Translations.

[Dennis1209]

Versions and translations of the Bible have been a hotly debated topic for the last century. I am not disparaging other translations; I consult some of them myself studying. I have questions and concerns about why there have been so many translations since the turn of the 20^th century.

Since the turn of the 20^th century, there have been 300+ English translations of the Bible. I ask myself why so many translations? Does personal preference outweigh accuracy and closest to the original manuscripts?

Few Christians would debate that God promised to preserve His word (Matt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Isaiah 40:8; etc.). The original manuscripts (Bible) are inerrant, infallible, and the inspired words of God. With hundreds of translations, are some more accurate and improving on what the Lord inspired to write?

I have so many questions on this topic? Are the majority texts of copies of original source manuscripts closest to the originals too challenging to understand, needing improvements? Does our Lord endorse a restriction to freely share His written word via copyright laws and royalties to quote His word? Which translations are not restricted to freely sharing without permission and royalties? For intellectual copyright, percentage-wise, how different does it need to be from the source material used? The accumulation of those differences from the source material?

Is the best-selling (money) book of all time been turned into a cash cow? The above are not accusations but questions I ponder. Did modern translations accurately transcribe the original and intended word of God?

Brief Supporting Documentation

The RSV is a comprehensive revision of the King James Version of 1611, the English Revised Version of 1881-1885, and the American Standard Version of 1901, with the ASV text being the most consulted. It sought not only to clearly bring the Bible to the English-speaking church, but to "preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the centuries."

The copyright to the ASV was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education in 1928, and this Council renewed the ASV copyright the next year. In 1935, a two-year study began to decide the question of a new revision, and in 1937, it was decided that a revision would be done and a panel of 32 scholars was put together for that task. The decision, however, was delayed by the Great Depression. Funding for the revision was assured in 1936 by a deal that was made with Thomas Nelson & Sons. The deal gave Thomas Nelson & Sons the exclusive rights to print the RSV for ten years. The translators were to be paid by advance royalties.

 

 

[Alive]

Frankly, I do not care about the financial aspect of these things. Nicely bound bibles are expensive to produce. I am thankful we have so many to choose from and that there are so many printed.

I have all of these versions and a lot more and in any practical sense, from my pov…with very few exceptions, it makes no difference.

The Lord will and does accomplish what He wills.

A critical case can be made of some differences in certain passages, but I do not believe it hinders the Holy Spirit one bit.

[Willa]

On 2/16/2022 at 12:24 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

There 1963 NASB version is a revision of the 1901 ASV.  The Lockman Organization authors of the 1963, 1977, 1995 and 2020 version says this about the 1995 version:

Since then, the 2020 version of the NASB is available.  I have all versions including the 1901.  Holding up the 1963 version to a higher standard is just as bad as the hypocrites who hold to the KJV-Only, in my opinion.  I apologize for ruffling anyone's feathers but that's how I feel.

Personally, I feel well equipped reading/studying any version of the NASB.  But I normally read the ESV and once in a while the NIV.

 

I use the NKJV, the ESV and the AMPC.  First version I read was the Amplified Version in 1958.  I couldn't understand KJV or ASV due to archaic language, and I still don't read them.  My parents bought the RSV for me in 59, which I could read better but it is a poor translation.  ESV is much better, readable, and often translates progressive verbs better.  It is a conservative translation that includes many verses the RSV and NASV left out or marginalized, depending on the edition.  I no longer use the NIV but I still refer to the Amplified early editions and occasionally the NASV. Young's literal translation, and the Literal translation, as well as an interlinear that are translations of the Textus Receptus are preferred.

Some of the later editions are gender neutral, which is fine when changing man to mankind.  Some have really changed it calling God a she.   Just because it is newer doesn't make it better.

It is better to read a version that you will read, and through which God speaks to you, even if it is a bad translation.  One just has to remember that it may not be as accurate or reliable.  But what good is owning a Bible you never read?

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Willa said:

I use the NKJV, the ESV and the AMPC.  First version I read was the Amplified Version in 1958.  I couldn't understand KJV or ASV due to archaic language, and I still don't read them.  My parents bought the RSV for me in 59, which I could read better but it is a poor translation.  ESV is much better, readable, and often translates progressive verbs better.  It is a conservative translation that includes many verses the RSV and NASV left out or marginalized, depending on the edition.  I no longer use the NIV but I still refer to the Amplified early editions and occasionally the NASV. Young's literal translation, and the Literal translation, as well as an interlinear that are translations of the Textus Receptus are preferred.

Some of the later editions are gender neutral, which is fine when changing man to mankind.  Some have really changed it calling God a she.   Just because it is newer doesn't make it better.

It is better to read a version that you will read, and through which God speaks to you, even if it is a bad translation.  One just has to remember that it may not be as accurate or reliable.  But what good is owning a Bible you never read?

