Bible Translation Study

[OzSpen]

When was Sinaiticus?

Dr Gooogle may help you.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Dr Gooogle may help you.

ROFL. Good one!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Please prove that sweepikng ststrment to us.

Well what criteria do you wish me to use.

Greek version used.

Extreme variation English
Dynamic equivalence that swerves to far
Or passages that have little resemblance to the older translations.

I don't know how many modern translation (c. 2000 and later) there are but of teh few I have seen since the 90's, I have serious reservations with many of them.

It is a kind of sweeping statement, but bsased on all I have seen and people I hear quote passages, I am concerned over their learning th eWord of God vs. more the opinions of men on the passage from the Word.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I wouldn't. I would think it was a great tribute to a great martyr whom the RCC strangled, then burned his body, all because he translated the Word of God into English. He didn't just use codices, but the 5,000 writings of the early church fathers who quoted passages.

If the early church fathers quoted passages of Scripture that are not found in our earliest (4th century) manuscripts, then we have to assume that they were quoting from manuscripts that are no longer available to us. And if they were quoting from the manuscripts available to them, then they would have accepted them as being accurate. The writings of the pre-4th Century church fathers are a valuable resource in resolving passages of Scripture which are either missing or doubtful in the post-4th century manuscripts.

 

[amadeus]

Amen,

Been in hospital for kidney failure. I have major heart.disease. heaven's sounding sweeter all the time

Oz

Praying that God may be with you for whatever end He has for you!

 

[CharismaticLady]

If the early church fathers quoted passages of Scripture that are not found in our earliest (4th century) manuscripts, then we have to assume that they were quoting from manuscripts that are no longer available to us. And if they were quoting from the manuscripts available to them, then they would have accepted them as being accurate. The writings of the pre-4th Century church fathers are a valuable resource in resolving passages of Scripture which are either missing or doubtful in the post-4th century manuscripts.

Exactly! They still had manuscripts before what is oldest to us.

 

[OzSpen]

I wouldn't. I would think it was a great tribute to a great martyr whom the RCC strangled, then burned his body, all because he translated the Word of God into English. He didn't just use codices, but the 5,000 writings of the early church fathers who quoted passages.

That doesn't alter the fact 80% of KJV did not come from KJV translators.

It has nothing to do with Tyndale's martytdom but everything to do with the approach of the KJV translators - stealing 80% from an earlier version.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Well what criteria do you wish me to use.

Greek version used.

Extreme variation English
Dynamic equivalence that swerves to far
Or passages that have little resemblance to the older translations.

I don't know how many modern translation (c. 2000 and later) there are but of teh few I have seen since the 90's, I have serious reservations with many of them.

It is a kind of sweeping statement, but bsased on all I have seen and people I hear quote passages, I am concerned over their learning th eWord of God

vs. more the opinions of men on the passage from the Word.

"Serious questions with many of them " again is a useless statement when you give zero.examples.

I'll leave it to you to develop the criteria.

Seems to me you are stuck in the rut of " resemblance to older translations " - - your criterion

Then add to that your lack of appreciation for the use of both formal & dynsmic equivalence translations.

Oz

 

[CharismaticLady]

That doesn't alter the fact 80% of KJV did not come from KJV translators.

It has nothing to do with Tyndale's martytdom but everything to do with the approach of the KJV translators - stealing 80% from an earlier version.

Oz

So what? I really don't get what the problem is. Would you rather not have any Bible? The RCC wanted to burn all his work. Have you ever wondered what we would have now if we had not been able to use his years of work? We may only have 30% of what we have now. Be grateful for Tyndale.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"Serious questions with many of them " again is a useless statement when you give zero.examples.

I'll leave it to you to develop the criteria.

Seems to me you are stuck in the rut of " resemblance to older translations " - - your criterion

Then add to that your lack of appreciation for the use of both formal & dynsmic equivalence translations.

Oz

Well dynamic equivalents can be good, but I have seen some very poor ones like the CEV, NLT and NJB. As you know dynamic erquivalent is a thought for thought translation and that is fraught with dangers. If the board doesn't know the culture fo the bible, then the equivalence breaks down.

 

[OzSpen]

Well dynamic equivalents can be good, but I have seen some very poor ones like the CEV, NLT and NJB. As you know dynamic erquivalent is a thought for thought translation and that is fraught with dangers. If the board doesn't know the culture fo the bible, then the equivalence breaks down.

I read, translate & have taught NT Greek. Do you understand how many extra words are added to an alleged literal translation for it to make sense in English?

