WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

[Dino246]

By Conducting a Study and Evaluating the difference between the word count of version's, and When having Read The original Language The Bible Was Written in, you're looking for a translation into a language that emphasizes the literal meaning of the original compared to the translation.

The greek septuigent, and the latin original work'S are The Closest in English Translation To The Original King Jane's Version.

In Fact, All other version's have been intentionally mistranslated and do not serve as God's Word ommitting almost 30% of the Scripture, and altering the text in a manner that deliberately change's the meaning of The Original Septuigent.

For Instance, in the Original Septuigent, Jesus is NOT reffered to as the morning star, as the Greek and latin discuss and would NOT be the same word used in greek to refer to Jesus, as the morning star. Therefore, The English Translations that refer to Jesus As The morning star are false.


The King Jane's Version is The Only Actual Bible.

Humourous spelling errors aside, what you have presented here is nothing but ill-informed codswollop. By the way, if the KJV were the only actual Bible, then there would be no actual Bibles from which it could be translated. I encourage you to read up on self-refuting arguments.

The Septuagint is not "original"; it is a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. Oddly, many KJV-only proponents decry the Septuagint as a later concoction of Origen.

The Latin (Vulgate, I presume) is not original either, but is a 4th-century translation done by Jerome. Neither is in English, so it is impossible for them to be "Closest in English Translation to the Original King Jane's (sic) Version."

Aside from the cult-produced New World Translation, there is no evidence of intentional mistranslation in any other version.

It's laughable that you claim other version omit "almost 30% of the Scripture", unless you consider the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books as "Scripture". Even the KJV translators didn't.

 

[anonymous777888]

Bahahahahahaha...

That's rich... as in a heavy unpleasant odour.

Actually, Speaking and being able to Read and Write Greek and latin, The KJV paralell's The Word Count and morepheme syntax of the Greek Septuigent. It's imperative that because Language ( I Specialize in Linguistic's, and Etymology) That You Keep Meaning intact during translation.

For Instance, The Hebrew word for God Is Elohim, a Plural Singular intensive noun where Genesis Verse 26, State'S God Said, Let US Create man, indicating The Hebrew Word for God was Conceptually associated as a plural noun indicates in the Verse while in English, the word God is a non-plural noun.

an interesting Fact, is that, because astrology to cuni-form text originated in babylonia, most of the Word's for false (demons) god's, use's astrological signs for the a particular Language's word for their False god, as a concept while Hebrew does not. Grapheme Ligature's are what I particular have an Extensive degree of Knowledge in.

It is most important, that when you consider translation's that they do not incorporate other religious concept's with The Bible, Such as in the case of the niv, where in Genesis the term vault is used, where in esoteric and satanic concept's the term vault applies to the pentagram, where the pentagram is falsely insinuates to be associated with the image of pagan's god, the fallen morning star.

1. Because Scholars say that the Septuagint reflects Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Masoretic text by a thousand years, so in most cases the Septuagint is more trustworthy than the Masoretic text. This is borne out by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aramaic.

because Aramaic is part of the abjad system of writing, derived from the Hebrew proto-alphabet, any Actual Bible Translation, would have to use that Specific Text to remain True to the Bible author's Meaning's derived from the Greek and latin discuss and syntax, any other Translation would be less than diachronic and not be considered a "translation."

My problem with translated versions is that when I did research of the logo's of publication source's certain publication source's had inverted crosses, and images that symbolized baphomet, which were responsible for intentional doctrinal alteration's with either slight Jesus, God. or, heavily sedated almost 30% of Scripture pertaining to Doctrines related to Salvation, found in The KJV Which Is ExtenSively Accurate.

 

[Dino246]

Actually, Speaking and being able to Read and Write Greek and latin, The KJV paralell's The Word Count and morepheme syntax of the Greek Septuigent. It's imperative that because Language ( I Specialize in Linguistic's, and Etymology) That You Keep Meaning intact during translation.

I'm sorry, but I find utterly ridiculous your claim to specialize in Linguistics when you can't even pluralize the word properly. Your post is replete with errors of spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammatical structure. The last group of words isn't even a sentence. Is English your first language?

For Instance, The Hebrew word for God Is Elohim, a Plural Singular intensive noun where Genesis Verse 26, State'S God Said, Let US Create man, indicating The Hebrew Word for God was Conceptually associated as a plural noun indicates in the Verse while in English, the word God is a non-plural noun.

