WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?
- Thread starter GRACE_ambassador
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Apocrypha, what does this mean to you? For marginal notes of 1611 were to show that the KJV translators were in full awareness of the other reading aside from the TR, however, they used it what they did knew were the best text that agrees with the majority text. The rule is to keep not any notes as much as possible and they were there only to clarify Heb or Greek for the other reading.
-
1
- Show all
Confusion? I'm not confused at all. I understand the issues surrounding the English translations, because I have done my homework rather thank drinking the KJV-only Kool-Aid.
Yawn. Voluminous signatures just waste space.
What do you want to discuss in this thread: Unity? Baptism? English Bible translations? You're bringing in the confusion here.
Yawn. Voluminous signatures just waste space.
What do you want to discuss in this thread: Unity? Baptism? English Bible translations? You're bringing in the confusion here.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
@[U]382AD382AD382AD[/U]:
Putting "Happy" icons on everyone's post does little except make people wonder why. Perhaps you'd like to join the conversation rather than merely applauding from the sidelines?
Putting "Happy" icons on everyone's post does little except make people wonder why. Perhaps you'd like to join the conversation rather than merely applauding from the sidelines?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
We should note that until the coming of Christ there was only one Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). And since 1611 AD, the primary English translation was the Authorized Version, which was specifically designed to supersede all other English translations (which is exactly what happened).
As to modern versions, if you start with a corrupted root, you end up with corrupted fruit. But some people hoard the rotten apples, and throw away the good ones.
As to modern versions, if you start with a corrupted root, you end up with corrupted fruit. But some people hoard the rotten apples, and throw away the good ones.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
S
If you truly believe that this is so serious then please do not let another day go bye before you get on Amazon.com or even Audilbe.com and get the book:
How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions
By Gordon D. Fee. and Mark L Strauss.
It is the best book out there for answering the question that people will ask "which is the best translation?"
I have been listening to the audible.com version and I have learned so much in just a few days. I recommend it to every serious student of the Bible, and every minister.
How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions
By Gordon D. Fee. and Mark L Strauss.
It is the best book out there for answering the question that people will ask "which is the best translation?"
I have been listening to the audible.com version and I have learned so much in just a few days. I recommend it to every serious student of the Bible, and every minister.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Gordon Fee is not to be trusted. He promotes dynamic equivalence (a no-no) instead of a word-for-word translation (as in the the KJV, unless words in italics were necessary for clarity). Here is what Fee has to say:
"As Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss explain, “If the goal of translations is to reproduce the meaning of the text [which is false to begin with], then it follows that all translations involve interpretation.” Since every translation interposes a fallible human interpretation between the reader and an infallible text [which is also false], a translation can be a problem. However, the problem is solved when we seek to transfer meaning and not merely words from the original text to the receptor language. That’s the governing philosophy behind The Passion Translation: to transfer the essential meaning of God’s original message found in the biblical languages to modern English. We believe that the essential meaning of a passage should take priority over the literal form of the original words..."
When translators become interpreters then you have a very major problem. And what if Fee's interpretation is false and misleading? Or does Fee think he is the Pope and if always infallible in his "ex cathedra" interpretations?
"As Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss explain, “If the goal of translations is to reproduce the meaning of the text [which is false to begin with], then it follows that all translations involve interpretation.” Since every translation interposes a fallible human interpretation between the reader and an infallible text [which is also false], a translation can be a problem. However, the problem is solved when we seek to transfer meaning and not merely words from the original text to the receptor language. That’s the governing philosophy behind The Passion Translation: to transfer the essential meaning of God’s original message found in the biblical languages to modern English. We believe that the essential meaning of a passage should take priority over the literal form of the original words..."
When translators become interpreters then you have a very major problem. And what if Fee's interpretation is false and misleading? Or does Fee think he is the Pope and if always infallible in his "ex cathedra" interpretations?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Very interesting, and ironic, is it not?:
NIV: Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.
My understanding is that this version is the most popular in denominations today. Plus,
Rupert Murdoch is the owner of Zondervan Publishing who prints the NIV. He then receives
$1 from every sale, And he also owns a pornography Publishing establishment.
Should not these denominations be fighting this, instead of supporting it?
Just wondering...
NIV: Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.
My understanding is that this version is the most popular in denominations today. Plus,
Rupert Murdoch is the owner of Zondervan Publishing who prints the NIV. He then receives
$1 from every sale, And he also owns a pornography Publishing establishment.
Should not these denominations be fighting this, instead of supporting it?
Just wondering...
-
1
- Show all
S
Consider this example from Spanish to English:
¿Cómo te llamas? Literally it means "how do you call yourself"
But when translating no one says that. They say "What is your name?"
KJV does that from Greek to English all the time. Thousands of times.
The Greek and Hebrew can be like that. Look at an interlinear bible. Many times it makes no sense.
The KJV is not a literal translation. It is a formal/functional equivalent. It often adds words to transfer the meaning.
You must learn Hebrew and Greek to contend for the original words.
Contending for the words of the KJV as those that Paul wrote, as if he wrote in English would be a lie.
I know you don't mean that. So then you must think that the KJV scholars were divinely inspired as Paul was when he wrote it in Greek and that these KJV scholars could not make any mistakes as the Holy Spirit guided them.
If so, then you are saying that when they called lamp stands "candlesticks" in Revelation 1, which were not yet invented at the time Revelation was written, but were in common use in the middle ages and at the time of the KJV scholars that the Holy Spirit guided them to write candlesticks instead of lampstands. But the Holy Spirit did not. The Holy Spirit inspired John to write lychnias which means oil fed lampstands and not wax candlesticks.
John never saw a candlestick. He saw oil fed lamps and oil fed lampstands. Any English translation that translated the Greek word lychnias to lampstand is correct and the KJV which translated it to candlestick is wrong.
