV (Revised Version), later American scholars were included to work closely with the British (quite a group all together) and that work produced the ASV (American Standard Version) and since has been revised 3 times I think, using newly discovered textual sources.

Honestly, I am not certain that all of the newer sources have made for actual improvements to the text.

None of the translations are perfect, but I trust that such a large group of brothers of various backgrounds had to work together under a cover of mutual accountability and with the Lord's guidance---have given us a reliable scripture. In the end--I trust the Lord is faithful.

[David1701]

11 minutes ago, Alive said:

For many years, now--my primary bible has been the NAS. I trust both the roots of it being the KJV 1611 and the integrity of the first revision of the KJV done by English scholars and called the RV (Revised Version), later American scholars were included to work closely with the British (quite a group all together) and that work produced the ASV (American Standard Version) and since has been revised 3 times I think, using newly discovered textual sources.

Honestly, I am not certain that all of the newer sources have made for actual improvements to the text.

None of the translations are perfect, but I trust that such a large group of brothers of various backgrounds had to work together under a cover of mutual accountability and with the Lord's guidance---have given us a reliable scripture. In the end--I trust the Lord is faithful.

Aargh!!!

Do you know the history of the R.V./A.S.V.?

The R.V. translation committee was headed by an RC sympathiser, Hort, who had a pathological hatred for the Received Text, as is clear from his own writings (and had had for decades; in fact, from before he'd studied the issue at all!).

He had planned, for decades, along with Westcott (an Anglican bishop, who was also an RC sympathiser) to replace the TR with his own Greek NT.  When he was made head of the R.V. translation committee, he saw his chance.

His mandate was ONLY to revise the English of the KJV, NOT the Greek.  Secretly, and contrary to his mandate, he introduced his own Greek NT to the committee and asked them to keep it secret, until publication.

His own Greek NT was based, primarily, on TWO Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus AND Vaticanus, which are so riddled with errors that they disagree with each other more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone), along with his own suppositions about transmission of the text down the years.

[Alive]

3 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Aargh!!!

Do you know the history of the R.V./A.S.V.?

The R.V. translation committee was headed by an RC sympathiser, Hort, who had a pathological hatred for the Received Text, as is clear from his own writings (and had had for decades; in fact, from before he'd studied the issue at all!).

He had planned, for decades, along with Westcott (an Anglican bishop, who was also an RC sympathiser) to replace the TR with his own Greek NT.  When he was made head of the R.V. translation committee, he saw his chance.

His mandate was ONLY to revise the English of the KJV, NOT the Greek.  Secretly, and contrary to his mandate, he introduced his own Greek NT to the committee and asked them to keep it secret, until publication.

His own Greek NT was based, primarily, on TWO Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus AND Vaticanus, which are so riddled with errors that they disagree with each other more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone), along with his own suppositions about transmission of the text down the years.

LOL

No--I am not familiar with those details.

My understanding is KJV-RV-ARV-ASV-NASV

The American Standard Version, which was also known as The American Revision of 1901, is rooted in the work begun in 1870 to revise the King James Bible of 1611. This project eventually produced the Revised Version (RV) in the UK. An invitation was extended to American religious leaders for scholars to work on the RV project. In 1871, thirty scholars were chosen by Philip Schaff. The denominations represented on the American committee were the Baptist, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, and Unitarian. These scholars began work in 1872. Three of the editors, the youngest in years, became the editors of the American Standard Revised New Testament: Drs. Dwight, Thayer and Matthew B. Riddle.^[1][2]

Suggestions from the American Revision Committee were accepted only if two-thirds of the British scholars agreed. This principle was supported by an agreement that if their suggestions were included in the appendix of the RV, the American Committee would not publish their version for 15 years. The appendix contained about three hundred suggestions.