Actually, elohim is not the Hebrew word for God; it is the Hebrew word for non-physical entities, and is also used in Scripture for beings other than God. Look at Psalm 82 in Hebrew sometime.

an interesting Fact, is that, because astrology to cuni-form text originated in babylonia, most of the Word's for false (demons) god's, use's astrological signs for the a particular Language's word for their False god, as a concept while Hebrew does not. Grapheme Ligature's are what I particular have an Extensive degree of Knowledge in.

The word is cuneiform. You may have "an extensive degree of knowledge" in "grapheme ligatures", but your knowledge of written English is elementary.

It is most important, that when you consider translation's that they do not incorporate other religious concept's with The Bible, Such as in the case of the niv, where in Genesis the term vault is used, where in esoteric and satanic concept's the term vault applies to the pentagram, where the pentagram is falsely insinuates to be associated with the image of pagan's god, the fallen morning star.

Hogwash. A word's other usage does not mean that the NIV translators chose it for those associations. "Vault" is used in several senses in English, none of which necessarily imply any occult connection.

because Aramaic is part of the abjad system of writing, derived from the Hebrew proto-alphabet, any Actual Bible Translation, would have to use that Specific Text to remain True to the Bible author's Meaning's derived from the Greek and latin discuss and syntax, any other Translation would be less than diachronic and not be considered a "translation."

Ridiculous. Again, Latin is not an original biblical language, and Greek is such only for the New Testament. The whole point of translating is to provide the message in another language; other languages don't necessarily use the same alphabet. In fact, I cannot think of two languages that do use entirely the same alphabet. Even English and French have different accented letters.

My problem with translated versions is that when I did research of the logo's of publication source's certain publication source's had inverted crosses, and images that symbolized baphomet, which were responsible for intentional doctrinal alteration's with either slight Jesus, God. or, heavily sedated almost 30% of Scripture pertaining to Doctrines related to Salvation, found in The KJV Which Is ExtenSively Accurate.

Logos are not translations. Your claims are without foundation. Do your homework. Maybe start by learning proper English grammar from your vaunted KJV; at the very least it is useful for that.

 

[anonymous777888]

I Think That version's were made Just to cause Christian's to argue and divide them.

 

[anonymous777888]

I'm sorry, but I find utterly ridiculous your claim to specialize in Linguistics when you can't even pluralize the word properly. Your post is replete with errors of spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammatical structure. The last group of words isn't even a sentence. Is English your first language?


Actually, elohim is not the Hebrew word for God; it is the Hebrew word for non-physical entities, and is also used in Scripture for beings other than God. Look at Psalm 82 in Hebrew sometime.


The word is cuneiform. You may have "an extensive degree of knowledge" in "grapheme ligatures", but your knowledge of written English is elementary.


Hogwash. A word's other usage does not mean that the NIV translators chose it for those associations. "Vault" is used in several senses in English, none of which necessarily imply any occult connection.


Ridiculous. Again, Latin is not an original biblical language, and Greek is such only for the New Testament. The whole point of translating is to provide the message in another language; other languages don't necessarily use the same alphabet. In fact, I cannot think of two languages that do use entirely the same alphabet. Even English and French have different accented letters.


Logos are not translations. Your claims are without foundation. Do your homework. Maybe start by learning proper English grammar from your vaunted KJV; at the very least it is useful for that.

Well, I didn't know I was writing and English paper. If you want I can provide you with a complete dialectical analysis, based on all of the fundamental's of English Composition, a dicachronic analysis between all version's and all alteration's and comparison's between all other religious text's to determine the King Jane's Version is the most accurate.

 

[anonymous777888]

Humourous spelling errors aside, what you have presented here is nothing but ill-informed codswollop. By the way, if the KJV were the only actual Bible, then there would be no actual Bibles from which it could be translated. I encourage you to read up on self-refuting arguments.

The Septuagint is not "original"; it is a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. Oddly, many KJV-only proponents decry the Septuagint as a later concoction of Origen.

The Latin (Vulgate, I presume) is not original either, but is a 4th-century translation done by Jerome. Neither is in English, so it is impossible for them to be "Closest in English Translation to the Original King Jane's (sic) Version."

Aside from the cult-produced New World Translation, there is no evidence of intentional mistranslation in any other version.

It's laughable that you claim other version omit "almost 30% of the Scripture", unless you consider the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books as "Scripture". Even the KJV translators didn't.

Also, I'm Not conceptually understanding you since the post is based on:

1. The Accuracy of a Translation, to determine how Authoritative the Text is, as based on and from The Biblical Source Text where:
2. The Biblical Source Text is The Basis For The Biblical Author's Express Meaning's in Writing and The Particular Meaning of Original Word's used, as related to the meaning'S between the source Text and what is properly Considered Scripture.

