Post by Cindy on Nov 2, 2016 13:55:57 GMT -5
There's such a great deal of misinformation and false teaching about bible translations around today. It's really sad that the Body of Christ would let Satan deceive them about the Word of God. The Lord blessed me with a tremendous bible library with over 25 (English) bible translations (and many in the original languages) and literally thousands of theology books and commentaries. Because of that, I've had the joy of learning a great deal about how various versions were translated, and why different words are used in various translations. The funny thing is that I didn't set out to learn about that. I was just studying my bible. In the process of studying a passage, I would often look to see how it was translated in other versions. I discovered that often the translations were all basically the same, and sometimes exactly the same. Where one of more words did differ, it was generally simply a different word used to get across the same thing, in a way the translator felt was better suited to the passage. In looking at the commentaries I discovered something else that was interesting. Often when explaining a passage the commentary would explain what the word in the original language meant, giving synonyms for it so we could better understand. After a short time, I realized that when a different word was chosen in a different bible version, it was one of those synonyms. Or other times, the KJV used a synonym and the other versions used a different one. Never was the meaning of the verse changed by the use of the different words by various bible versions. (in spite of what the KJVO crowd says) With that realization, I got more curious about this whole subject and began digging more and discovered the world of Old and New Testament manuscripts that were used when the bible was originally translated into English. It's really amazing how many are available to us today and how closely they've been translated year after year. Further, I discovered that the manuscripts that are available today, had not yet been discovered when the KJV was translated. The ones we have today are not "better" than the ones available then, but they do gives us more light into what the original documents said.
Another thing I've heard about translations is that we have never needed a new version. Well, I don't know about others, but I don't speak the way they did back when the KJV was published. I don't speak anything at all like that, and no one I know does either. What's kind of funny about it is that when you start studying what words mean in the original languages they were written in, you discover that instead of translating a phrase word for word, even the KJV changed phrases into something that was more understandable to their way of speaking. Let me share one verse with you that I got a kick out of that shows what I mean by this: The NIV says: “May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him!”” (1 Samuel 25:22) This is the 1873 KJV: So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. The ASV translates it: “God do so unto the enemies of David, and more also, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light so much as one man-child.” (1 Samuel 25:22) The word in the original language is one which simply meant "a male". Strongs explains that “one who urinates against a wall” was used as a designation of a male. We simply don't talk like that anymore, and instead use the word "male".
There's also nasty debates out of verses or portions of verses that are supposedly left out of some translations, which the proponents say is horribly wrong. Let me show you why this simply isn't true.
NIV | Lk 9:56 andb they went to another village. Notice the "B" after the word "and" in the NIV translation. It's called a footnote and in this footnote they give the "missing" part of the verse.
AV 1873 | Lk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
DARBY 1890| Lk 9:56 And they went to another village. Notice also that other very old versions did not have that part of the verse in the main body of the text.
NET | Lk 9:56 and they went on to another village.
Many MSS ([D] K Γ Θ f1, 13 [579] 700 2542 pm it) have at the end of the verse (with slight variations) “and he said, ‘You do not know what sort of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save [them].’ ” This variant is clearly secondary, as it gives some content to the rebuke. Further, it is difficult to explain how such rich material would have been omitted by the rest of the witnesses, including the earliest and best MSS. Biblical Studies Press.
The KJV inserts a phrase (“and said, ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them’ ”), which is found only in the uncial manuscript K and later versions. It is missing in MSS P45,75, MĒ, A, B, C, L, and W. The UBS4 committee gave the shorter reading an “A” rating (certain). The Gospel according to Luke. Study Guide Commentary Series
Here's another one for your consideration:
AV 1873 | Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
If you look up this verse itself, it appears to be missing in the NIV, but again, that's not the case.
NIV | Mt 18:10 “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. a Again, there is a footnote after verse 10 which includes the "missing" verse. There's yet again a very good reason it's not included in the main text:
Verse 11, while legitimate in Luke 19:10, seems to be inserted here, since the more reliable texts omit it. KJV Bible Commentary
18:11 This verse is not in the ancient Greek manuscripts א, B or the Greek texts used by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Nor is it found in the Syriac and Coptic translations. It was obviously not an original part of Matthew. It is an addition from Lk 19:10 by early copyists. The First Christian Primer: Matthew.
The most important MSS (א B L* Θ* f1, 13 33 892* pc e ff1 sys sa) do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg W Θc 078vid 𝔐 lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed, as it were, from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations. Biblical Studies Press.
For each of these I could quote many commentaries, even those by the King James version bible, as you can see. My point is that it's very silly to debate this issue. The KJV only cult has divided Christians and caused a great deal of strife and disunity among us. Who does that sound like to you? Satan is the one we're told comes to divide us and cause strife. It looks like he has a good deal going with those who push the KJVO stuff. He even used a well known false teacher to start this whole thing, which has been forgotten by most.
Are there any bad translations? Yes. The translations that are "paraphrased" are not God's Word, because they're not translated word for word from the original languages like all the others. An example of a paraphrased version would be "the message bible".