The KJV is the first translation I read nearly 100%.  The commentaries I used were using the NASB based on Dr. Merril Unger studies and the scholars of the Dallas Theological Seminary.  So I switched.  On a business trip, I stopped in a local bookstore and found a Thompson Chain Reference NIV and developed an immediate fondness for the NIV.  Over the years, I've developed a deep appreciation for the ESV.  It's my go to translation.  I rarely use my Amplified Bible but would never get rid of it.  All of these plus (RSV, HCSB, Williams, Young's Literal, Worrall, et al) I have both electronic and paper copies with a variety of copyrights.

I find the Textus Receptus argument interesting, much more than the KJV-Only position.  I don't agree with it but it has a lot more going for it than the KJV-Only.  I am primarily using the ESV because of Dr. Heiser.  Another author I follow is Dr. Johnson who uses a variety of translations including the: KJV, NKJV, NLT, and others.  

I have two Interlinear bibles, one parallel of four translations, two books of Bible Manners.  What I am missing is time!  I don't like the gender neutral versions because they are unnecessary.  Most readers know man=mankind includes woman.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Ani Tefillah]

I also have found a Bible app which I like, RNKJV Bible app (Renewed Names King James Version), and it contains "vers of the day" which I can share on beautiful pictures, reading 📖 plans, topic verses, etc. 

[Marathoner]

Lo, he spake and saith, readeth thou yon words I giveth to thee?

"What?" 

"Psst! He said, have you read these words I have given to you?"

"Oh. Thanks!"

Translations are translations of the scriptures using vernacular which a given audience may understand. That is all.

Some translations are more scholarly-oriented than others, furnishing references in the form of footnotes to the reader. The NASB is an excellent example of such a translation. Source material from the dead sea scrolls, Septuagint, and the MT are found throughout the volume of that work. 

It is for this reason that I enjoy referring to the NASB. However, I'm agreement with our brother @Alive in this matter. The ado that some drum up over translations is needless and in most cases even pointless. Some of us were drawn to Christ before we laid eyes on the scriptures 

The Holy Spirit of God is not a man. 

[Ani Tefillah]

4 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

Lo, he spake and saith, readeth thou yon words I giveth to thee?

I agree with thee. 😅

I've learned that it's important for me to know the sum of the Holy Word, so I can know Him and His will better, and by using and comparing different types of "translations", and especially also refer to the original text, I'm able to understand more, I believe. But I first of all need the Holy Spirit to help me understand the sum of the Holy Word. 

[Mama Etna]

On 3/3/2022 at 8:11 AM, Dennis1209 said:

Versions and translations of the Bible have been a hotly debated topic for the last century. I am not disparaging other translations; I consult some of them myself studying. I have questions and concerns about why there have been so many translations since the turn of the 20^th century.

Since the turn of the 20^th century, there have been 300+ English translations of the Bible. I ask myself why so many translations? Does personal preference outweigh accuracy and closest to the original manuscripts?

Few Christians would debate that God promised to preserve His word (Matt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Isaiah 40:8; etc.). The original manuscripts (Bible) are inerrant, infallible, and the inspired words of God. With hundreds of translations, are some more accurate and improving on what the Lord inspired to write?

I have so many questions on this topic? Are the majority texts of copies of original source manuscripts closest to the originals too challenging to understand, needing improvements? Does our Lord endorse a restriction to freely share His written word via copyright laws and royalties to quote His word? Which translations are not restricted to freely sharing without permission and royalties? For intellectual copyright, percentage-wise, how different does it need to be from the source material used? The accumulation of those differences from the source material?

Is the best-selling (money) book of all time been turned into a cash cow? The above are not accusations but questions I ponder. Did modern translations accurately transcribe the original and intended word of God?

Brief Supporting Documentation

The RSV is a comprehensive revision of the King James Version of 1611, the English Revised Version of 1881-1885, and the American Standard Version of 1901, with the ASV text being the most consulted. It sought not only to clearly bring the Bible to the English-speaking church, but to "preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the centuries."

The copyright to the ASV was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education in 1928, and this Council renewed the ASV copyright the next year. In 1935, a two-year study began to decide the question of a new revision, and in 1937, it was decided that a revision would be done and a panel of 32 scholars was put together for that task. The decision, however, was delayed by the Great Depression. Funding for the revision was assured in 1936 by a deal that was made with Thomas Nelson & Sons. The deal gave Thomas Nelson & Sons the exclusive rights to print the RSV for ten years. The translators were to be paid by advance royalties.

 

 

I use the KJV because I can quote it freely when posting verse to sites like Facebook.  It isn't copyrighted.  I find it very versatile in that respect.

[just_abc]

4 hours ago, Mama Etna said:

It isn't copyrighted.  

hi.  Just a small note.  If I am not mistaken the KJV is copyrighted or something like that.. in the UK..? 

(I am not sure about the rest of the Commonwealth nations  )

Just wanted to mention this thats all.

Thanks.

[Marathoner]

18 minutes ago, just_abc said:

hi.  Just a small note.  If I am not mistaken the KJV is copyrighted or something like that.. in the UK..? 

(I am not sure about the rest of the Commonwealth nations  )

Just wanted to mention this thats all.

Thanks.

Yes, the KJV is covered by Crown Copyright in the UK.