The Revised Version New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1894, after which the British team disbanded. Unauthorized copies of the RV then appeared in the US, having the American team suggestions in the main text. This was possible because while the RV in the UK held a Crown copyright as a product of the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge, this protection did not extend to the US where the text was not separately copyrighted. In 1898, Oxford and Cambridge Universities published their editions of the RV with some American suggestions included. However, these suggestions were reduced in number from those in the appendixes. Some of the Americanized editions by Oxford and Cambridge Universities had the title of "American Revised Version" on the cover of their spines. Some of Thomas Nelson's editions of the American Standard Version Holy Bible included the Apocrypha of the Revised Version. The Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 are among the Bible versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Church of England.^[3][4]

In 1901, after the 15-year deferral agreement between the American and British Revisers expired, the Revised Version, Standard American Edition (ASV) was published by Thomas Nelson & Sons. It was copyrighted in North America to conserve the ASV text. In 1928, the International Council of Religious Education (the body that later merged with the Federal Council of Churches to form the National Council of Churches) acquired the copyright from Nelson and renewed it the following year. By the time the ASV copyright expired in 1957,^[5]interest in this translation had waned in favor of more recent versions, so textual corruption never became the issue with the ASV that it was with the RV.

The language of the ASV intentionally retained the King James Version's Elizabethan English. It was often printed using lower quality paper and binding, and was perceived to be excessively literal. It never achieved wide popularity, apart from some Protestant seminaries. The King James Version would remain the primary choice for American Protestant Christians and laypeople until the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1952.

[JimmyB]

9 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Aargh!!!

Do you know the history of the R.V./A.S.V.?

The R.V. translation committee was headed by an RC sympathiser, Hort, who had a pathological hatred for the Received Text, as is clear from his own writings (and had had for decades; in fact, from before he'd studied the issue at all!).

He had planned, for decades, along with Westcott (an Anglican bishop, who was also an RC sympathiser) to replace the TR with his own Greek NT.  When he was made head of the R.V. translation committee, he saw his chance.

His mandate was ONLY to revise the English of the KJV, NOT the Greek.  Secretly, and contrary to his mandate, he introduced his own Greek NT to the committee and asked them to keep it secret, until publication.

His own Greek NT was based, primarily, on TWO Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus AND Vaticanus, which are so riddled with errors that they disagree with each other more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone), along with his own suppositions about transmission of the text down the years.

There are many people, yourself included, who will demonize Westcott & Hort to justify the KJV as being the pure word of God.  Your motive is clear!

The art/science of translation is based on a number of factors: the source documents (and other supporting evidence), the knowledge of the original languages (including vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms), the knowledge of the destination language, the knowledge of the thoughts/ideas of the early cultures, the knowledge of the thoughts/ideas of the recipient cultures, etc.

The King James translation was based on earlier translations, e.g., Tyndale, Geneva Bible, and a limited set of source documents (compared to what is available in the modern era).  It was created during a time of political turmoil, so the king's goal was to codify his concept of Protestantism and, in the process, justify his secular rule.  It is as much a political document as a Bible translation (which is why the pilgrims and others who were persecuted fled with their Geneva Bibles).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. Together, they produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, one of the earliest examples of modern textual criticism. Since its publication in 1881, Westcott and Hort’s work has proved to be impressively accurate, though far from perfect. Their approach not only advanced the science of textual criticism, but it added considerable weight to the claim that the Bible had been preserved from tampering and corruption.

The goal of textual criticism is removing changes, errors, and additions to a text in order to determine the original words. The King James translators, for example, generated their work from a series of manuscripts, none of which exactly matches their final product. They chose between variant readings or spellings, deciding what was most likely original through various techniques. Recognizing the need to use prior scholarship combined with new discoveries, the KJV translators made a good faith effort to improve upon what had already been done. This process continues today, albeit with a much greater number of manuscripts available. The differences between the various texts are trivial, amounting to less than one half of one percent of the words in the New Testament.
 

(From GotQuestions.org, with my emphases)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It is always puzzling to me why people clearly worship the King James Bible, thinking it to be the pure word of God.  It isn't.  It's a translation written in archaic English, written for a society that no longer exists.  The language is indeed beautiful, but ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are anything but; they are languages of the people.  Perhaps the archaic language makes people feel "religious" but that is a false standard.  Jesus, for example, was a rural carpenter, who spoke Aramaic, the dialect of the common people.  Forsooth, he spoketh not in an exalted tongue.

