 |
seedfieldtalk.myfastforum.org
A discussion forum on Christian topics.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertsing.
|
![]() Posted: Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DavidH
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 18
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Darthmiller wrote: | | just out of interest what makes them "proper" translations? |
The issue about the "best" translation doesn't really revolve around the KJV vs NIV vs ESV vs whatever else. Most would agree that it is vital to have proper source material if you're going to produce a proper translation. Otherwise, you'd get a translation of "Noddy in Toyland" rather than one of the Bible. But then, we'll keep "The Message" out of this discussion 
Don't push this analogy too far, (I realise its shortcomings,) but it's a bit like producing a modern account of the "Battle of Britain" using copies of the original pilot's notes and Official Documented Reports as against using some 1960's "Commando" Comic books and an interpretation of the 1960's movie, starring Christopher Plummer...
The "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" is a collection of hundreds of copies of the Koine New Testament writings. There are no ORIGINAL GREEK manuscripts now, as they fell apart through loving use in the first century. Anyone referring to "The Original Greek," take note...
What we do have is the multitude of careful copies, made through the ages by faithful saints who wished to preserve and circulate the written Word of God for God's people. This carried on the scribal tradition of the Hebrews who preserved God's Word in the OT. In the days before printing presses, people were far more careful about copying than we are today - the Jews especially so.
As Christians, of course we believe that God is capable of preserving His Word throughout the centuries so that the Word today is exactly the same as the Word in the 1st century.
At this moment, we need to consider the simplistic academic fallacy that states that if you find an earlier manuscript, it is bound to be a more accurate copy of the original as it's nearer to the source. Remember, if a current copy of the original reports of our Battle of Britain example were to be published this week, it would be more recent but a sight more trustworthy than a ten year old copy of "Commando" magazine, however carefully the old comic may have been preserved.
In 1881, two academics named Wescott and Hort produced the "Revised" version of the Bible. They used this same argument to substantiate their claim that their translation was "better" than the KJV. They used two documents to support this claim. The CODEX VATICANUS had been hidden in the Vatican Library for many years. It was old, it was beautifully preserved but even the RC church had locked it away as being a bit dodgy. It has so many scribal errors and amendations that it could not, with any intellectual honesty, be really regarded as a viable "original" manuscript (in spite of its antiquity.) The other main manuscript is the CODEX SINAITICUS that was found in the "ready for burning" pile at St Catherine's Monastery on Mt Sinai. Again, the monks had decided that it was pretty worthless, even as a relic, but it was rescued and used in the re-translation of the Bible. Most modern translations use these two CODICES as primary sources.
For other readers who may not be aware, the word CODEX refers to a book-bound bunch of papers as opposed to a scroll, which was a bunch of pages, stitched in one long roll (like the pictures you see of Jewish scriptures today)
I'm probably the only sad person that actually reads the "Translators Preface" in various Bibles but I've sometimes been surprised at their frankness of confession about just how much they fiddle with the text to make it fit the "spirit of the age."
The business about Alexandrian versus Antiochan manuscripts refers to their original sources. The TR (or majority text) was sourced from Antioch (the cradle of Christianity - Acts 11:26) whilst the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came from Alexandria. Alex, as we know, is in Egypt and, as all Bible scholars know, Egypt is symbolic of enmity with God's chosen people.
So, if you're making a "proper" translation, it is wise to use the "proper" source documents. Otherwise, you end up with problems. My money would be on the Antiochan TR manuscripts rather than the ones that came from Egypt, were hidden for over a thousand years and then resurrected as a reject from an apostate church and touted as a "new and significant discovery"
Just a couple of interesting asides - I think...
Having worked amongst academics for the last twenty years, I'm aware of their huge desire for academic fame and glory. Money is rarely the issue but getting your name in print is everything. Research works by proposing the unbelievable and then trying to prove or disprove it. You don't get funding to reiterate the same old thing!
In order to establish printing "copyright" on a written work, it must be proven to be at least 10% different to a previous work. Otherwise, it becomes subject to all kinds of plagiarism law suits. As each new version of the Bible exhibits a "Copyright" notice, each must be 10% different from the others. This is made a bit less scary as it might be as they all compare themselves to the KJV in their prefaces rather than each other (thus avoiding embarrassing legal battles between Bible publishers.) That's why the KJV gets so much stick - not because it's a bad translation - it most certainly isn't - but because of a legal loophole that allows a lot of demonstrably bad translations to get published.
