Need Info on Bible Translation

Here you go, from the Tyndale House:

Ninety evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations spent seven years in revising the New Living Translation. This version is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. Entire thoughts, rather than just words, were translated into natural, everyday English. Thus, this is a dynamic-equivalence translation. Three scholars were assigned to a portion of Scripture, usually one or two books. One general reviewer was assigned to each of the six groups of books.

The text used for the Old Testament was Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), along with such aids as The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Septuagint, other Greek manuscripts, The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Syriac Peshitta, The Latin Vulgate, and others. The texts for the New Testament were the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (1977), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (1993).

There was an attempt to use a gender-neutral rendering where the text applies generally to human beings or to the human condition. El, elohim, and eloah have been translated as "God." YHWH has been translated as "the LORD." Adonai has been translated "Lord."

And here's some silly fluff by folks who are so ignorant that they don't know the so-called "textus receptus," referred to by them as the Reformation Received Text, was an advertising gimmick* and that it, as a text, was grossly inferior to other texts even at the time it was first promoted:

There are two standards whereby a Bible translation should be judged for its faithfulness: One, the purity of its text. Two, the accuracy of its translation. The New Living Translation (NLT) fails miserably on both counts. It is based upon the undependable Westcott-Hort type text. It is an inaccurate paraphrase even of this corrupt text.

According to the Introduction to the NLT, its underlying HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT is the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament (with many changes based on Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Latin Vulgate, etc.) and the United Bible Societies (UBS) fourth edition Greek New Testament. (The NLT does not always follow the UBS Greek text. It is actually a little more conservative than the UBS text and includes in the text some passages which are omitted in the UBS.)

The UBS Greek Testament is basically a modification of the Westcott-Hort version of 1881 which was published in conjunction with the English Revised New Testament. Though there are many differences between the Westcott-Hort Greek Text and today's UBS text (one of the features of modern textual criticism is its unsettled, constantly shifting nature), both represent a rejection of the Reformation Received Text, and both lean upon the same type of corrupt manuscripts which were preferred by Westcott and Hort--chiefly the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus manuscripts and their friends.

This is no light matter. If the Bible societies are correct in their assumption that the text of the Protestant Reformation was gravely defected, the great work of God during the hundreds of years prior to this century--the mighty revivals, the extraordinary pioneer missionary endeavors, the mass evangelism which changed not only multitudes of individual lives but the very character of nations and communities-- was based upon a corrupted Bible. If, on the other hand, the Bible societies are wrong about this matter, it is their Greek text which is the corrupted one, and they are responsible for distributing to men a corruption of God's Word. What could be more serious?

If you want a good overview of the text of the New Testament, see The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration and The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger.

* In 1624 the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, two enterprising printers at Leiden, published a small and convenient edition of the Greek Testament, the text of which was taken mainly from Beza's smaller 1565 edition. The preface to the second edition, which appeared in 1633, makes the boast that '[the reader has] the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.' Thus from what was a more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb'), there arose the designation "Textus Receptus', or commonly received, standard text. Partly because of this catchword the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardy collected minuscule** manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness (The Text of the New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger, pp. 105-106).

**minuscule manuscripts are later copies versus the earliest ones that are written in uncials

I disagree that in general there are no modern translations that are better than the KJV in accuracy, faithfulness to the intent, message, etc. of the original artifacts.

Perhaps put another way--I believe that the number of verses with flaws are greater in the KJV than in some of the modern translations . . .

whether one is talking about sin or any other major issue of Scripture.

It's been too long since I reviewed the scholars on such issues to cite specifics but I'm comfortable with my last such review for my own use in choosing a variety of modern translations.

A modern translation like the NIV, NLT and THE MESSAGE [I refuse to split silly hairs over paraphrase vs word for word translation--all translations are paraphrases] will be exceedingly better at communicating the accurate meaning of the verses into the modern mind structured by modern English than will the KJV.

I haven't spent much time with the NKJV. It reportedly ALSO has some good work done on it. Quality is neither it's nor the original KJV's exclusive property or monopoly.

One can quibble over various PC sorts of issues and I have little patience with folks trying to remove male gender distinctions from God etc. But I also have little patience for folks trying to split hairs over gnat's farts worth of issues.