If your Evaluating the accuracy of a translation, it's based on accuracy, it could be called the bunny Hulu white version.

 

[Evmur]

it seems as if we’re meant to hear what the scriptures said believe and then make that. Determination of what is meant by all Of the surrounding context

I notice the amplified does what you are saying and when you examine the scripture in a different Bible the amplified has it very wrong in my own opinion also , and this leads a person a bit on the wrong direction as to what’s actually being said it alters understanding when interpretation gets off course from other scripture

The theology of the interpreters is the critical factor all modern translators are predominantly arminian.

 

[Evmur]

There is that phrase "word for word" translation again. The interlinear is about the closest you can get to a "word for word" translation. Not the KJV.

The KJV used many different English words for the same Greek word. Why? They are trying to retain the Greek meaning and therefore it is necessary that they NOT translate word for word or it will not mean what the Greek means.

Many of us are sure the dynamic though process will not capture the correct meaning in greek or in any other language.

 

[Evmur]

It's fine to have an opinion regarding the approach to translation, but it's best when that opinion is informed by truth. The KJV is not a "word for word" translation; such is impossible when translating from Greek to English. The word order is very different, and there simply is not one English word for every Greek word in the NT. Take the English word, "love"; four Greek words are translated "love" (agapao, eros, phileo, and storge). Similarly, several Greek words are rendered "hell" in the KJV.

Idioms are another problematic example: try translating the English phrase, "it's raining cats and dogs" into any other language... especially one that is 1500-2000 years removed! A word-for-word translation would be almost incomprehensible.

I would encourage you to do some more homework on the subject.

How much more then is it impossible to translate thought for thought ?

 

[Angela53510]

Try finding Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Romans 16:24, Acts 8:37 in the NIV, they are removed, why?

Because the new translations are backed by the corrupt 1% minority of manuscript evidence in the (Alexandrian Text Type)

The KJV is supported by the (Textus Receptus)

NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, On and On used the Nestle/Aland (Novum Testamentum Graece) Greek Text, created by Adulterers Kurt Aland And His College Student That he married after divorcing his wife (Barbara Nee Ehlers), dont forget Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)

The New Versions Are A Work Of Adulterous Corruption, Kept Silent.

The KJV is backed by seven 1500s Greek manuscripts. They had been copied over and over since the 9th century, when the Byzantine text arose out of nowhere. (It was disconnected by time and space from the 3 other families of texts. Each generation of scribes did their best to faithfully copy what was spoken or written. Biblical lower criticisms (talking about the manuscripts, not doctrine!) have traced literally every extant manuscript, and found where the errors in different families got copied down, and then were passed down for more generations and centuries. Every mistake is noted and catalogued. It's why these Greek scholars can look at a corrupt manuscript, and can say exactly when and where the mistakes started, and how those mistakes were passed down. The Byzantine has many errors, and those errors were translated into the KJV. Not perfect, just authorized by King James, a very hated king, whose son had his head chopped off and was replaced by the Puritan Cromwell.

The Byzantines kept their Greek, unlike the rest of the Roman Empire, so these Greek scribes continued to copy the manuscripts till as late as the 15 century AD. Meanwhile, Roman used Latin manscripts which were used for centuries, even though the Latn Vulgate translated by Jerome, is one of the worst early translations. It took till the 20th century that Catholics stopped using Latin in their liturgy and Bible. The Alexandrian manuscripts were found recently, and they are the oldest or easiest extant texts. None of those added mistakes and changed words, which is why all those corrupted KJV contains all those mistakes and errors and adding to the text. The Syriac manuscripts form another family, and make a good comparison, when translated back to Greek.

All and all, the KJV did a lot to spread the gospel, to people who understood that 1600th century obsolete English. Today, it is an old corrupt version, which is to be valued for what it did, not for what it is.

So many excellent new translations, at different reading levels, with many foot notes and helps. I personally like NET, because it has 66,000 footnotes, with references and uses the Greek and Hebrew scripts, but it also transliterated. But many other translations are good. Just stay away from paraphrases.

As for what is the best Bible? The one you read!

