Bible Translation Study

[Truther]

If you trust that one man, yes. When you have a group, you may have a worm in that apple.

But the group will have an easier time plucking out the worm.

 

[Mayflower]

--- sorry, kids. A verse came to mind, but decided not to post it. Kids did for me. Lol

 

[Hidden In Him]

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.

The above quote doesn't do much other than reassert your position, but a support of Gnosticism would be an interesting argument if it could be proven, given the verse, the omission, and the argument. However, the dating of the omission would be at issue there, as Gnosticism had already run its course by the 4rd century, when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were being compiled. Alexandrinus didn't exist yet, and wouldn't for another half century.

 

[marks]

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.

I didn't know that!

Much love!

 

[Paul Christensen]

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

Saddened to hear of your medical issues. There is a verse that could be encouraging: "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord heals them of them all". It is in times like these that being a faithful believer is what it is all about.

 

[CharismaticLady]

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

Hope you get better soon!
And, no, I don't want you to quit posting. I assumed you meant 80%, but didn't know what you were referring to even at that. So you are saying they used 80% of Tyndale's NT.

 

[CharismaticLady]

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.

Augustine is one of the church fathers that I learned to love. Tertullian is another, and of course Francis of Assisi. Then Don Finto and Jack Hayford! And John Bevere. I think it ends there. Oh, ya, I forgot John Wesley. I wish I could go on, and on. But false doctrines took over.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Augustine is one of the church fathers that I learned to love. Tertullian is another, and of course Francis of Assisi. Then Don Finto and Jack Hayford! And John Bevere. I think it ends there. Oh, ya, I forgot John Wesley. I wish I could go on, and on. But false doctrines took over.

It is interesting to note that Tertullian was the first church father to prohibit women's ministry in the churches.

 

[CharismaticLady]

It is interesting to note that Tertullian was the first church father to prohibit women's ministry in the churches.

I wonder if that was before or after he left the Roman church and became a Montanist, which had 2 female prophetesses.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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

True, but most modern translations now, though they say they are "translations" (using dynamic equivalency loosely as a guide) a not much better than the message.

 

[DuckieLady]

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

 

[Paul Christensen]

I wonder if that was before or after he left the Roman church and became a Montanist, which had 2 female prophetesses.

One of the reasons why the church went against women ministry was in opposition to Montanism with its female prophetesses. It equated Montanism with heresy and domination of women in its ministry. The church had the notion that if women dominated, it would lead to a departure from orthodoxy.

 

[Jim B]

True, but most modern translations now, though they say they are "translations" (using dynamic equivalency loosely as a guide) a not much better than the message.

Most modern translations are... translations! The same as the KJV and all the rest. The great majority of them are produced by committees of people who have devoted their lives to giving us the best translations that have ever been. We are all blessed by the works of scholars that have produced Bibles in the language that all English-speaking, reading, and writing people use.

 

[101G]

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?

Addressing the OP. good point.
not only the translation in words, but what about understanding the words if translated or not. example,
Revelation 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

NOW RE-READING THE VERSE, one come away with the understanding that God here gave the revelation, (of Jesus Christ), to John. when compared to Revelation 22:6, the answer is clear.

Revelation 22:6 "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done."
well who got the revelation, (shown), and wrote it to be sent unto God servants. only one answer, John. so going back to 1:1... was it John who recieved the revelation... read it carefully.

so what you think on the verse in Revelation 1:1, as to who was given the revelation.

just an interesting when looking at many.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Most modern translations are... translations! The same as the KJV and all the rest. The great majority of them are produced by committees of people who have devoted their lives to giving us the best translations that have ever been. We are all blessed by the works of scholars that have produced Bibles in the language that all English-speaking, reading, and writing people use.

You should go to an online bible site and compare translations. You will find all translations are not the same!

Formal translations are excellent.

Tranlsations from the oldest greek texts are excellent
Translations from the greek to teh Vulgate to English are lacking.

Dynamic equivalent translations have to be examined carefully. these can be as much paraphrase as translation. The "translators" endeavor to take th ewords that archaic or constructs that are archaic and put them into modern phraseology. Some are very good, some are absolutely lousy. like the CEV. People need to do their homework before they invest in the more modern translations.

Many work diligently to stay faithful to the ancient manuscripts, but many don't! That is just teh way it is. In the early 20th Century Moffat and Goodspeed produced a "translation" that was blasphemous to be kind to it. So we must look diligently to find out abut the authors or "translators" and what methodology they used and what greek texts they used.

 

[Paul Christensen]

All we have to do now that we have all these great translations, is to actually do the Bible so that we can see the power of God operating to achieve what Jesus was anointed for, and how that anointing is passed on to genuine Christian believers through the Holy Spirit to do the works that Jesus did, even greater works, as He has promised.

Committees and councils can fine tune the instruction book until the cows come home, but unless someone starts to do what it tells us to do, then it remains just empty words that remain within the covers of the book. If all else fails...follow the instructions!

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

I think the Bible translating the Bible is better than commentaries, but only if the same message is being put across.

Outstanding! I couldn't agree more. And as for your recommended translation, I'll be getting an eBay copy asap. Thanks!

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

The Message translation

Ordered and can't wait! I actually read a different translation each time I read the Bible, and am shooting for twice per year. Each translation can prase things in a way where another may not. Oh! And if you haven't read it yet, the next time you read the Old Testament, buy the Jewish Tanakh. It too has a fairly smooth read to it, but they mince no words. When it comes to critical doctrines, such as that of Circumcised Hearts, it is spot on, and in fact, the Tanakh (occasionally) will phrase their ancient text in a way that no Christian translation would, and again, that would include the doctrine of Circumcision of Hearts. I guarantee that you will feel proud to have the Tanakh in your possession.

 

[marks]

All we have to do now that we have all these great translations, is to actually do the Bible so that we can see the power of God operating to achieve what Jesus was anointed for, and how that anointing is passed on to genuine Christian believers through the Holy Spirit to do the works that Jesus did, even greater works, as He has promised.

Committees and councils can fine tune the instruction book until the cows come home, but unless someone starts to do what it tells us to do, then it remains just empty words that remain within the covers of the book. If all else fails...follow the instructions!

AMEN!!

And, according to Hebrews, doing the part we know will give us greater understanding to what we don't yet know.

Much love!

 

[Mayflower]

So I have my first Bible translation question. I was always taught "faithfulness" was the translation in Galations 5:22 But we were doing a faith study last night,and was told the word actually should be "faith." Which the two are similar, but different. So I am going to duck it, but if someone knows how to use the Greek dictionary here, that would be helpful too.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:22‭-‬23