Compare extra words added in an Interlinear translation to see added words. Mounce's Interlinear is available online.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So what? I really don't get what the problem is. Would you rather not have any Bible? The RCC wanted to burn all his work. Have you ever wondered what we would have now if we had not been able to use his years of work? We may only have 30% of what we have now. Be grateful for Tyndale.

Do you understand the problems with plagiarism?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I read, translate & have taught NT Greek. Do you understand how many extra words are added to an alleged literal translation for it to make sense in English?

Compare extra words added in an Interlinear translation to see added words. Mounce's Interlinear is available online.

Oz

Yes, and many of those words are needed to be added because they are built into Greek by tense, mood, voice case etc.etc. as you well know teaching Greek.

But a dynamic equivalent "translation" does not strive for a word for word parity, but a thought for thought. That is a loaded gun in a russian roulette game, given that we all have predisposed biases going into the bible. Even the most faithful tranlsators have erred. Nearly all do not bring harm to doctrine or our ability to grow in the faith, but the dynamic translators do a great injustice to Scripture.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Do you understand the problems with plagiarism?

Yes, you don't trust that Tyndale didn't add his own words to sabotage the integrity of his final product.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, and many of those words are needed to be added because they are built into Greek by tense, mood, voice case etc.etc. as you well know teaching Greek.

But a dynamic equivalent "translation" does not strive for a word for word parity, but a thought for thought. That is a loaded gun in a russian roulette game, given that we all have predisposed biases going into the bible. Even the most faithful tranlsators have erred. Nearly all do not bring harm to doctrine or our ability to grow in the faith, but the dynamic translators do a great injustice to Scripture.

I do not know of any majot doctrine affected by the dynamic equivalence of CEV, ERV, GNB, NIRV, NIV, REB.

Dynamic equivalence is used by SIL translators who start from scratch when there is no written language in a new linguist group.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, you don't trust that Tyndale didn't add his own words to sabotage the integrity of his final product.

You are maligning me.

I'm saying the KJV was not a new translation when 80% of it was plagiarised from Tyndale.

Oz

 

[CharismaticLady]

You are maligning me.

I'm saying the KJV was not a new translation when 80% of it was plagiarised from Tyndale.

Oz

I still don't understand. Do you have something against the KJV, or against Tyndale's contribution?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I do not know of any majot doctrine affected by the dynamic equivalence of CEV, ERV, GNB, NIRV, NIV, REB.

Dynamic equivalence is used by SIL translators who start from scratch when there is no written language in a new linguist group.

Oz

Well we have missionaries from our church who work with tribes. They had to create a written language for the natives (they had none) then teach it to them and then write Scripture in that language. A dynamic translation is only as good as the one translating is faithful to Scripture. The NIV is a combo of formal and dynamic and I used it as my main bible for 15 years.

But the CEV is lousy the Good news is worse and the message which is another dynamic translation is the worst. I would prefer people read the trash called the New Word Translation than teh GNB or Message. Less errors.

When I get time I will liost some fo the more egregious equivalents used and how they affect doctrine.

 

[OzSpen]

Well we have missionaries from our church who work with tribes. They had to create a written language for the natives (they had none) then teach it to them and then write Scripture in that language. A dynamic translation is only as good as the one translating is faithful to Scripture. The NIV is a combo of formal and dynamic and I used it as my main bible for 15 years.

But the CEV is lousy the Good news is worse and the message which is another dynamic translation is the worst. I would prefer people read the trash called the New Word Translation than teh GNB or Message. Less errors.

When I get time I will liost some fo the more egregious equivalents used and how they affect doctrine.

I do wish you would know the difference between a paraphrase & dynamic equivalence.

The Message is a one man paraphrase by Eugene Peterson.

Oz

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I do wish you would know the difference between a paraphrase & dynamic equivalence.

The Message is a one man paraphrase by Eugene Peterson.

Oz

Well according to one website praising the message, they call it a dynamic equivalent translation . that is why I included it. But even tossing it we have the gross CEV and the Good news.

But here is a list of bibles that should be avoided (with the exception of the NIV)

Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both

• Jerusalem Bible (1966)
• New Life Version (1969)
• New English Bible (1970)
• Good News Bible (formerly "Today's English Version") (1976)
• New International Version (1978)
• New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
• Easy-to-Read Version (1987)
• Christian Community Bible (1988)
• Revised English Bible (1989)
• God's Word Translation (1995)
• Contemporary English Version (1995)
• New Living Translation (1996)
• Complete Jewish Bible (1998)
• New International Reader's Version 1998
• New English Translation (2005)
• Today's New International Version 2005
• CTS New Catholic Bible (2007)