 

[Truth7t7]

The KJV is backed by seven 1500s Greek manuscripts. They had been copied over and over since the 9th century, when the Byzantine text arose out of nowhere. (It was disconnected by time and space from the 3 other families of texts. Each generation of scribes did their best to faithfully copy what was spoken or written. Biblical lower criticisms (talking about the manuscripts, not doctrine!) have traced literally every extant manuscript, and found where the errors in different families got copied down, and then were passed down for more generations and centuries. Every mistake is noted and catalogued. It's why these Greek scholars can look at a corrupt manuscript, and can say exactly when and where the mistakes started, and how those mistakes were passed down. The Byzantine has many errors, and those errors were translated into the KJV. Not perfect, just authorized by King James, a very hated king, whose son had his head chopped off and was replaced by the Puritan Cromwell.

The Byzantines kept their Greek, unlike the rest of the Roman Empire, so these Greek scribes continued to copy the manuscripts till as late as the 15 century AD. Meanwhile, Roman used Latin manscripts which were used for centuries, even though the Latn Vulgate translated by Jerome, is one of the worst early translations. It took till the 20th century that Catholics stopped using Latin in their liturgy and Bible. The Alexandrian manuscripts were found recently, and they are the oldest or easiest extant texts. None of those added mistakes and changed words, which is why all those corrupted KJV contains all those mistakes and errors and adding to the text. The Syriac manuscripts form another family, and make a good comparison, when translated back to Greek.

All and all, the KJV did a lot to spread the gospel, to people who understood that 1600th century obsolete English. Today, it is an old corrupt version, which is to be valued for what it did, not for what it is.

So many excellent new translations, at different reading levels, with many foot notes and helps. I personally like NET, because it has 66,000 footnotes, with references and uses the Greek and Hebrew scripts, but it also transliterated. But many other translations are good. Just stay away from paraphrases.

As for what is the best Bible? The one you read!

The Greek Text Used By new bible versions is (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by Adulterers Kurt And Barbara Aland, and homosexual Union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingrid, and ran off with his college student (Barbara Nee Ehlers) 22 years older, both of who created the greek texts mentioned above.

The new bible versions are supported by the (Hebrew Text) created by Rudolph Kittel in Germany

Wikipedia: Biblia Hebraica refers primarily to the three editions of the Hebrew Bible edited by Rudolf Kittel. BH1: 1906, BH2: 1913, BH3: 1937

The New Testament new bible version are supported by the

Wikipedia: Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek) is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is also known as the Nestle-Aland edition after its most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. The text, edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated

NA28 UBS5, 2014
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce Metzger in co-operation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster

 

[Angela53510]

Many of us are sure the dynamic though process will not capture the correct meaning in greek or in any other language.

So how much Greek and Hebrew do you read? What kind of hermeneutical tools do you use? It is actually the modern translations that capture Greek the best. Translators understand that making sense in the receiving language is just as more important as the sending language. This creates a huge problem, translating from Greek to English. First, their verbal system is based on aspect, not linear time, like English. Nouns, pronouns and adjectives use 4 (sometimes 5 with the vocative) cases for nouns. The adjectives have to match the noun or pronoun it is describing. Further, this is what the cases mean:

1. Nominative - subject of the sentence.
2. Accusative - Direct Object of the verb
3. Dative - Indirect Object of the verb
4. Genitive - possession of the noun or pronoun. In Greek they say "A ball of the woman." In English, we would likely say, "The woman's ball." That is the genitive case. When you can use apostrophe +s, you have the possessive in English, the Genitive in Greek.

But that doesn't even get into the fact that a nominative can go at the end of the sentence and an Accusative at the beginning. In English, we would assume the subject is the first noun in the sentence, coming before the verb. That is the correct word order in English. So, if you take a Greek sentence, it might be Accusative Verb, Nominative. To translate that word for word, your sentence would say, "The ball throws the women," to get the same word order. But it makes no sense. So, it has to be more dynamic and make actual sense in English, like "The woman threw the ball." How do Greeks know what word is nominative, accusative and so forth? Each word has a different word ending.

There are 3 genders, 4 cases, plus plural and singular. A typical chart for one word, say, the word "the," has 17 different versions. Here are the endings for the word "the," transliterated into English pronunciation, and number two, the letters in Greek.

___________________Singular_______________
Gender Masc Feminine Neuter
Cases
Nom. ho hey taw
Genitive tou teys tou
dative toe tey toe
accusative ton teyn taw

____________________Plural___________________
Nom/Voc hoi high tah
Genitive tone tone tone
Dative tois tais tois
Acc. tous tas tah



Any noun or adjective will have the same endings as "the" more or less. τιμἠ, ἡς, ἠ is the feminine. If we use the genitive form, it will turn into τιμἠς. Αdd an adjective like "great" and it will take the same ἡς. You can take the phrase "of the great ending" and put it at the front, the middle or the back, and it will always be describing possession.

So, unfortunately, the KJV translation committee either didn't know this, or King James told it to it his way, or not at all. (There are other areas that King James also told the committee to translate a certain way, even though it was wrong.)

Suffice it to say that you can often NOT translate word for word from Greek to English, or from German or French to English. In French, they say "la Maison blanche." "The house white" is the word for word, direct translation and that is bad English. So, instead we automatically say, "the white house." Not word for word, but dynamic to get the real meaning in real English.

The KJV does this all over the Greek text. It's how we get phrases like "coals of burning fire," instead of "burning coals" which would be a much better translation. Τherefore, if you don't use dynamic, you will get the wrong meaning over and over, by using word for word. Greek is NOT a language that can be translated directly into English. German, on the other hand, is very easy to translate word for word, because it has the noun/pronoun/adjective cases, too! Although verbs can continue to be tricky between languages.

I would be happy to argue the Greek with anyone who has a background in it. Don't bother copy and pasting from Blue Letter Bible or other sites. They are not wrong, but if you have no background in Greek, which is a complex language, you will be no more than a child repeating a word, without knowing what it means, the gender in Hebrew, the use in a sentence, the case and so on.

 

[John146]

This creates a huge problem, translating from Greek to English.

For Greek scholars, yes, but not for God. A translation does not need to be a word for word in order to be the holy, pure word of God. There are examples of this all throughout scripture itself. A translation can be the holy inspired word of God without error. Do you not agree? If not, then there's no need in going further. Keep relying on your education and scholarship.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

You think this is all subjective? Burgon has provided OBJECTIVE evidence. If you started messing around with the Bible, removing words and passages, adding words at will, substituting at will, that would not be corruption??? Would Christians commend you for your originality? Don't try to gaslight Burgon, since he actually examined THE EVIDENCE (which you were looking for).

This is just like the corrupt Supreme Court which simply ignored the evidence for election fraud because it did not suit them. You elect to ignore the evidence because the fraud of Westcott & Hort suits you.

You are such an extremist.
You sound like a good disciple of Gail Riplinger.

The relentless persecution of Wescott & Hort is irrational hatred. This insatiable outrage is not righteous at all.
So much fallacy and provable deception has been written about Wescott & Hort by your cult.
An obvious witch hunt. We can make all sorts of claims about the KJ translators too but I'm sure I can rely on
your double standard to take care of that.

There are defective readings in the W H text. There are defects in the Textus Receptus.
Both recognised by scholars. You cannot condemn one and excuse the other unless you are a hypocrite.
Neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text and none of the major modern English Bible translations
exclusively use the Westcott-Hort text as their base.

Why continue the castigation of well- known & loved Bible translations?
You spoil your credibility if you can't let this go. Moreover you damage the King James VERSION of the Bible.
If it becomes a symbol of religious intolerance and extremism what is the point in taking is seriously anymore?

There will be modern translations. Religious fanaticism will not stop that. And they will surpass the use of the older ones.
It is the only way to continue to fulfil the great commission. The work assigned to the Church.
We are not called to promote one single Bible translation.

 

[Angela53510]

The Greek Text Used By new bible versions is (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by Adulterers Kurt And Barbara Aland, and homosexual Union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingrid, and ran off with his college student (Barbara Nee Ehlers) 22 years older, both of who created the greek texts mentioned above.

The new bible versions are supported by the (Hebrew Text) created by Rudolph Kittel in Germany

Wikipedia: Biblia Hebraica refers primarily to the three editions of the Hebrew Bible edited by Rudolf Kittel. BH1: 1906, BH2: 1913, BH3: 1937

The New Testament new bible version are supported by the

Wikipedia: Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek) is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is also known as the Nestle-Aland edition after its most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. The text, edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated

NA28 UBS5, 2014
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce Metzger in co-operation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster

While I totally agree adultery is wrong, that is a failure of character, NOT translation. As for the Bible Hebraica, I didn't say the KJV was a bad version for the Hebrew. Although there are radical differences between English and Hebrew, like the verb system which is black and white, based on a three letter root word, with forms into divisions like Qal, Niphil, Piel, etc. None the less, my Hebrew class agreed KJV was a strong translation, because both English and Hebrew have a similar word order, ie "Subject, verb, DO, IO." So, it can be translated word for word, much more evenly in English than Greek. Mind you, that applies to all translations.

