Bible Translation Study

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

DNB said:
I like the idea of, as a regular practice, using multiple versions, I even read it in French for the same purpose. But, as HiddenInHim said, you are now the textual critic, ...which is fine, but it is a concession to learning the original languages.
With the first principle in mind, I bought an 8 version parallel Bible, this was a great study resource.

And, recently, I bought the NIV chronological Bible, ...people, this is an indispensable tool. Not only is it advantageous primarily due to the harmonization aspect of it, but it is filled with historical and explanatory notes in between the events, as they happen. Because of this though, the reading is at least twice as long, but the awareness, understanding and retention are four-fold. I wish that I had this 30 years ago!

Oooooh 8 version parallel. Now THAT is an idea

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

Well, most of my friends on here and offline tend to find KJV the best Bible to use. I havent used it in a long time, except in reading for my last church, but my mother's was/is KJV. May just incorporate this more into my personal devotions again.

marks · Feb 15, 2021

Mayflower said:
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?"

Like in 1 Corinthians 3, where Paul wrote, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? And the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" These are all plural, "y'all". The church as a group is the temple (singular) of God.

"If any man defile the temple of God, him God will destroy", singular man, him.

"for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." Again, singular temple, plural you.

We as the church are being built together, living stones, into a single temple that God lives in.

In the first person we have singular and plural, I and we. But in the second person, both are expressed by "you". The KJV has "you" and "ye", "thou", and "thee".

Does that help?

Much love!

OzSpen · Feb 15, 2021

Mayflower said:
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?[/QUOTE

CharismaticLady · Feb 15, 2021

Eternally Grateful said:
I forgot, you think Jesus did not pay for all sins, you think although we can pay for our past sins, we somehow can pay for future.

as I said I did not delete them they are descriptive, gods people do that, non believers do not, it fits with John who said whoever sins has never seen or known God. Whoever is born of God does not live in sin

Scripture is clear that it is our PAST sins that are cleansed. If you commit willful sin after being sanctified, what further sacrifice is there? 2 Peter 1:9; Hebrews 10:26-31

As for present and future sins, we don't commit willful sins of lawlessness in the present or future. Those who are born again of the Spirit know this by experience, and are living proof that the word of God is truth. 1 John 3:9.

OzSpen · Feb 15, 2021

Eternally Grateful said:
I would say look at what is said

rocks split and graves opened are signs of an earthquake not turmoil

what’s your thoughts

Why don't you start with providing definitions of
formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence rranslations?

This will help to know differences between ESV, NET., HCSB, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV versus CEV, ERV, NIRV, NIV NLT.

Oz

amadeus · Feb 15, 2021

marks said:
Like in 1 Corinthians 3, where Paul wrote, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? And the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" These are all plural, "y'all". The church as a group is the temple (singular) of God.

"If any man defile the temple of God, him God will destroy", singular man, him.

"for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." Again, singular temple, plural you.

We as the church are being built together, living stones, into a single temple that God lives in.

In the first person we have singular and plural, I and we. But in the second person, both are expressed by "you". The KJV has "you" and "ye", "thou", and "thee".

Does that help?

Much love!

In Spanish, they have "tu" [familiar] equal to "you" singular as well as "usted" [polite] equal to "you" singular.
In Spanish, they have "vosotros" [familiar] equal to "you" plural as well as "ustedes [polite] equal to "you" plural.

German has an even more definitive set of pronouns in use.

In English as @marks has shown we can use an expression such as y'all to show that it is plural but by many [LOL] that is not considered good English even if more clearly conveys our meaning especially written English.

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

marks said:
Like in 1 Corinthians 3, where Paul wrote, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? And the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" These are all plural, "y'all". The church as a group is the temple (singular) of God.

"If any man defile the temple of God, him God will destroy", singular man, him.

"for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." Again, singular temple, plural you.

We as the church are being built together, living stones, into a single temple that God lives in.

In the first person we have singular and plural, I and we. But in the second person, both are expressed by "you". The KJV has "you" and "ye", "thou", and "thee".

Does that help?

Much love!

A bit better. Thank you!

OzSpen · Feb 15, 2021

FluffyYellowDuck said:
I like using the NIV, but I consider it a little off, and a lot of times I have to go back to the KJV and the Geneva 1599. Pilgrims used both the Geneva and the KJV.

There's verses removed in the NIV, The Message Bible, and other newer texts. For example, John 5:4 was removed and takes out the part about the angel. Most of us probably never heard this verse... Most probably don't even know there was an angel there.

"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

There's other verses related to fasting omitted. On occasion, I'll read portions from the apocrypha and other ancient religious texts. I don't consider it to be the inspired word of God, not always, and some even say so themselves. Sometimes the things said are just downright silly and asinine, but they serve some benefit and I feel strong enough in my faith to be able to discern. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who thinks it's wrong or doesn't feel comfortable. I wouldn't recommend it to most people. I have enjoyed reading Paul's letters omitted from scripture even though there's not much there except a lot of bantering back and forth.

The Message Bible has some pretty big flaws as far as some of the interpretations change the meanings of the scriptures, but I think it's probably just fine if you are using it for kind of chilled out and relaxing reading, but not for a complete study. Same for the NIV. Sometimes you just kind of have to hop around.

You say NIV deleted words.. it's the othe way round. The KJV and Geneva Bibles ADDED words.

I urge you not to use one person paraphrases. They are not translations, e.g living Bible, the Message, Passion, Phillips.

