Bible Translation Study

[Berserk]

Paul Christenson: "It is interesting to note that the earliest Greek manuscript that we have is from the 4th Century - when the active involvement of the Holy Spirit had largely disappeared from the church in general..."

On the contrary, St. Augustine celebrates all the healing miracles that continue to amaze in his time, the fourth century.

Paul Christensen: "So, it can be argued that subsequent translations of Scripture were done by people who were literature-based than Spirit-led. This could very well mean that their translations would be basically no different than what a secular translator would do with the same resources."[/QUOTE]

One of the online documentaries on the origin of the KJV makes 2 interesting points:
(1) Some of the KJV translators were drunks and scoundrels.
(2) King James instructed the translators to come up with a translation that supported the hierarchical structure of the Church of England

 

[Mayflower]

Here it is: Bible Translation Study

Yea, I found it. eternally grateful had tagged me.

 

[Paul Christensen]

On the contrary, St. Augustine celebrates all the healing miracles that continue to amaze in his time, the fourth century.

It is interesting to note that Augustine originally adopted a Cessationist stance and communicated that to the hierarchy in Rome. It was only after he witnesses miracles that he could not deny that were of God that he changed his stance and pleaded with the church authorities to acknowledge his repudiation of Cessationism and that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit were still evident in the church. But the papal authorities refused and maintained his original Cessationist stance to be the policy of the church.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Paul Christenson: "It is interesting to note that the earliest Greek manuscript that we have is from the 4th Century - when the active involvement of the Holy Spirit had largely disappeared from the church in general..."

On the contrary, St. Augustine celebrates all the healing miracles that continue to amaze in his time, the fourth century.

Paul Christensen: "So, it can be argued that subsequent translations of Scripture were done by people who were literature-based than Spirit-led. This could very well mean that their translations would be basically no different than what a secular translator would do with the same resources."

One of the online documentaries on the origin of the KJV makes 2 interesting points:
(1) Some of the KJV translators were drunks and scoundrels.
(2) King James instructed the translators to come up with a translation that supported the hierarchical structure of the Church of England

The KJV used the William Tyndale translation from the 1500's. He was not a drunk or a scoundrel.

 

[Berserk]

Google King "James Version documentary" and you will learn the the KJV was a fresh translation, each small section of which the large committee read aloud to each other tp see how their NEW translation would flow in church! The committee notes of the translators have been preserved..

 

[OzSpen]

Wrong, they were deleted. Otherwise, how could something added later be quoted earlier? Impossible. Don't believe everything these "scholars" tell you.

Those that are earllest MSS, as they are transcribed will have variants ADDED & words added. So the Byzantine later MSS, although more in number than the Alexandrian, are not closest to originals so have more mistakes in them.

The NIV, ESV, NET, NASB & NLT are based on earliest MSS .& are more accurate.

I base my understanding on Greek linguists & textual critics.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The KJV used the William Tyndale translation from the 1500's. He was not a drunk or a scoundrel.

It has nothing to do with character of Tyndale. The worrying point for me is that 8080%of KJV

Well you hit the nail on the head when yo spoke of word for word (formal equivalence translations) to word for thought translations (dynamic equivalent translations)

The CEB, Message are examples of horrendous dynamic translations. NIV is a good dynamic translation for ti still tries to keep word for word.'

A believer today has to work harder in this age of apostasy to sort out the wheat frm the weeds in the Christian Bookstores.

The Message is not a dynamic equivalence translation but a paraphrase by 1 man.

Check out differences.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Google King "James Version documentary" and you will learn the the KJV was a fresh translation, each small section of which the large committee read aloud to each other tp see how their NEW translation would flow in church! The committee notes of the translators have been preserved..

KJV was not a new translation. 80% was taken from Tyndale Bible. Was it plagiarism?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Please explain the nature of this corruption.



Please explain t

How do we know they added words?

Compare Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest Greek NT - 4tTh
















What's the earliest readable version we can find? The oldest version I could find is the 1599 Geneva. I can't go any further back, aside from the Codex Sinaiticus, but I've been looking for them.

Codex Sinaiticus is not very readable. It's pretty torn up and I can't read Greek anyway.

Wow. I feel there is an important point here, but I am a bit lost. What do you mean by "plural you" . Like more then one, like showing the Trinity as "I?"

Im English when i speak to my son (singlar) l ask, will you transport me to the supermarket?

Now l address a group of school children: What do you need to know about God before you can come to him?

In first example, you was singular.

In second example, the same word, you, is plural..

This can sometimes cause confusion.

Oz

 

[CharismaticLady]

Those that are earllest MSS, as they are transcribed will have variants ADDED & words added. So the Byzantine later MSS, although more in number than the Alexandrian, are not closest to originals so have more mistakes in them.

The NIV, ESV, NET, NASB & NLT are based on earliest MSS .& are more accurate.

I base my understanding on Greek linguists & textual critics.

Oz

Did you read what I said? Did you understand that you can't QUOTE words of a text that were ADDED later than the quote?

 

[CharismaticLady]

It has nothing to do with character of Tyndale. The worrying point for me is that 8080%of KJV


The Message is not a dynamic equivalence translation but a paraphrase by 1 man.