Let me share something I read from a Logos blog about different translations that I think you'll find interesting:
Imagine there was only one English Bible translation and that it had never occurred to you that there might be another. The truth is that even if we were stuck with your and my least favorite translation on the chart above, we’d still have an inestimable treasure. We would still have God’s words. The KJV translators, in a sadly neglected but eerily prescient preface to the KJV, said the following:
“We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”
The KJV translators had no qualms saying that even relatively poor translations don’t just contain God’s words but are God’s word. They were not Bible translation tribalists. Perhaps we should take a page out of their book.
blog.logos.com/2016/05/bible-translation-best-good-ones/
You might even want to read the article this links to, as he says it quite well. All in all, over the years I've come to understand more about the amazingly difficult job all translators have when working on translating God's Word into English or any other language. I thank the Lord that He gave us godly men who He gifted with the ability to learn and understand ancient languages as well as current ones and produce the various versions we now have available to us to study. As I've come to know people online who live in other countries, countries like Greece, where they have only one very old translation that's harder to understand then even the KJ is, I've come to appreciate even more the ones we have available. As the blog I quoted from says, it's time to stop putting down other translations and simply enjoy the great gift the Lord has given us.
Another thing I've heard about translations is that we have never needed a new version. Well, I don't know about others, but I don't speak the way they did back when the KJV was published. I don't speak anything at all like that, and no one I know does either. What's kind of funny about it is that when you start studying what words mean in the original languages they were written in, you discover that instead of translating a phrase word for word, even the KJV changed phrases into something that was more understandable to their way of speaking. Let me share one verse with you that I got a kick out of that shows what I mean by this: The NIV says: “May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him!”” (1 Samuel 25:22) This is the 1873 KJV: So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. The ASV translates it: “God do so unto the enemies of David, and more also, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light so much as one man-child.” (1 Samuel 25:22) The word in the original language is one which simply meant "a male". Strongs explains that “one who urinates against a wall” was used as a designation of a male. We simply don't talk like that anymore, and instead use the word "male".
There's also nasty debates out of verses or portions of verses that are supposedly left out of some translations, which the proponents say is horribly wrong. Let me show you why this simply isn't true.
NIV | Lk 9:56 andb they went to another village. Notice the "B" after the word "and" in the NIV translation. It's called a footnote and in this footnote they give the "missing" part of the verse.
AV 1873 | Lk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
DARBY 1890| Lk 9:56 And they went to another village. Notice also that other very old versions did not have that part of the verse in the main body of the text.
NET | Lk 9:56 and they went on to another village.
Many MSS ([D] K Γ Θ f1, 13 [579] 700 2542 pm it) have at the end of the verse (with slight variations) “and he said, ‘You do not know what sort of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save [them].’ ” This variant is clearly secondary, as it gives some content to the rebuke. Further, it is difficult to explain how such rich material would have been omitted by the rest of the witnesses, including the earliest and best MSS. Biblical Studies Press.
The KJV inserts a phrase (“and said, ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them’ ”), which is found only in the uncial manuscript K and later versions. It is missing in MSS P45,75, MĒ, A, B, C, L, and W. The UBS4 committee gave the shorter reading an “A” rating (certain). The Gospel according to Luke. Study Guide Commentary Series
Here's another one for your consideration:
AV 1873 | Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
If you look up this verse itself, it appears to be missing in the NIV, but again, that's not the case.
NIV | Mt 18:10 “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. a Again, there is a footnote after verse 10 which includes the "missing" verse. There's yet again a very good reason it's not included in the main text:
Verse 11, while legitimate in Luke 19:10, seems to be inserted here, since the more reliable texts omit it. KJV Bible Commentary
18:11 This verse is not in the ancient Greek manuscripts א, B or the Greek texts used by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Nor is it found in the Syriac and Coptic translations. It was obviously not an original part of Matthew. It is an addition from Lk 19:10 by early copyists. The First Christian Primer: Matthew.
The most important MSS (א B L* Θ* f1, 13 33 892* pc e ff1 sys sa) do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg W Θc 078vid 𝔐 lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed, as it were, from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations. Biblical Studies Press.
For each of these I could quote many commentaries, even those by the King James version bible, as you can see. My point is that it's very silly to debate this issue. The KJV only cult has divided Christians and caused a great deal of strife and disunity among us. Who does that sound like to you? Satan is the one we're told comes to divide us and cause strife. It looks like he has a good deal going with those who push the KJVO stuff. He even used a well known false teacher to start this whole thing, which has been forgotten by most.
Are there any bad translations? Yes. The translations that are "paraphrased" are not God's Word, because they're not translated word for word from the original languages like all the others. An example of a paraphrased version would be "the message bible".
Let me share something I read from a Logos blog about different translations that I think you'll find interesting:
Imagine there was only one English Bible translation and that it had never occurred to you that there might be another. The truth is that even if we were stuck with your and my least favorite translation on the chart above, we’d still have an inestimable treasure. We would still have God’s words. The KJV translators, in a sadly neglected but eerily prescient preface to the KJV, said the following:
“We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”
The KJV translators had no qualms saying that even relatively poor translations don’t just contain God’s words but are God’s word. They were not Bible translation tribalists. Perhaps we should take a page out of their book.
blog.logos.com/2016/05/bible-translation-best-good-ones/
You might even want to read the article this links to, as he says it quite well. All in all, over the years I've come to understand more about the amazingly difficult job all translators have when working on translating God's Word into English or any other language. I thank the Lord that He gave us godly men who He gifted with the ability to learn and understand ancient languages as well as current ones and produce the various versions we now have available to us to study. As I've come to know people online who live in other countries, countries like Greece, where they have only one very old translation that's harder to understand then even the KJ is, I've come to appreciate even more the ones we have available. As the blog I quoted from says, it's time to stop putting down other translations and simply enjoy the great gift the Lord has given us.