I can agree to a point that some of the bite may have been blunted on some issues with some of the modern translations. But the import and essence of all the major verses of all the major issues is quite sufficiently in tact, for me. The KJV also has some such flaws for sensibilities of their time. I think THE MESSAGE is one of the first modern versions to make an effective return to the punch and idiom of the original Hebrew and Greek.

If one really wants to search out a verse, then there's no modern excuse for failing to use at least 3-4, if not a half dozen translations.

And, for someone reared on the KJV and with tons of verses in my memory in KJV English--any modern translation I read is with that substrate traveling along constantly for comparison, anyway.

But, I would not have the slightest hesitation (as I have not had) passing out all the modern translations I could to Chinese ESL students. Holy Spirit has more than adequately protected the essence of the essential Scriptures AS WELL as He protected them in the KJV version. He did not get tired and quit such diligent watchfulness over the Sacred Text and it's translation when the KJV was finished long ago.

I have confidence that the unchanging Almighty God has continued to have a hand in whatever translation HE DESTINED to have wide distribution.

I personally believe that He alternately laughs and groans over all the noise and haughtiness over the relatively silly hair splitting that goes on about the KJV vs other translations. The issues much more remind me of the hair splitting gotcha questions the religious leaders loved to ask Jesus than they do anything particularly crucial or edifying.

There is more than sufficient accuracy in any of the popular modern translations to be drawn by the Word to Jesus; to establish a relationship with Jesus and His Body and to be discipled in all the essentials of the faith.

Besides, you'd be surprised what God has done in China with scraps of one chapter of one book of a modern translation of the New Testament--sometimes with dozens and dozens of people.

People who dare to scoff and joke at Scripture will reap from their sowing. I don't think KJV vs modern translation has any real direct relationship with that issue, at all.

I don't believe the better modern translations were deliberately flawed. Sometimes people with more devotion to PC than should have been allowed sometimes had more influence than warranted on some translation committees. I don't think the better modern translations were designed in any way to be a subtle attack on God's word.

SOME translations, I could buy that about. But not the better ones. I'd really have to see the vivid proof to buy into otherwise.

That's another reason I like Peterson's THE MESSAGE. No committee! LOL.

I just do not buy hyper KJV worship. I think it's sinful idolatry and counterproductive to The Gospel and the health of The Body as well as the Growth of The Body.

How do you interprete the reading of John 6:53-56? Many belief systems do have trouble with this.

I honestly can't see why they should have trouble with it at all. Well meaning followers of our Christ believe in earnest that He is the word incarnate - God the Son of the Trinity, yet on the other hand believe He's incapable of giving sacrificing His body and blood when we take communion.

They are as those who were present at the time when they said this just can't be. Their contention was yes we believe you as the Messiah to be capable healing the sick and raising the dead yet what is this talk of us eating your flesh?

Jesus was very adament about this, He verily repeated Himself many times, even on His last night upon this earth. He didn't fudge His words or speak in any kind of parable. The Eucharist with it's immense power then went on to change the face of the earth, and gave us all Christianity we see today.

It's very sad that we've gotten away from it, we're like those who abandoned Him that day.

The textus receptus, also called the majority text, agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible, the Peshitta, the old Latin Bible, the Italic Bible. It is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

Everything you said above is simply untrue.

And remember, the label "textus receptus" was itself an advertising gimmick by the Elzevir brothers to push a collection of late NT manuscripts, not the earliest ones. It included passages that were translated from a late Latin NT back into Greek because there were parts missing in the later Greek texts. There were words inserted as Greek that were not even Greek.

There were interpolations in the Latin text that were inserted as though they were in the Greek texts, but were not. Here's one of them: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I John 5:7 This was found in the Latin Vulgate but in no Greek manuscript at the time. Erasmus was criticized by another translator for not including it in his translation.

Erasmus said that he had not found it in any Greek manuscript but that if he found one, he'd include the passage. Shortly after that someone wrote out a complete copy of the Greek NT including this passage from the Vulgate. Erasmus kept his promise and included the spurious passage in his translation.