Check out differences.

Oz

What in the world does 8080% mean?

 

[OzSpen]

How do we know they added words?

What's the earliest readable version we can find? The oldest version I could find is the 1599 Geneva. I can't go any further back, aside from the Codex Sinaiticus, but I've been looking for them.

Codex Sinaiticus is not very readable. It's pret
y torn up and I can't read Greek anyway.

How do we know they added words?

What's the earliest readable version we can find? The oldest version I could find is the 1599 Geneva. I can't go any further back, aside from the Codex Sinaiticus, but I've been looking for them.

Codex Sinaiticus is not very readable. It's pretty torn up and I can't read Greek anyway.

Comparre Sinaiticus of 4th century (Alexandrian type) with 10th century Alexandrian and Byzantine MSS & you'll soon see words have been added by scribes. Do this for a single NT passage.

I agree somee early MSS are difficult to read. That's why we have photographers who specialise in reading MSS.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Wrong, they were deleted. Otherwise, how could something added later be quoted earlier? Impossible. Don't believe everything these "scholars" tell you.

Compare Sinaiticus with MSS of 8th century & you'll see words ADDED by scribes.

 

[OzSpen]

What in the world does 8080% mean?

Ever heard of a typo? It is 80% of Tyndale in KJV.

I'm suffering from severe renal failure & heart malfunction & typing from a hospital bed on a mobile phone.

Do you wwant me to quit posring?

Oz

 

[Heart2Soul]

I didn't think this fit in Bible study. But I did want to open a thread to discuss the differences in translations of word for word versus word for thought Bibles, and how to identify when the meaning is changed. I believe the best translation is the one a person applies. But at the same time, it is also a slow fade.

My thing with KJV, is I was raised on it, and I do find it accurate in teaching. My thought though, is even when the people spoke in Hebrew and Greek, it didn't mean "Thee and Thou." It was translated first in the 1600s. I personally like NASB as a good Word for Word translation.

If the Bible changes in meaning though, from even these Word for Words, I would really like some examples and to learn how to identify these things. I like to use multiple translations, because I do not know Greek and Hebrew. I think the Bible translating the Bible is better then commentaries, but only if the same message is being put across. I love to just read The Message translation. It really brings context to passages even if it is just the thought rather then the exact translated Word.

Thoughts?

The Berean Bible is a very good study.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm suffering from severe renal failure & heart malfunction & typing from a hospital bed on a mobile phone.

Do you wwant me to quit posring?

So sorry to hear that Spencer. I hope the pain isn't severe.

And I know how it is with those crazy mobile phones. Too small for my taste as well.

God bless you, man. Sorry to hear about your condition.
- H

 

[Enoch111]

Compare Sinaiticus of 4th century (Alexandrian type) with 10th century Alexandrian and Byzantine MSS & you'll soon see words have been added by scribes. Do this for a single NT passage.

The assumption here is that Codex Sinaiticus is true and that the Textus Receptus is corrupt. Which is the HOAX perpetrated by Westcott & Hort. and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by almost all textual scholars since then.

But both Burgon and Scrivener showed that Aleph -- Codex Sinaiticus -- was one the the most corrupt manuscripts in existence. That is not conjecture but fact. And the history of this manuscript confirms that it was regarded as worthless.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The assumption here is that Codex Sinaiticus is true and that the Textus Receptus is corrupt. Which is the HOAX perpetrated by Westcott & Hort. and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by almost all textual scholars since then.

But both Burgon and Scrivener showed that Aleph -- Codex Sinaiticus -- was one the the most corrupt manuscripts in existence. That is not conjecture but fact. And the history of this manuscript confirms that it was regarded as worthless.

Well, we've covered this ground before, but I don't consider Sinaiticus to be corrupt in the least, at least not compared to the TR. I consider it to be the second best MSS, second only to Alexandrinus.

But about the question of adding words verses subtracting them, adding them would seem to be a far more likely phenomenon than subtracting them, yes? What would be the motivation for scribes thousands of years ago to subtract multiple words out of a text for apparently no good reason?

 

[Mayflower]

Ever heard of a typo? It is 80% of Tyndale in KJV.

I'm suffering from severe renal failure & heart malfunction & typing from a hospital bed on a mobile phone.

Do you wwant me to quit posring?

Oz

Prayer for you Oz. So sorry you are in the hospital.

 

[Enoch111]

What would be the motivation for scribes thousands of years ago to subtract multiple words out of a text for apparently no good reason?

If you wish to gain a proper understanding of Sinaiticus and the minority text, please read and study The Revision Revised by John W; Burgon (for starters). There were many reasons for the omission of words, clauses, sentences, and whole passages (many of them doctrinal). This has to be connected to the Gnostic heretics and their attempts to alter Scripture.

It was Dean Burgon, who unhesitatingly denounced the manuscripts on which the modern versions are based. Scrivener agreed with him:
What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph A B C D – especially of Aleph [Sinaiticus] B [Vaticanus] D [Bezae]. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader’s mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject... We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant; exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; have become by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of the Truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God (The Revision Revised, pp. 15-16).

Addition was rarely an issue.