Oz

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

amadeus said:
In Spanish, they have "tu" [familiar] equal to "you" singular as well as "usted" [polite] equal to "you" singular.
In Spanish, they have "vosotros" [familiar] equal to "you" plural as well as "ustedes [polite] equal to "you" plural.

German has an even more definitive set of pronouns in use.

In English as @marks has shown we can use an expression such as y'all to show that it is plural but by many [LOL] that is not considered good English even it more clearly conveys our meaning especially written English.

Well I understand ya'll.

It sort of feels like when I first was coming to understanding in this verse:

"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
Romans 7:15‭, ‬19‭-‬20 NIV

Good Word. I just had to write it out in "ya'll" style to finally "get" it. So KJV might just be most accurate. With as many strong in the faith who have told me this, I trust wise counsel who God has put in my life. But Im grateful for these other translations too to help with understanding.

As what you say Amadeus, give God the glory!!! He leads and teaches me every day

OzSpen · Feb 15, 2021

Enoch111 said:
That should be the least of your problems. Please see the King James 2000 Bible. The bottom line is that all English bible translations since 1881 are based upon the most corrupt Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. So you would be comparing apples and oranges.

Please explain the nature of this.

DuckieLady · Feb 15, 2021

OzSpen said:
You say NIV deleted words.. it's the othe way round. The KJV and Geneva Bibles ADDED words.

I urge you not to use one person paraphrases. They are not translations, e.g living Bible, the Message, Passion, Phillips.

Oz

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.

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

OzSpen said:
You say NIV deleted words.. it's the othe way round. The KJV and Geneva Bibles ADDED words.

I urge you not to use one person paraphrases. They are not translations, e.g living Bible, the Message, Passion, Phillips.

Oz

This is what the article was saying about the NIV. Alao concerning NASB, I have heard/read this. This is why Id like to understand the documents used in these translations. What I do know is about "Canon" and the different requirements for what went into the Bible.

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

FluffyYellowDuck said:
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.

I found this part from that article I posted that explains the NIV translation:

When comparing the NIV with the King James Version (KJV), it would seem that there are some verses “missing” in the NIV (and other trusted translations such as the CEV, CSB, ESV, GNB, HCSB, NET, NLT, etc.). Actually, that is not the case. In 1611, the translators of the KJV used the best resources available to them at that time. For their day, the King James translation was a monumental achievement. However, one of its shortcomings is that the KJV translation committee of 50 scholars drew heavily on William Tyndale’s New Testament. As much as 80% of Tyndale’s translation is reused in the King James version. Tyndale used several sources in his translation of the Old and New Testaments. For the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Desiderius Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Textus Receptus (“Received Text”).

In the years since 1611, many older manuscripts have been discovered and carefully evaluated by scholars. Their conclusion is that the older manuscripts are more reliable. This has given modern translators unprecedented access to manuscripts much closer in time to the original documents. Therefore, translations such as the NIV actually reflect better Bible scholarship than was available in 1611 when the KJV was published.

The verses or phrases that appeared in the KJV, but have been “omitted” in most trusted translations today, are not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

OzSpen · Feb 15, 2021

marks said:
One thing on this . . . Greek uses plural and singular pronouns, while modern English does not. In the KJV, Thee and Thou translate the Greek "plural you", while You and Your translate the singular Greek.

Much love!

No plural pronouns in English?? Are these pronouns plural oe singular or plural? They, them, our

Oz

DuckieLady · Feb 15, 2021

I will straight up learn Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic to read the originals.
Probably Aramaic. Seems more logical.

I am not orthodox... Anabaptist, but this gives me chills every time.
(Psalm 50 in Aramaic)

CharismaticLady · Feb 15, 2021

OzSpen said:
You say NIV deleted words.. it's the othe way round. The KJV and Geneva Bibles ADDED words.

I urge you not to use one person paraphrases. They are not translations, e.g living Bible, the Message, Passion, Phillips.

Oz

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

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

OzSpen said:
No plural pronouns in English?? Are these pronouns plural oe singular or plural? They, them, our

Oz

FluffyYellowDuck said:
I will straight up learn Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic to read the originals.
Probably Aramaic. Seems more logical.

I am not orthodox... Anabaptist, but this gives me chills every time.
(Psalm 50 in Aramaic)

I can sing in 9 different languages (This is gorgeous. I would like to learn Aramaic also.

Mayflower · Feb 15, 2021

Rough translations of songs only, but wow. That was chilling...beautiful

DuckieLady · Feb 15, 2021

Mayflower said:
I found this part from that article I posted that explains the NIV translation:

Interesting! It can get pretty confusing but for myself I wouldn't overthink details too much and study the best you can do with great faith. I don't know if I agree with their theory, based on the same reason @CharismaticLady said. If I could find the oldest texts possible and see them not exist it would be easier ... But that's hard to do.

No two people will ever agree on every detail or semantics. It's too difficult sometimes to make sure that we have 100% of the story right. We can try but everyone's perception is going to be different or flawed somewhere. That's kind of a beautiful part about posts like these is you get to see through different lenses.

The gospel will stay the same either way, regardless of the version you read, and that can't be taken away.

Mayflower said:
I can sing in 9 different languages (This is gorgeous. I would like to learn Aramaic also.

WOW. Now that is a GIFT where God can use you around the world! That would be amazing.

(It is one of my favorites.)

Bible Translation Study

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads