Reliability of translations

[The Journey]

I have studied long and hard and, if one wants to follow the "wisdom of men" of which, God Himself calls foolishness, the new versions are better.

[The Journey]

Hillson,  Your link is broken and the post is a little confusing.  

- Steve

[Guest Fabrice]

Hello everyone

It's true that the Spirit tells us what we need to know through the Bible (it testifies it, and make words alive).

But let's imagine a new converted who reads wrong verses. Okay the Spirit is always there, but maybe if the Spirit is against that false translation, and that he tries to get it right, he will end up with a confusion, and deep misunderstanding.

It consequence if it says "The Holy Bible" what is the proof that he hasn't got the true one ? Even if we explain him that 'no it's wrong' he will say 'but, hey, "your's" is wrong !'

What I mean is that the only fact that he buys a "Holy Bible" written on the cover can provoke a lot of problems.

I read the Bible in french so I couldn't tell you which one I prefer to read in english. When I read it in english it's the amplified or KJV or NKJV.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Fabrice,

It consequence if it says "The Holy Bible" what is the proof that he hasn't got the true one ? Even if we explain him that 'no it's wrong' he will say 'but, hey, "your's" is wrong !'

What I mean is that the only fact that he buys a "Holy Bible" written on the cover can provoke a lot of problems.

You are correct. There are "some" bibles out there that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. As you can see from what has already been posted, several English translations ARE acceptable. I have found problems inherit in ALL of them including the KJV. But these are rather insignificant when compared to the "whole" of the Bible.

The KEY to understanding is having a good "hermeneutic". Basically what this means is the "science of study" (particularly of the Bible). The FIRST rule of any good "hermeneutic" is CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, or did I say the first 3 rules?    We have to read a WORD within the CONTEXT of a sentence or phrase. We have to read that SENTENCE or PHRASE in context with the chapter (or subject area). We have to read that CHAPTER in context with that particular book. Then we have to read THAT PARTICULAR BOOK in the CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE.

If you follow just this FIRST RULE OF HERMENEUTICS, you will do well. There are others, of course, and some people differ on what they are. I have about 6 or so rules that define my study pattern.

In any case, God is very redundant in His Word. He says the same thing over and over again in the Scriptures in often the same way, but also in different ways. He also gives "real life" examples of how the scriptures have played out in the lives of the people revealed therein. Do you want to understand this verse:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Just read the story of Joseph in the OT.

This is most often the case with every verse of the Bible.

SO! If a word in the above verse is slightly changed (by some evil interpretor) then they would also have to make changes to the story of Joseph as well. Of course there are many other verses in the Bible that basically say the same thing as above.

The Lord tells us "there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors". Well, the "gospel" is spread by Christians that God sends into others lives. THAT person then becomes responsible at least to a degree for that other person to whom He delivers God's message. One of the things we must all do, is give them some direction as to "What would be a good Bible to use". We all might have our preferences, but we DO need to be honest and let them know they have a choice to make among the many Bibles out there today. Perhaps a warning about steering clear of certain ones might be okay too.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[RCruise]

Journey:

You wrote:

uhhh ok now just settle down a bit.  I have been privileged to watch many debates on this very issue.   It seems as if those who want to hold to an old english translation always have to resort to ad hominem attacks.  I guess to counter I'm supoosed to respond that King James was involved in some things that would make him an abomination to God.  Please deal with the issues of the reliability of the early manuscripts.  Again, Paul did not write in olde english.  The KJV is only a translation.  I wonder if this veneration of the KJV viloates the first commandment.

Where was there any ad hominem attacks??  First of all, King James was accused of being homosexual but, not one shred of evidence to prove it.  The perverse Catholic church and it's English supporters started that rumor to discredit the Protestant King of England because Catholicism lost it's control it had with "Bloody Mary".  You know, the Scottish monarch who beheaded protestants and anyone the Catholic leaders didn't like?  She also had Tyndale put to death for daring to write a True Bible based on the Greek Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew texts.  But of course, if you were as scholarly as you try to portray, you wouldn't have made the foolish reference to Paul writing in "olde english" since I already said that the manuscripts used for translation (New Testament) are in Greek.

God Bless.

[Lanakila]

Ad hominen attacks on King James person have nothing to do with this debate, as do attacks on Wescott and Hort. We could get into the translators themselves if you want to do that, but that is a waste of time, either pro or con IMO.

[Guest Fabrice]

Yep, I see Dad Ernie

Finally we could say that the Bible is like a "ring" ther's no end nor beginning, everything it fetched together.

Everything has to make a block ... and no matter if there's a little bad translation, if we know the Bible well in it's whole meaning, we don't find any real errors.

:lightbulb:

[The Journey]

RCruse,

  Lana is right and the discussions regarding translators is fruitless.  The english monarchy were never nice or righteous folks...they were usually bloody killers without any regard to the right and wrong.  King James was no different.  I do not claim to be a scholar of the Greek or Hebrew languages.  My expertise is Medicine.  The point was that the KJV is only a translation.  Its hard for me to see the point that a papyrus copy of Peter's epistles dated AD 200 would be inferior to Byzantine texts which are copies around a 1,000 years later.  God did preserve them both...but its a stretch to accept the authority of the Byzantine just because the King James translation team used it.   The blessing today is that we can compare the earliest and oldest Greek manuscripts!!  What an awesome assurance it should give us that God would preserve a piece of eternity in His book to us.  We should spend less time defending a particular translation and more time ensuring that new translations choose the best words and word structures to most accurately convey God's message to a lost and dying world.

- Steve