Replies

I read 4 translations: The New American Standard (NASB)and The King James (KJV) for "word for word" translation. Then I read The Amplified Bible to get all the various definitions to passage. Last, I read the New International Version (NIV) for the writer's thought...that is what the thought trying to be conveyed in writer's day to what it would translate to us today. What a writer saw, heard or experienced 2 thousand years ago would be described differently by us today.

LINK TO BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

Thank you, interesting post.

I know that in the front of the Original 1611 there was a letter place that speaks to disagreements of the translators.

I have a KJV Cambridge, Printed in Great Britain, no date when, I have had it close to 30 years.

It is not the one I presently use, however, in the front of this Bible is letter regarding the translation.

Letter starts off with the following:

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHT PRINCE
JAMES
BY THE GRACE OF GOD,

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &.

The Translators of the Bible with Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.

What follows is a letter to King James regarding the work of the translators. I will not type the letter as it is six paragraphs long. What the translators of the King James say, regards speed and limited ability to translate from the ORIGINAL SCARED TONGUES.

Further "together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require."

These translators, who did the best they could, in giving the English Tongue an exact Translation themselves, knew that questions would arise from their work.

I hold nothing against their work as it is a blessing to me. They were honest in describing their work and their mission.

However, they being aware of critics made it know that they were translating from the ORIGINAL SACRAED TONGUE thus in doing their duty let the reader beware that accusation could and would be made.

This is a huge flag to me that OK why if it is EXACT TRANSLATION why would a letter of concern be place in the front of the TRANSLATION.

So for myself I have found English words used in many places limits what the actual original Hebrew word means.

The Massorah, locks the scripture in and does not change words. Most Christians don't even know about the Massorah its purpose and why it is necessary for the original Hebrew Old Testment, which the New Testment being written by Hebrews wrote in Greek language but with Hebrew thoughts.

I read 4 translations: The New American Standard (NASB)and The King James (KJV) for "word for word" translation. Then I read The Amplified Bible to get all the various definitions to passage. Last, I read the New International Version (NIV) for the writer's thought...that is what the thought trying to be conveyed in writer's day to what it would translate to us today. What a writer saw, heard or experienced 2 thousand years ago would be described differently by us today.

And how do you decide which translation is the correct one?

What objective standard do you use?