Translations.

[JimmyB]

56 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Ah, but confidence in which ones...?  When some disagree with others (parts omitted and changed) in thousands of places, they cannot all be called trustworthy and reliable (and this doesn't even take into account translation techniques).

"Thousands of places"? I don't think so.  That seems to be a gross exaggeration.

When I read the translations that I own there seems to be very little difference between them.  The meaning is always consistent even if there are minor grammatical differences.  That said, I don't like the King James translation because it is not written in my native language: 20th Century American English, thereby requiring (unreliable)  retranslation in my mind.

[Retrobyter]

9 minutes ago, Alive said:

My intent in studying now and forward is to show a confidence in our bibles. 

Shalom, Alive.

Yes! And we can have a confidence in our Bibles - in God's Word - IF we have a confidence in the God who spoke to and guided His people since the moment Adam was created!

God spoke directy to Adam; he was NEVER left alone!

God spoke directly to Avraham, and He gave him some promises which were fulfilled.

God spoke directly to Mosheh ("Moses"), and revealed Himself to him.

God spoke directly to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai and the mountain shook at His voice! The mountain was on fire and smoked with His presence!

God continued to speak to the children of Israel through the prophets and priests.

He spoke to us all through His Son, and now He speaks to us through His Son's disciples and apostles, all overseen by His Spirit.

So, when all these are compiled into a single codex of 66 books, we have His very Word! No if's. No and's, and no but's.

[Philologos]

On 8/12/2022 at 10:40 PM, 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.

When KJV was printed, the people responded in quite the same way you have, even some of the translators. But, keep in mind, it was intended to reflect the current culture/language. They succeeded!

Some still read scripture in only Hebrew and Greek. I think it's great that God's Word can be read and understood in so many languages and that we each may choose the one that relates to our reading and language styles. 

[Deadworm]

On 8/12/2022 at 10:19 AM, David1701 said:

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,

 David, what are you talking about?  This reading is attested by the highly respected Uncial Codex Sinaiticus, 2 other Greek Uncials (L and X), an ancient NT papyrus (P), and a Coptic text.   Granted this support merits only a C level of certainty from Metzger et al, but it is far superior to the textual attestion for 1 John 5:7-8.

Hort provides damning evidence for just how corrupt the text of the KJV really is: 

https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/04/conflations-part-1.html

Many KJV and NKJV readers who read this brief article will likely flee these versions.

[Alive]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Alive.

Yes! And we can have a confidence in our Bibles - in God's Word - IF we have a confidence in the God who spoke to and guided His people since the moment Adam was created!

God spoke directy to Adam; he was NEVER left alone!

God spoke directly to Avraham, and He gave him some promises which were fulfilled.

God spoke directly to Mosheh ("Moses"), and revealed Himself to him.

God spoke directly to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai and the mountain shook at His voice! The mountain was on fire and smoked with His presence!

God continued to speak to the children of Israel through the prophets and priests.

He spoke to us all through His Son, and now He speaks to us through His Son's disciples and apostles, all overseen by His Spirit.

So, when all these are compiled into a single codex of 66 books, we have His very Word! No if's. No and's, and no but's.

Amen, brother. As I have said so many times, we have exactly what H intends and what we need!

[David1701]

4 hours ago, JimmyB said:

"Thousands of places"? I don't think so.  That seems to be a gross exaggeration.

When I read the translations that I own there seems to be very little difference between them.  The meaning is always consistent even if there are minor grammatical differences.  That said, I don't like the King James translation because it is not written in my native language: 20th Century American English, thereby requiring (unreliable)  retranslation in my mind.

In some translations, there are many thousands of alterations; in others, far fewer.  It varies a lot.  At the extreme end, you have things like "The Message", which is only fit for a rubbish tip - huge numbers of verses have been mangled, beyond recognition.  Yes, it's a paraphrase, but a paraphrase is a kind of translation, which is supposed to convey the same message as the original, in different words.

At the other end, you have translations like the New King James Version, in which, apart from modernisation, there are few changes.

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Deadworm said:

 David, what are you talking about?  This reading is attested by the highly respected Uncial Codex Sinaiticus, 2 other Greek Uncials (L and X), an ancient NT papyrus (P), and a Coptic text.   Granted this support merits only a C level of certainty from Metzger et al, but it is far superior to the textual attestion for 1 John 5:7-8.

Luke 3:33 (WPNT) of Amminadab, of Aram,  of Joram,  of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah,

Here is Dr. Wilbur Pickering's first comment on Luke 3:33, from his NT translation

"Rather than “of Aram”, a variety of modern versions have ‘the son of Admin, the son of Arni”, and they do so following the eclectic text that has been in vogue for several generations (UBS/N-A). As is their habit, the editors of that text follow the so-called ‘Alexandrian’ witnesses, but at this point those witnesses are scattered all over the back side of the desert—almost no two agree. One would have thought that this would give the UBS editors pause, but not at all. They were so intent on doing despite to Christ’s genealogy that they actually concocted a ‘patchwork quilt’ and intruded the fictitious Admin and Arni into that genealogy. UBS has presented the evidence in their apparatus in such a way as to obscure the fact that no Greek MS has the precise text they have printed (the same holds for N-A). In Bruce Metzger’s presentation of the UBS Committee’s reasoning in this case he wrote, “the Committee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of text”. Is this not a good candidate for ‘chutzpah’ of the year? The UBS editors concoct their own reading and proclaim it “the least unsatisfactory”! And just what might be “unsatisfactory” about the reading of 95% of the Greek manuscripts except that it doesn’t introduce any difficulties?

There is complete confusion in the Egyptian camp. That confusion may have commenced in the second century, resulting from several easy transcriptional errors, simple copying mistakes. The total confusion in Egypt does not surprise us, but how shall we account for the text and apparatus of UBS3/N-A26 in this instance? And whatever possessed the editors of NASB, NRSV, TEV, LB, Berkeley, etc. to embrace such an egregious error? ‘Admin’ and ‘Arni’ have no more place in Christ’s genealogy than does Idi Amin, although he at least is not a fiction."

Quote

 

Hort provides damning evidence for just how corrupt the text of the KJV really is: 

https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/04/conflations-part-1.html

Many KJV and NKJV readers who read this brief article will likely flee these versions.

 

Hort is about the most biased commentator you could possibly hope to find!  In his own writings, he confessed that he hated the TR, before he had even studied the manuscript evidence at all!

[Deadworm]

Readers will note that David just ducked both the manuscript evidence I provided from the Greek NT and Hort's decisive refutation of the Byzantine text.  His unreasoned biased response is all you need to know.  Get yourself a modern translation like the NIV or NRSV for the best approximation of the original Word of God.

[JimmyB]

18 hours ago, David1701 said:

In some translations, there are many thousands of alterations; in others, far fewer.  It varies a lot.  At the extreme end, you have things like "The Message", which is only fit for a rubbish tip - huge numbers of verses have been mangled, beyond recognition.  Yes, it's a paraphrase, but a paraphrase is a kind of translation, which is supposed to convey the same message as the original, in different words.

At the other end, you have translations like the New King James Version, in which, apart from modernisation, there are few changes.

Since you're obviously extremely biased and opinionated there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

There is nothing wrong with "The Message"; there is a lot wrong with the NKJV.

[Alive]

8 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Since you're obviously extremely biased and opinionated there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

There is nothing wrong with "The Message"; there is a lot wrong with the NKJV.

So to be clear--the Message cannot be considered a 'translation' as it is a paraphrase. It is one of three groupings and the one reflecting the autographs (original text) the least.

As long as this is understood the conversation can continue while understanding each other.