Now that does not mean that the KJV is wrong about everything it simply means that it is an English translation that sometimes is not as good as another translation where scholars have recognized that the word lychnias should be lampstand.
The KJV scholars might have decided on candlesticks because they thought the English readers would understand that better. But they should have kept the literal translation of lampstands and let the readers get an education as to what lampstands looked like in the first century and how they were fed with oil and not take it upon themselves to "modernize" the Greek word lychnias to candlesticks.
It would be the same as an English translation translating the world to "flashlights" or "torches' etc. That would probably get you upset if you saw that in an English translation and would be a reason why you would say that you can only trust in the KJV because the word should be candlestick not flashlights, but you would be wrong. The word should not be candlestick but lampstands an therefore the KJV is guilty of doing exactly what you are accusing other translations of doing "changing the original word" lychnias which should be oil fed lampstand to convey the meaning of what John saw.
You have to know the Greek and Hebrew to decide which English translation does the best job. Until you do, then your are relying on those that do and who have attempted to be faithful to the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek in these various English translations.
We want an easy answer. Pick one translation and say it is exactly what the Greek says but that is gross ignorance of how translating from one language to another works.
So what is the answer. A variety of English translations. My favorites are KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB. Comparing these you are going to get close enough.
Eventually I will take three years of Greek and Hebrew and maybe I will read the copies of the manuscripts that we have in extant but if I never make it to that lofty goal I will rely on others who have. Reading books like How to Choose a Translation for all Its Worth.
¿Cómo te llamas? Literally it means "how do you call yourself"
But when translating no one says that. They say "What is your name?"
KJV does that from Greek to English all the time. Thousands of times.
The Greek and Hebrew can be like that. Look at an interlinear bible. Many times it makes no sense.
The KJV is not a literal translation. It is a formal/functional equivalent. It often adds words to transfer the meaning.
You must learn Hebrew and Greek to contend for the original words.
Contending for the words of the KJV as those that Paul wrote, as if he wrote in English would be a lie.
I know you don't mean that. So then you must think that the KJV scholars were divinely inspired as Paul was when he wrote it in Greek and that these KJV scholars could not make any mistakes as the Holy Spirit guided them.
If so, then you are saying that when they called lamp stands "candlesticks" in Revelation 1, which were not yet invented at the time Revelation was written, but were in common use in the middle ages and at the time of the KJV scholars that the Holy Spirit guided them to write candlesticks instead of lampstands. But the Holy Spirit did not. The Holy Spirit inspired John to write lychnias which means oil fed lampstands and not wax candlesticks.
John never saw a candlestick. He saw oil fed lamps and oil fed lampstands. Any English translation that translated the Greek word lychnias to lampstand is correct and the KJV which translated it to candlestick is wrong.
Now that does not mean that the KJV is wrong about everything it simply means that it is an English translation that sometimes is not as good as another translation where scholars have recognized that the word lychnias should be lampstand.
The KJV scholars might have decided on candlesticks because they thought the English readers would understand that better. But they should have kept the literal translation of lampstands and let the readers get an education as to what lampstands looked like in the first century and how they were fed with oil and not take it upon themselves to "modernize" the Greek word lychnias to candlesticks.
It would be the same as an English translation translating the world to "flashlights" or "torches' etc. That would probably get you upset if you saw that in an English translation and would be a reason why you would say that you can only trust in the KJV because the word should be candlestick not flashlights, but you would be wrong. The word should not be candlestick but lampstands an therefore the KJV is guilty of doing exactly what you are accusing other translations of doing "changing the original word" lychnias which should be oil fed lampstand to convey the meaning of what John saw.
You have to know the Greek and Hebrew to decide which English translation does the best job. Until you do, then your are relying on those that do and who have attempted to be faithful to the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek in these various English translations.
We want an easy answer. Pick one translation and say it is exactly what the Greek says but that is gross ignorance of how translating from one language to another works.
So what is the answer. A variety of English translations. My favorites are KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB. Comparing these you are going to get close enough.
Eventually I will take three years of Greek and Hebrew and maybe I will read the copies of the manuscripts that we have in extant but if I never make it to that lofty goal I will rely on others who have. Reading books like How to Choose a Translation for all Its Worth.
-
1
- Show all
S
There is no such thing as a word for word translation from Greek to English. The KJV is not a word for word translation. It would not make any sense. Have you ever seen an interlinear? Sometimes trying to get as close to the literal translation is not the best way to convey the Greek meaning. It could even translate into something that the Greek does not mean. There is so much ignorance on this topic and I usually pass it by but I try to help when I can. Gordon Fees How to Choose a Translation for all Its Worth is not a controversial book. It is used in many bible colleges of various denominations because the facts about translations don't change no matter what your doctrinal belief systems are.
English is English and translation from Greek to English and discussing how that that works and how the bible is translated would be the same book no matter who wrote it.
Of course we need to translate into English is such a way that it conveys the same meaning that the Greek says. That is a dynamic equivalent and saying it is a "no no" is gross ignorance on the subject and I can't endure it so I am out.
English is English and translation from Greek to English and discussing how that that works and how the bible is translated would be the same book no matter who wrote it.
Of course we need to translate into English is such a way that it conveys the same meaning that the Greek says. That is a dynamic equivalent and saying it is a "no no" is gross ignorance on the subject and I can't endure it so I am out.
-
1
- Show all
S
S
I think you are very ignorant of the history of the NIV and who all endorses it. A huge number of modern scholars love it for it's faithfulness to the original languages. I used to not like it because I was so used to the KJV but the more I learn about the challenges of translation from Greek to English the more I appreciate the NIV.
It is not a black and white issue.
It is not a black and white issue.
-
1
- Show all