I am thankful that, as in other disciplines, the art/science of Bible translation has advanced, resulting in the abundance of modern translations, most of which are truly excellent.  My favorite is the NET Bible.  Not only is it an excellent, readable translation, but is accompanied by more than 60,000 translator's note that explain many factors that influenced the translators' decisions, as well  as elucidating the meaning of the text.

Stop beating ploughshares (whatever those are) into swords and slay your unicorn (a fictional animal).

[David1701]

15 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

There are many people, yourself included, who will demonize Westcott & Hort to justify the KJV as being the pure word of God.  Your motive is clear!

The art/science of translation is based on a number of factors: the source documents (and other supporting evidence), the knowledge of the original languages (including vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms), the knowledge of the destination language, the knowledge of the thoughts/ideas of the early cultures, the knowledge of the thoughts/ideas of the recipient cultures, etc.

The King James translation was based on earlier translations, e.g., Tyndale, Geneva Bible, and a limited set of source documents (compared to what is available in the modern era).  It was created during a time of political turmoil, so the king's goal was to codify his concept of Protestantism and, in the process, justify his secular rule.  It is as much a political document as a Bible translation (which is why the pilgrims and others who were persecuted fled with their Geneva Bibles).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. Together, they produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, one of the earliest examples of modern textual criticism. Since its publication in 1881, Westcott and Hort’s work has proved to be impressively accurate, though far from perfect. Their approach not only advanced the science of textual criticism, but it added considerable weight to the claim that the Bible had been preserved from tampering and corruption.

The goal of textual criticism is removing changes, errors, and additions to a text in order to determine the original words. The King James translators, for example, generated their work from a series of manuscripts, none of which exactly matches their final product. They chose between variant readings or spellings, deciding what was most likely original through various techniques. Recognizing the need to use prior scholarship combined with new discoveries, the KJV translators made a good faith effort to improve upon what had already been done. This process continues today, albeit with a much greater number of manuscripts available. The differences between the various texts are trivial, amounting to less than one half of one percent of the words in the New Testament.
 

(From GotQuestions.org, with my emphases)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It is always puzzling to me why people clearly worship the King James Bible, thinking it to be the pure word of God.  It isn't.  It's a translation written in archaic English, written for a society that no longer exists.  The language is indeed beautiful, but ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are anything but; they are languages of the people.  Perhaps the archaic language makes people feel "religious" but that is a false standard.  Jesus, for example, was a rural carpenter, who spoke Aramaic, the dialect of the common people.  Forsooth, he spoketh not in an exalted tongue.

I am thankful that, as in other disciplines, the art/science of Bible translation has advanced, resulting in the abundance of modern translations, most of which are truly excellent.  My favorite is the NET Bible.  Not only is it an excellent, readable translation, but is accompanied by more than 60,000 translator's note that explain many factors that influenced the translators' decisions, as well  as elucidating the meaning of the text.

Stop beating ploughshares (whatever those are) into swords and slay your unicorn (a fictional animal).

Your mind-reading skills have failed you.  I'm not KJO and I don't think that the KJV is perfect; in fact, it's not even my main Bible.

I've not even scratched the surface of the skeletons in the closet of Westcott and Hort.  Their own writings demonise them, there is no need for anyone else to do it.

Edited August 13, 2022 by David1701

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Your mind-reading skills have failed you.  I'm not KJO and I don't think that the KJV is perfect; in fact, it's not even my main Bible.

I've not even scratched the surface of the skeletons in the closet of Westcott and Hort.  Their own writing demonise them, there is no need for anyone else to do it.

David--give me a couple months to study up on textural criticism before I continue.

I do think it is important that we realize that during the course of the various translators work and work ethic, that few if any differences are doctrinally damaging. The Lord has given us what we need.

In other words, the Truth is conveyed.

My understanding is that the main concern since-oh around--the Bishop Bible and forward--was to rely on the Greek or the Latin.