Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

[Jim B]

You want to dig up his grave and burn his bones @Jim B ?

Funny that you’re soo inflamed with King James’ “propaganda” but the steaming pile of propaganda from the Alexandrian Text cult eludes your senses.

Well that shows where your mind dwells, doesn't it.

 

[Davy]

Not sure where you get this but I hear this claim for all the modern translations.

If you actually read the translators notes, you will find they go back to the original texts and translate from there. They do not make a copy of a copy. Modern translators have far better access to original texts and older manuscripts than those from half a millenia ago. See Dead See scrolls.

No, that's simply not true. Lot of propaganda put out by the supporters of the modern 'ecletic' text devised by Nestle and Aland which used Wescott and Hort's new Greek text:


"It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth.3 "
(from Westcott & Hort Versus the Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? (Part 2) | SHARPER IRON)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

L learned to read in the KJV when I was 7-8. I've learned most of the "Workarounds for the bad areas of translation, so no need to baother wih other translations. They all say the same thing anyway, so one's as good as another. I DO like the OLD "Living" paraphrase, though.

 

[Davy]

Thank you for actually "telling it like it is", even unintentionally. Yes, modern translations are mostly translated from the 'same' Old Testament Hebrew texts and New Testament Greek texts which the early Church used."

There have been discoveries of time of many scrolls and tablets since the KJV time; the Dead Sea scrolls come to mind. Also the understanding of the languages, gleaned from archeological discoveries, give modern translators a much better idea of what the sources actually mean.

More importantly, modern translators make an effort to relate what the early sources actually mean to our modern minds. Unlike the King James translators, they are not compelled to glorify a secular monarch's idea of how the Bible should glorify him.

Nice try, but I never said what you are inferring.

You are FALSELY suggesting that other language translations were derived from the Alexandrian texts when those manuscripts (like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were not even found until 1475 and 1859, were not widely known, and showed rare usage. There is even much suspicion of Tischendorf's discovery of the claimed oldest Codex Sinaiticus with only part of The New Testament found in 1844, and the rest he found later in 1859, miraculously! Wise scholars were suspicious then, and still are today of that supposed discovery by Tischendorf.

 

[Wrangler]

No, that's simply not true.

It's totally true!

Have you ever actually read the translators notes of non-KJV translations?

 

[DavidB]

You want to dig up his grave and burn his bones @Jim B ?

Funny that you’re soo inflamed with King James’ “propaganda” but the steaming pile of propaganda from the Alexandrian Text cult eludes your senses.

So almost all Bible translators over the last 120+ years are a “cult” whose work is a “steaming pile?”

 

[DavidB]

It amazes me to watch all the intense arguments about the accuracy of Bible translations among those who seem to have no problem with replacing the Tetragrammaton with Adonai 6,800 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. That is 6,800 falsehoods. Not just errors. Falsehoods. I appreciate the KJV leaving it where it belongs in 4 verses. That is better than most, regardless of the manuscripts used. I remember asking people some 50 years ago what God’s name is and they had no idea. I would show them Psalms 83:18 in the KJV. Many were very surprised and moved to learn more about the Bible.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

So almost all Bible translators over the last 120+ years are a “cult” whose work is a “steaming pile?”

I didn’t address the WORK of “almost all Bible translators over the last 120+ years”, I was addressing the PROPAGANDA!

But their WORK is corrupted by virtue of the corrupt sources they use.

 

[OzSpen]

Would you like to give us examples of that? What false doctrines are we taking about here?
Where have we translated what was not written in the original text?

I can give you glaring examples of bias in other versions, especially the KJV.


So its OK with you for some to paraphrase the Bible into more understandable English, as long as it agrees with what you want to believe?