This is the modern world!
But God's Word doesn't change.
_________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eli
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 29
Location: Firmly in the Kingdom
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darthmiller wrote: |
Do translators today have more or less of an agenda than they did in centuries past?
(just so you all know I do not care about this topic really. I read as many translations and versions as I can get my hands on and pray that God through the Holy Spirit will ensure I get the message) |
Since it was your original question back in March, Darthmiller, isn't it a bit odd to say that you don't care about this topic?
Since the other points seem to have been covered by others, I'll just make a suggestion about having agendas.
Of course todays translators have more of an agenda. They're largely career driven and need the money. Medieval and Jacobean translators were already paid clergy so they gained nothing in cash for translation. Neither did they get much academic fame. You can find a list of KJ translators if you want to but I find the list of NIV translators far more illuminating in terms of agendas...
Virginia Mollenkott - OT Style Consultant - Practising and militant Lesbian
Her web page http://www.geocities.com/vrmollenkott/ speaks volumes.
Marten Woudstra - Chairman OT Translation Committee and (now deceased) practising homosexual. In a very senior position on the commitee.
These two certainly would have had an interest in toning down what they would have seen as the previous versions' perceived homophobia
That's only the homosexual issue. When it comes to predispositions on doctrine, someone here (I think it may have been paulvipond) said that the NIV was a bit Calvinist. Again, another hobbyhorse that drives the translation.
_________________
I am not ashamed of...
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
Last edited by Eli on Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eli
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 29
Location: Firmly in the Kingdom
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DavidH wrote: | | Darthmiller wrote: | | just out of interest what makes them "proper" translations? |
The issue about the "best" translation doesn't really revolve around the KJV vs NIV vs ESV vs whatever else. |
I thought this was Darthmiller's original question. What's best?
_________________
I am not ashamed of...
The Gospel of Jesus Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darthmiller
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Proper and best are not the same thing, dictionary anyone
_________________
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darthmiller
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Which Bible |
|
|
| Darthmiller wrote: | I'm not going to throw my two pence in just yet, but I would like to know....
What is your favourite Bible and why?
Which translation is best for study?
Which is best for reading?
Should everyone read the same edition? |
Just to remind you what my original question ACTUALLY was
_________________
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eli
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 29
Location: Firmly in the Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Which Bible |
|
|
| Darthmiller wrote: | I'm not going to throw my two pence in just yet, but I would like to know....
What is your favourite Bible and why?
Which translation is best for study?
Which is best for reading?
Should everyone read the same edition? |
So, Darthmiller, after five months and five pages of opinion, can we have your thoughts on this topic? Is it now time to "throw in your two pence," or will you just answer the question with yet another question?
Which is YOUR favorite Bible? Why?
Which TRANSLATION do YOU think is best for study?
Which is best for READING?
Should we all be reading the same EDITION?
Answers on this forum please. No postcards allowed 
_________________
I am not ashamed of...
The Gospel of Jesus Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eli
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 29
Location: Firmly in the Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darthmiller wrote: | | Proper and best are not the same thing, dictionary anyone |
Proverbs 16:25 is probably the best place to find the distinction.
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (KJV)
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. (NIV)
There's a way that looks harmless enough; look again—it leads straight to hell (The Message)
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (ESV)
or (in the original...)
ישׁ דרך ישׁר לפני־אישׁ ואחריתה דרכי־מות׃
_________________
I am not ashamed of...
The Gospel of Jesus Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darthmiller
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is your favourite Bible and why: A very dog-eared Gideons NT and Psalms as that was the Bible that lead me to Christ.
Which translation is best for study: For study I use two ESV because it is a clear, widely used word for word translation and the NRSV because although it is a thought for thought translation it does help me to get to grips with the meaning of a passage as well as the fact as tricky to translate Greek words have both possibilities recorded
Which is best for reading: For me it is the NIV, it's sentence structure and word choices work well with my dyslexic brain (Although as dyslexics can be better with pictures, so the Manga Bible is pretty cool too)
Should everyone read the same edition: Until we fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and all own time machines. Every one should read as many translations as possible.
The word proper can be applied to several translations at once but best would really mean only one, which is why I asked for YOUR distinction.