I personally find Brown-Driver-Briggs B-D-B to be the best and most thorough lexicon. I have used it for many years. The internet version is updated, but not the book. And the KJV is still too flowery, with too many obsolete and archaic words, to say nothing of the grammar and using second person singular, which is totally obsolete in modern English. It's not that I do not understand second person singular. Besides Greek and Hebrew, I have studied it extensively in French, German and Spanish. The difference is that I have been taught the right words to use in those languages for 2nd person singular, and I also have a lot of tools for each language, including a lot of Bescherelles for all three modern versions. I have heard that 2nd person singular is dying out in France and the old people hate it.

I do use the Nestle-Aland interlinear, and the UBS-5 for a Greek reading Bible. (I also have a USB Hebrew Bible.)It is a good Bible, because it points out differences in different manuscripts and what the best reading is likely to be. I also have other important Greek tools, like Mounce's Morphology and Biblical Greek - A Compact Guide, also by Bill Mounce. I had him for first and second year Greek. The first year in seminary, we used his tapes and books and asked our professor questions. For second year Greek I did a weekly Zoom meeting, and we translated the Bible into English, and parsed it. He was so smart and his Greek impeccable.His dad was a Greek scholar, wrote commentaries and on many translation committees. So, he learned Greek from a very young age. But very humble and willing to accept reasonable, supported arguments, even if he disagreed, because of his upbringing. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament is wonderful to have. I goes verse by verse through the whole NT, giving the actual cases and verb tenses for every unusual word, plus some historical facts, if it helps understand the Greek better. Finally, Beyond the Basics of Biblical Greek, by Daniel Wallace, is a huge tome of Greek grammar. He has 90 pages just on the biblical uses of the word "the." Dr. Mounce suggested I read it, and so I slogged through all of it. But, I learned a lot!

Anyway, the fact is the Byzantine copies are corrupt and passed that corruption down for centuries. That includes wrong words, spelling issues, incorporating marginal notes into the text (hence, why the KJV has more words, even though those words were incorporated a millennium later, into the text. The modern translation has over 6000 Greek manuscripts to choose from, the KJV translators, had 7 late, corrupted manuscripts and relied heavily on Erasmus, a Catholic priest and his translation. He found a lot of things which the Vulgate added, which were not in the original Greek. particularly the Johannine Comma, in 1 John 5:7-8. He found no evidence of it in any early versions, and begged the Pope to not be put into his new and more accurate translation. The pope said the verse had to stay, because it is a nice summation of the Trinity. But sadly, it is not in the original autographs, or any of the earliest and even later Greek manuscripts. So, the new translations did not "leave out" those verses, but rather the Catholic Church added them in, to bolster their theology. And you really don't need those verses to prove the Trinity. I've been studying the Trinity for 2 years in my PhD program and there are thousands of perfectly good verses to prove the truth of the Trinity.

 

[Scribe]

Many of us are sure the dynamic though process will not capture the correct meaning in greek or in any other language.

These terminologies have changed in recent years. In one book I have the NIV Is called a Functional Equivalent or Dynamic Equivalent, and the Living Bible and Message are called Free Translations. The KJV and ESV are called Formal Equivalent.

Another newer book has changed the categories to the following:

The KJV, and ESV are Formal Equivalents (alter the form until the text is comprehensible)
The NIV, HCSB are Mediating Equivalents (alter the form until the text is clear)
The NLT, Message are Functional Equivalents (alter the form until the text is more natural)

Functional equivalence was originally called dynamic equivalence. Both terms were coined by Eugene Nida, a pioneer in linguistics and Bible translation.
Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth . Zondervan Academic.


The Mediating and Functional Equivalents both have strengths and weaknesses. Their weakness is more margin of error in attempting to interpret.

The Formal Equivalents have a weakness in that sometimes they can produce awkard English that obscures meaning or even be inaccurate.

As we have seen, all translations — even the most literal — alter Greek and Hebrew forms in order to communicate meaning.
Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth

What all this means for me is that if my goal is to know what the Holy Spirit intended me to understand when He inspired the writing I will need to do my best to comprehend the authorial intent and put myself in the place of those who originally wrote it and heard it. as best as I can. The KJV is not something I am going to speak to a person on the street using archaic Old English words, I am going to be doing some translating from Old English to modern English on the fly and why not just use a translation that has already made that transition without loosing the meaning of the original authors. I like the ESV and the NIV for explaining things to people who are not familiar with the Bible. I like preaching from the KJV because it does the best job of maintaining the style of the ancient Hebrew as it would have sounded to the hearers according to Robert Alter. He said that there is a classic style in the KJV English that comes closer to capturing the style of the Hebrew that the OT was written in, but does not quite do the job and that is why he has a translation that attempts to do that. So you see the translations just keep coming.