Aunty Jane,

The New World Translation of John 1:1 (NWT) is a profound example of how the NWT got it wrong: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." "A god" violates a fundamental of Greek grammar:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the correct translation is “a god.” In so doing, they violate a canon of Greek Grammar. This rule has come to be known as “The Colwell Rule” (1933). It says that: “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” In the case of John 1:1, the clause in question says και θεος ην (and was God). The verb “was” (ην) follows the noun “God” (θεος). In short, in Greek usage, we wouldn’t expect a definite article (the) because it’s not necessary. According to rule, we would expect the definite article to occur with a noun following the verb. The reason the definite article is absent is not because John is denying the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father but because the grammar doesn’t need the definite article. Further, as Countess continues, the New World Translation is not (as of 1967) even consistent with it’s own stated principles (R Scott Clarke).​

What many fail to realize is that 4of the 5 men on the translation committee producing the complete 1961 edition had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever. The fifth, who claimed to know both languages, failed a simple Hebrew test while under oath in a Scottish court. . . . Charles L. Feinberg noted, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.” (source)​

JWs deny the deity of Christ and this translation of John 1:1 confirms that view.

What paraphrases of the Bible did I recommend?

Oz



P.S. Are you a supporter of Jehovah's Witness beliefs?

 

[DavidB]

Aunty Jane,

The New World Translation of John 1:1 (NWT) is a profound example of how the NWT got it wrong: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." "A god" violates a fundamental of Greek grammar:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the correct translation is “a god.” In so doing, they violate a canon of Greek Grammar. This rule has come to be known as “The Colwell Rule” (1933). It says that: “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” In the case of John 1:1, the clause in question says και θεος ην (and was God). The verb “was” (ην) follows the noun “God” (θεος). In short, in Greek usage, we wouldn’t expect a definite article (the) because it’s not necessary. According to rule, we would expect the definite article to occur with a noun following the verb. The reason the definite article is absent is not because John is denying the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father but because the grammar doesn’t need the definite article. Further, as Countess continues, the New World Translation is not (as of 1967) even consistent with it’s own stated principles (R Scott Clarke).​

What many fail to realize is that 4of the 5 men on the translation committee producing the complete 1961 edition had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever. The fifth, who claimed to know both languages, failed a simple Hebrew test while under oath in a Scottish court. . . . Charles L. Feinberg noted, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.” (source)​

JWs deny the deity of Christ and this translation of John 1:1 confirms that view.

What paraphrases of the Bible did I recommend?

Oz



P.S. Are you a supporter of Jehovah's Witness beliefs?

Here are some quotes regarding Colwell’s rule.
Colwell himself said:
"The following rules may be tentatively formulated....definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.."-Journal of Biblical Literature,Vol.52,1933,p.20.

"According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god." This leads me to affirm that one may not infer from [Colwell's]rule 2b that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in emphasis."
Murray Harris - Jesus as God - The New Testament Use of Theos In Reference to Jesus (pg 312)

 

[DavidB]

I didn’t address the WORK of “almost all Bible translators over the last 120+ years”, I was addressing the PROPAGANDA!

But their WORK is corrupted by virtue of the corrupt sources they use.

So the work of almost all Bible translators over the last 120 years is corrupted? They are all members of some cult? Are the discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls just the result of some conspiracy? Did men land on the moon? Is Elvis alive?

 

[DavidB]

Aunty Jane,

The New World Translation of John 1:1 (NWT) is a profound example of how the NWT got it wrong: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." "A god" violates a fundamental of Greek grammar:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the correct translation is “a god.” In so doing, they violate a canon of Greek Grammar. This rule has come to be known as “The Colwell Rule” (1933). It says that: “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” In the case of John 1:1, the clause in question says και θεος ην (and was God). The verb “was” (ην) follows the noun “God” (θεος). In short, in Greek usage, we wouldn’t expect a definite article (the) because it’s not necessary. According to rule, we would expect the definite article to occur with a noun following the verb. The reason the definite article is absent is not because John is denying the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father but because the grammar doesn’t need the definite article. Further, as Countess continues, the New World Translation is not (as of 1967) even consistent with it’s own stated principles (R Scott Clarke).​

What many fail to realize is that 4of the 5 men on the translation committee producing the complete 1961 edition had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever. The fifth, who claimed to know both languages, failed a simple Hebrew test while under oath in a Scottish court. . . . Charles L. Feinberg noted, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.” (source)​

JWs deny the deity of Christ and this translation of John 1:1 confirms that view.

