|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Ted C
|
05/09/2011 09:48 |
As far as the New Testament and the differences between the Textus Receptus and the various Codices that Peter S. mentions in the second post of this thread, the variances run at around less than five percent, and none of the differences are doctrinal if you go by the rule of "two or three witnesses" - at least two or three mentions of a thing necessary to establish it as a doctrine. What we're talking about is two or three Greek words omitted from a phrase here, and then 30 verses later a four or five word phrase added on to a statement there, etc.
The Bible study tools I use most often are www.biblegateway.com for word searches and looking at texts in English, www.blueletterbible.com for looking up the original Hebrew and Greek words, a set of Spiros Zodhiates' Complete Key Word Study Bibles at home for delving deeper into the original word meanings, and various interlinears at home and online. I've had fortune getting into the details of wordings using these tools. And in ninety-nine percent of the cases, the meanings on the page in English are without question the clear meaning of the original texts. For the remaining one percent of controversy, even those little questions are usually divided correctly between the translations.
By far the translation I've found to be closest to the original, literal wording and word structure of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts is NASB - New American Standard Bible. This was done on purpose when the version was translated. NIV - New International Version - is great for just reading. Yes, there are a small handful of places very few and far between where it paraphrases a single obvious translation of the original wording instead of just saying it literally. KJV - King James Version - is great as well, although I find it has it's own problems in translation as well.
For example, Psalm 8:5 in the KJV is translated, "For thou hast made him (man) a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." And the word for "angels" there is the Hebrew word "elohiym" from which we get the name of God "Elohim". It means literally "God Us" and is how God refers to Himself first in Genesis (1:1, "In the beginning "Elohiym" created the heavens and the earth.") So a better translation of Psalm 8:5 is in the NASB, "Yet You have made him a little lower than God, and You crown him with glory and majesty!" The NIV, in borrowing from the literary beauty of Old English, also uses the word "angels". Notice though that in several places the translators of the NASB borrowed phrasing from the KJV as well for the same reason, even including Thy's and Thou's from some of the more poetic and well known passages of the KJV.
|
| |
Peter
|
05/09/2011 12:18 |
TRWord, I can't blame you for having a favorite. I would say the KJV is one of my favorites as well (I like the antiquated language - it makes me think about what I am reading). I guess I just question your decision to "discard the rest". If it is on the basis of translational errors, surely you realize that any translation would have similar errors. Given that all translations are at least slightly flawed, I find it most helpful to compare them (especially in difficult or controversial passages) to try to get as close as possible to the original meaning.
|
| |
jonathonbyrd
|
05/09/2011 12:27 |
Keep in mind what kind of translation errors that these are. What you see as a difference between these versions is the deity of Jesus. In the NIV and in the American Standard Version the Deity of Jesus and His Lordship are dropped from the translation.
You also have many mathematical verses distorted and showing as contradictory. It's almost as if the person that rewrote these versions was trying to make them non-contradictory in their own mind.
I stand my ground, if a translation contains errors.. then those errors are not of God and that translation needs to be destroyed. :)
|
| |
Ted C
|
05/09/2011 14:06 |
Jonathan, can you give some examples of ASV dropping Jesus' Lordship from the translation? You've got my curiosity piqued now!
|
| |
jonathonbyrd
|
05/09/2011 14:08 |
Ya, I posted a couple comparison sites to open this topic. Here they are again
NIV vs KJV Comparison Charts
http://www.searchthescriptures.com/newsletters/foundations.htm
http://theshepherdsvoice.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html
|
| |
Ted C
|
05/09/2011 16:54 |
I think the people who posted those pages might be cherry picking which manuscript variances they are choosing to highlight. For example, I picked a Gospel at random, Luke, and looked at the omissions listed on the first link, "KJV vs. NIV". It lists 125 omitted phrases as translated into English. I'm not sure how many Greek words are involved in these examples and I'd be surprised if it's more than 100. The total number of words in Luke which are in question from manuscript variances though, in Greek, are over 500 (see http://www.biblequery.org/ntmss.htm ; information determined by looking through, "The Text of the New Testament : An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism", 3rd edition and 4th revised edition by Aland et al, Metzger’s "A Textual Commentary on the New Testament", Barry, and footnotes from the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV.) So whoever wrote the first page is trying to highlight only selected variances and show them without the context. The second page you linked to looks very much like the first page, with subject matter commentary added.
If someone actually was trying to remove the Deity and Lordship of Christ from the NIV and ASV versions, though, they'd have to remove the first half of Romans, 1 Corinthians 15, all of Colossians and Galatians, and most of Hebrews, etc., from these translations as well. In other words, the variants and translation differences don't at all change the doctrine and message of the different Bible versions being discussed. Furthermore, it's somewhat misleading to say the more recent translations are just "leaving out" words and phrases; they are actually staying true to the manuscript bodies they deem most reliable. Many early manuscripts, which pre-date the manuscripts that comprise the Textus Receptus, omit these phrases. And it's important to note that most Bibles based on manuscript bodies that omit the phrases still include them in footnotes or in brackets. Taken together with the fact that the variants don't affect Bible doctrine, I don't think the NIV, ASV and NASB are unreliable or incorrect.
|
| |
John T
|
05/09/2011 17:09 |
Interestingly, I just noticed a new movie at my local library's website... I'll have to check it out sometime. Here's the dove review: http://www.dove.org/reviewpopup.asp?Unique_ID=8684
|
| |
TRWord
|
05/09/2011 17:22 |
Hi Peter
You said; “I guess I just question your decision to "discard the rest". If it is on the basis of translational errors, surely you realize that any translation would have similar errors. Given that all translations are at least slightly flawed, I find it most helpful to compare them (especially in difficult or controversial passages) to try to get as close as possible to the original meaning.”
I have enclosed five version of Isaiah 28 Verses 9 and 10 to explain why I have discarded the rest.
As per the KJV:
The 9th verse; the question is asked “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?” and an answer is given;
And in the 10 verse he explain the layered natured of the scriptures by saying that precept must be on precept line upon line and here a little and there a little.
Notice in all other versions the 9th verse is a series of questions with no answer and even the tone of the passage is changed.
As per the NASB
Even though the 10 verse is close the change in voice distorts the meaning.
As per the NLT and the NIV the voice is changed so drastically that the questions are voiced by those who sound upset that they are being treated like children, and the explanation of the layered nature of the scripture is removed.
As per the YLT this is so different as to be unrecognizable.
KJV
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10 KJV)
NASB
To whom would He teach knowledge, And to whom would He interpret the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just taken from the breast? For He says, Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there. (Isaiah 28:9-10 NASB)
NLT
Who does the Lord think we are? they ask.Why does he speak to us like this? Are we little children, just recently weaned? He tells us everything over and over one line at a time, one line at a time,a little here,and a little there! (Isaiah 28:9-10 NLT)
NIV
Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there. (Isaiah 28:9-10 NIV)
YLT
By whom doth He teach knowledge? And by whom doth He cause to understand the report? The weaned from milk, the removed from breasts, For rule on rule, rule on rule, line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there, (Isaiah 28:9-10 YLT)
The changes I see are far worst than errors.
|
| |
Kelley
|
05/09/2011 17:34 |
TRW, what you are saying assumes the KJV is accurate and all other versions must say the same as the KJV when that is not the case. The KJV is a translation, which means a panel of scholars went through the texts and put them into the closest approximation to the original as they knew to do. In the same fashion other translations are created likewise. A team of scholars looks at the manuscripts... since there are not exact words in English for the words in Greek or Hebrew it is impossible to do it perfectly in a word for word translation. Thought for thought translations are open to the accusation of being paraphrases, but they are often closer to the original content as far as giving the original meaning to today's hearers, since today's people do not speak KJV English and many nuances of words have changed since then. For instance, what do people think of now when they hear "charity" in 1 Cor. 13 instead of "love." Charity NOW is rife with today's interpretations of the word being pity, looking down on someone and giving them handouts, etc. The purpose of the WORD first and foremost is to communicate to the hearers. If it does not communicate then no matter how lofty or pure it is, it is failing as a translation into English. What do people read if they are German? or French? Or picture new tribes getting the first book of John they have ever seen being translated into their language by some far from home missionary.... do you REALLY think God is unable to speak to today's people in their own language???? Why don't we still just use Latin? it outdates the KJV. People in mass have a difficult time with the KJV. It is no longer contemporary English and it has taken a beating in our culture until it sounds simply religious, dead, and irrelevant.... whether it is or not. It has ceased to communicate God's word to a large cross section of people.
|
| |
Kelley
|
05/09/2011 17:36 |
All that to say is that translations are not to be compared to the KJV, the KJV is not the standard. All translations should be compared to the original documents or as close to the original as we have in our possession.... including KJV. In this way, KJV is just another team of scholars saying "we think it means this."
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5)
|