Since then, three other Greek manuscripts (out of thousands) have been found to contain this passage. One is a 12th century manuscript with the passage written in the margin in 17th century handwriting; there's a 16th century copy of Ximenes's Complutensian Polyglot Greek text (Ximenes was the one who was complaining to Erasmus about that passage). The third appears in a manuscript that is either 14th century or late 16th century depending on the scholar. The passage on its own first appears in a 4th century Latin treatise. It doesn't appear in the Latin Vulgate in any edition before the 8th century.

As far as "Egyptian philosophy and unbelief" go, I can virtually guarantee that you will be unable to cite any specific instance anywhere in the New Testament and be able to defend that interpretation.

The idioms and phrasing of the KJV just does not communicate Scriptural meanings accurately to minds rather locked into modern English idioms, constructs, reality.

This is a linguistic, psychological, cultural, brain structure reality.

Personally, I was reared on the KJV. In high school and even college, I actually literally slept with my Dakes KJV as a teddy bear. I wore two Dake's out. My memory work is virtually all KJV. I love it. But I was reared on it for at least 18 years. I learned it from age 1 or 2 in Sunday School. I can translate the KJV into more or less accurate meaning, for me.

That is just not true for youth and especially ESL people of today. They will not go through the hard work of trying to make sense out of an archiac language. One can rationalize and dance around it and worship it. But KJV is written in an archaic language.

Jesus was thoughtful enough, loving enough and wise enough that he did not speak an archiac language to His earthly listeners. He spoke the very common language of the day.

I consider it idolatry, arrogance, fossilized rigidity and insensitivity to the needs of the lost to elevate KJV to an object of idol worship to the loss of more effective Evangelism with the lost of the world.

I don't think Christ will treat that kindly at the judgement seat of Christ.

Wow, thanks everyone! Lots of good food for thought here-- I will be re-reading this thread again.

I am mainly interested in a more readable version of the bible because I haven't been able to plough through the old testament in my KJV. I just want to read it through once, not for study but rather for general narrative and flavor. Although I did study a LOT of literature in both high school and college, with particular attention to early English literature, the KJV is still more work than I want for this kind of a read-through. (I've read through the new testament in the KJV several times, but it just seems more accessible than the OT, so that's ok.) And, from some comments I read here I can see that I might need to look to further NT translations to facilitate deeper study.

On the other hand, in my view, the KJV simply cannot be beat for it's sheer poetic value in English. Every language has a flavor, but not every era of every language is equally poetic. The KJV simply resonates-- particularly for any devotee of Donne or Herbert. The difficulty lies, I think, in understanding the meaning in the same way as it would have been understood by a literate person of those earlier times. I do ok at that, but not great, not by a long shot. ;)

But I do agree, Cvengr, that all of the study we do with God's guidance will be true. He truly does hold us all in the palm of his hand. Since my faith was of purely experiental origin, and continues each day through His grace, I do not think that even a bad translation could harm it.

May God bless everyone who has helped me here. Thank you!

I find your allegations enormously askew at best.

Satan has absolutely no part in my criticisms of the use of the KJV.

I still personally love the KJV. And often when I use the search engines at Biblegateway--I have to start out with the KJV because that's how I remember the verses.

But I have learned the hard way that with younger people and with ESL Chinese students, using the KJV is NONSENSE. And it is insensitive, unloving, unChristian, arrogant, counter productive, prissy, sanctimonious and a lot of other silly things for me to use it when relating to such people.

The KJV IS *NOT* THE HOLY OF HOLIES of Bible Translations. It has at least as many flaws as the better modern translations.

Personally, I have found that psychology and personality variables have a lot more to do with KJV idolatry than does Biblical scholarship.

The modern Bibles are lacking in substance and should not be considered by a serious student of God's Word.

I consider that an extremely parochial falsehood.

I also consider it an insult to God's care and capacity and practical effectiveness to guard HIS WORD through all the centuries and all the translations.

Every quality modern translation has many qualities of substance to offer to individuals and the Body of Christ--as do healthy Biblical congregations which are different. The nuances enrich the different translations and different groups. And sometimes the nuance can point most powerfully to things of great substance.

In any case, the KJV translators had their own biases and cultural sets which contaminated the KJV just as you accuse modern translators of doing with the modern translations. Myopic blindness to that is not admirable, to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.