What paraphrases of the Bible did I recommend?

Oz





P.S. Are you a supporter of Jehovah's Witness beliefs?

Phillip B. Garner wrote that clauses such as the one in John 1:1
“with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
Philip B. Garner - "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” published in Journal of Biblical Literature


"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and ‘God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'"
The Translators New Testament.

Both Moffatt and Goodspeed agree with this and use "the Word was divine." The NWT and several others, chose to use "a god" rather than "divine" as the insertion of the indefinite article is a more direct, word for word rendering.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

So the work of almost all Bible translators over the last 120 years is corrupted? They are all members of some cult? Are the discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls just the result of some conspiracy? Did men land on the moon? Is Elvis alive?

Oh, you have an ailment. Here’s the diagnosis:

“He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” (1 Timothy 6:4-5)

I’ll pray for you.

Be blessed!

 

[Truman]

I kinda like the English Standard Version, I think it is. It seems pretty clear.

 

[DavidB]

Aunty Jane,

The New World Translation of John 1:1 (NWT) is a profound example of how the NWT got it wrong: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." "A god" violates a fundamental of Greek grammar:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the correct translation is “a god.” In so doing, they violate a canon of Greek Grammar. This rule has come to be known as “The Colwell Rule” (1933). It says that: “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” In the case of John 1:1, the clause in question says και θεος ην (and was God). The verb “was” (ην) follows the noun “God” (θεος). In short, in Greek usage, we wouldn’t expect a definite article (the) because it’s not necessary. According to rule, we would expect the definite article to occur with a noun following the verb. The reason the definite article is absent is not because John is denying the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father but because the grammar doesn’t need the definite article. Further, as Countess continues, the New World Translation is not (as of 1967) even consistent with it’s own stated principles (R Scott Clarke).​

What many fail to realize is that 4of the 5 men on the translation committee producing the complete 1961 edition had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever. The fifth, who claimed to know both languages, failed a simple Hebrew test while under oath in a Scottish court. . . . Charles L. Feinberg noted, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.” (source)​

JWs deny the deity of Christ and this translation of John 1:1 confirms that view.

What paraphrases of the Bible did I recommend?

Oz



P.S. Are you a supporter of Jehovah's Witness beliefs?

Agree or disagree regarding the NWT rendering of John 1:1c but it is a fact that the use of the indefinite article is at least disputed among Bible translators. What is not arguable is that the great majority of Bibles have replaced the Tetragrammaton with Adonai over 6,800 times. The translation committee of the NWT at least knew enough Hebrew to correct that.

 

[DavidB]

Oh, you have an ailment. Here’s the diagnosis:

“He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” (1 Timothy 6:4-5)

I’ll pray for you.

Be blessed!

Seriously? You make these accusations with inflammatory language like “steaming pile” and this is all you have? Anyone can quote condemnatory verses back and forth. What is gained by that?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Seriously? You make these accusations with inflammatory language like “steaming pile” and this is all you have? Anyone can quote condemnatory verses back and forth. What is gained by that?

“Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29)

Some nonsense needed demolition work.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

inflammatory language

Funny how you missed the mocking language of @Jim B that provoked my strong response.

But since you probably agree with him you gave him a pass I guess…

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@DavidB

Here’s a sample:

“They post their arguments in English, often citing sections of olde Englyshe. It's ridiculous!

Forsooth, why doest not thou writest thine postes in 17th Centurie Englyshe? If it was good enough for Jesus...”
@Jim B

 

[Truman]

Time for another round of Christian Roller Derby. Smashing good fun for the whole family!