 

[Scribe]

While I totally agree adultery is wrong, that is a failure of character, NOT translation. As for the Bible Hebraica, I didn't say the KJV was a bad version for the Hebrew. Although there are radical differences between English and Hebrew, like the verb system which is black and white, based on a three letter root word, with forms into divisions like Qal, Niphil, Piel, etc. None the less, my Hebrew class agreed KJV was a strong translation, because both English and Hebrew have a similar word order, ie "Subject, verb, DO, IO." So, it can be translated word for word, much more evenly in English than Greek. Mind you, that applies to all translations.

I personally find Brown-Driver-Briggs B-D-B to be the best and most thorough lexicon. I have used it for many years. The internet version is updated, but not the book. And the KJV is still too flowery, with too many obsolete and archaic words, to say nothing of the grammar and using second person singular, which is totally obsolete in modern English. It's not that I do not understand second person singular. Besides Greek and Hebrew, I have studied it extensively in French, German and Spanish. The difference is that I have been taught the right words to use in those languages for 2nd person singular, and I also have a lot of tools for each language, including a lot of Bescherelles for all three modern versions. I have heard that 2nd person singular is dying out in France and the old people hate it.

I do use the Nestle-Aland interlinear, and the UBS-5 for a Greek reading Bible. (I also have a USB Hebrew Bible.)It is a good Bible, because it points out differences in different manuscripts and what the best reading is likely to be. I also have other important Greek tools, like Mounce's Morphology and Biblical Greek - A Compact Guide, also by Bill Mounce. I had him for first and second year Greek. The first year in seminary, we used his tapes and books and asked our professor questions. For second year Greek I did a weekly Zoom meeting, and we translated the Bible into English, and parsed it. He was so smart and his Greek impeccable.His dad was a Greek scholar, wrote commentaries and on many translation committees. So, he learned Greek from a very young age. But very humble and willing to accept reasonable, supported arguments, even if he disagreed, because of his upbringing. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament is wonderful to have. I goes verse by verse through the whole NT, giving the actual cases and verb tenses for every unusual word, plus some historical facts, if it helps understand the Greek better. Finally, Beyond the Basics of Biblical Greek, by Daniel Wallace, is a huge tome of Greek grammar. He has 90 pages just on the biblical uses of the word "the." Dr. Mounce suggested I read it, and so I slogged through all of it. But, I learned a lot!

Anyway, the fact is the Byzantine copies are corrupt and passed that corruption down for centuries. That includes wrong words, spelling issues, incorporating marginal notes into the text (hence, why the KJV has more words, even though those words were incorporated a millennium later, into the text. The modern translation has over 6000 Greek manuscripts to choose from, the KJV translators, had 7 late, corrupted manuscripts and relied heavily on Erasmus, a Catholic priest and his translation. He found a lot of things which the Vulgate added, which were not in the original Greek. particularly the Johannine Comma, in 1 John 5:7-8. He found no evidence of it in any early versions, and begged the Pope to not be put into his new and more accurate translation. The pope said the verse had to stay, because it is a nice summation of the Trinity. But sadly, it is not in the original autographs, or any of the earliest and even later Greek manuscripts. So, the new translations did not "leave out" those verses, but rather the Catholic Church added them in, to bolster their theology. And you really don't need those verses to prove the Trinity. I've been studying the Trinity for 2 years in my PhD program and there are thousands of perfectly good verses to prove the truth of the Trinity.

LOL looks like we were both writing about the value of the KJV in retaining the style of the Hebrew in the OT at the same time. Do you have a copy of
The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter? I bought the audible.com version and listen to it when I am doing landscaping, or painting tasks around the church.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The theology of the interpreters is the critical factor all modern translators are predominantly arminian.

I've been reading modern translations for 35 years.
What is an arminian?

 

[CS1]

While I totally agree adultery is wrong, that is a failure of character, NOT translation. As for the Bible Hebraica, I didn't say the KJV was a bad version for the Hebrew. Although there are radical differences between English and Hebrew, like the verb system which is black and white, based on a three letter root word, with forms into divisions like Qal, Niphil, Piel, etc. None the less, my Hebrew class agreed KJV was a strong translation, because both English and Hebrew have a similar word order, ie "Subject, verb, DO, IO." So, it can be translated word for word, much more evenly in English than Greek. Mind you, that applies to all translations.

I personally find Brown-Driver-Briggs B-D-B to be the best and most thorough lexicon. I have used it for many years. The internet version is updated, but not the book. And the KJV is still too flowery, with too many obsolete and archaic words, to say nothing of the grammar and using second person singular, which is totally obsolete in modern English. It's not that I do not understand second person singular. Besides Greek and Hebrew, I have studied it extensively in French, German and Spanish. The difference is that I have been taught the right words to use in those languages for 2nd person singular, and I also have a lot of tools for each language, including a lot of Bescherelles for all three modern versions. I have heard that 2nd person singular is dying out in France and the old people hate it.

I do use the Nestle-Aland interlinear, and the UBS-5 for a Greek reading Bible. (I also have a USB Hebrew Bible.)It is a good Bible, because it points out differences in different manuscripts and what the best reading is likely to be. I also have other important Greek tools, like Mounce's Morphology and Biblical Greek - A Compact Guide, also by Bill Mounce. I had him for first and second year Greek. The first year in seminary, we used his tapes and books and asked our professor questions. For second year Greek I did a weekly Zoom meeting, and we translated the Bible into English, and parsed it. He was so smart and his Greek impeccable.His dad was a Greek scholar, wrote commentaries and on many translation committees. So, he learned Greek from a very young age. But very humble and willing to accept reasonable, supported arguments, even if he disagreed, because of his upbringing. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament is wonderful to have. I goes verse by verse through the whole NT, giving the actual cases and verb tenses for every unusual word, plus some historical facts, if it helps understand the Greek better. Finally, Beyond the Basics of Biblical Greek, by Daniel Wallace, is a huge tome of Greek grammar. He has 90 pages just on the biblical uses of the word "the." Dr. Mounce suggested I read it, and so I slogged through all of it. But, I learned a lot!

Anyway, the fact is the Byzantine copies are corrupt and passed that corruption down for centuries. That includes wrong words, spelling issues, incorporating marginal notes into the text (hence, why the KJV has more words, even though those words were incorporated a millennium later, into the text. The modern translation has over 6000 Greek manuscripts to choose from, the KJV translators, had 7 late, corrupted manuscripts and relied heavily on Erasmus, a Catholic priest and his translation. He found a lot of things which the Vulgate added, which were not in the original Greek. particularly the Johannine Comma, in 1 John 5:7-8. He found no evidence of it in any early versions, and begged the Pope to not be put into his new and more accurate translation. The pope said the verse had to stay, because it is a nice summation of the Trinity. But sadly, it is not in the original autographs, or any of the earliest and even later Greek manuscripts. So, the new translations did not "leave out" those verses, but rather the Catholic Church added them in, to bolster their theology. And you really don't need those verses to prove the Trinity. I've been studying the Trinity for 2 years in my PhD program and there are thousands of perfectly good verses to prove the truth of the Trinity.

But sadly, it is not in the original autographs,

Why? because we don't have one to know if it is or not. However, the manuscripts do not have the word Trinity either. But the concept is well defined in the Old Testament First. Therefore the "pope" may have been used by God in the context of what was added. it surely doesn't take away from the word of God at all nor does it add to the full biblical context already well established.

 

[Angela53510]

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?

Nehemiah, Gordon Fee is one of the top Bible translators in the world. His Greek is excellent AND he knows the principles of translation inside out. backwards and forwards. He has also written some helpful pamphlets against the Word Faith. Every seminary I ever took a course from (some for transfer credit) recommended this book. It is pretty arrogant for you, someone who does not read Greek or Hebrew, to put down one of the acknowledged top translators in the world, and pretend you know more than him. When you get your PhD in hermeneutics, then maybe you can carefully explain using the Greek, why you disagree with him. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is an irenic and open person. Not narrow minded to the point of insanity like you are about KJV Onlyism. The sign of a real scholar is being able to re-examine your beliefs and be able to change them. This KJV Onlyism is a terrible cult. They have a short list of memorized verses and scripture saying things in the Bible only apply to the KJV Bible. In fact, every one of those verses, like "being refined 7 times," can apply to any translation, in any language.

I feel very bad for you. You have good theology in many areas. You are honest and stand up for Biblical truth. But somehow, you got deluded and ended up in this terrible, irrational cult, and you are literally drowning, tied to the bottom of the ocean. If you ever need to come up for air and really want to talk about the truth of this nightmare of dishonesty and brainwashing, feel free to PM me and we can talk privately or on here. There is no fault for changing your mind, when all the facts are against you.