And this next bit is just a simple question which I do not pretend to know a definitive answer to (I'm not quite that arrogant yet, give me a couple more years of college) but here goes.
Is it not possible that we know more about ancient Greek and Hebrew now than say, 300 years ago?
_________________
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darthmiller
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DavidH wrote: | | Darthmiller wrote: | | just out of interest what makes them "proper" translations? |
The issue about the "best" translation doesn't really revolve around the KJV vs NIV vs ESV vs whatever else. Most would agree that it is vital to have proper source material if you're going to produce a proper translation. Otherwise, you'd get a translation of "Noddy in Toyland" rather than one of the Bible. But then, we'll keep "The Message" out of this discussion
Don't push this analogy too far, (I realise its shortcomings,) but it's a bit like producing a modern account of the "Battle of Britain" using copies of the original pilot's notes and Official Documented Reports as against using some 1960's "Commando" Comic books and an interpretation of the 1960's movie, starring Christopher Plummer...
The "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" is a collection of hundreds of copies of the Koine New Testament writings. There are no ORIGINAL GREEK manuscripts now, as they fell apart through loving use in the first century. Anyone referring to "The Original Greek," take note...
What we do have is the multitude of careful copies, made through the ages by faithful saints who wished to preserve and circulate the written Word of God for God's people. This carried on the scribal tradition of the Hebrews who preserved God's Word in the OT. In the days before printing presses, people were far more careful about copying than we are today - the Jews especially so.
As Christians, of course we believe that God is capable of preserving His Word throughout the centuries so that the Word today is exactly the same as the Word in the 1st century.
At this moment, we need to consider the simplistic academic fallacy that states that if you find an earlier manuscript, it is bound to be a more accurate copy of the original as it's nearer to the source. Remember, if a current copy of the original reports of our Battle of Britain example were to be published this week, it would be more recent but a sight more trustworthy than a ten year old copy of "Commando" magazine, however carefully the old comic may have been preserved.
In 1881, two academics named Wescott and Hort produced the "Revised" version of the Bible. They used this same argument to substantiate their claim that their translation was "better" than the KJV. They used two documents to support this claim. The CODEX VATICANUS had been hidden in the Vatican Library for many years. It was old, it was beautifully preserved but even the RC church had locked it away as being a bit dodgy. It has so many scribal errors and amendations that it could not, with any intellectual honesty, be really regarded as a viable "original" manuscript (in spite of its antiquity.) The other main manuscript is the CODEX SINAITICUS that was found in the "ready for burning" pile at St Catherine's Monastery on Mt Sinai. Again, the monks had decided that it was pretty worthless, even as a relic, but it was rescued and used in the re-translation of the Bible. Most modern translations use these two CODICES as primary sources.
For other readers who may not be aware, the word CODEX refers to a book-bound bunch of papers as opposed to a scroll, which was a bunch of pages, stitched in one long roll (like the pictures you see of Jewish scriptures today)
I'm probably the only sad person that actually reads the "Translators Preface" in various Bibles but I've sometimes been surprised at their frankness of confession about just how much they fiddle with the text to make it fit the "spirit of the age."
The business about Alexandrian versus Antiochan manuscripts refers to their original sources. The TR (or majority text) was sourced from Antioch (the cradle of Christianity - Acts 11:26) whilst the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came from Alexandria. Alex, as we know, is in Egypt and, as all Bible scholars know, Egypt is symbolic of enmity with God's chosen people.
So, if you're making a "proper" translation, it is wise to use the "proper" source documents. Otherwise, you end up with problems. My money would be on the Antiochan TR manuscripts rather than the ones that came from Egypt, were hidden for over a thousand years and then resurrected as a reject from an apostate church and touted as a "new and significant discovery"
Just a couple of interesting asides - I think...
Having worked amongst academics for the last twenty years, I'm aware of their huge desire for academic fame and glory. Money is rarely the issue but getting your name in print is everything. Research works by proposing the unbelievable and then trying to prove or disprove it. You don't get funding to reiterate the same old thing!
In order to establish printing "copyright" on a written work, it must be proven to be at least 10% different to a previous work. Otherwise, it becomes subject to all kinds of plagiarism law suits. As each new version of the Bible exhibits a "Copyright" notice, each must be 10% different from the others. This is made a bit less scary as it might be as they all compare themselves to the KJV in their prefaces rather than each other (thus avoiding embarrassing legal battles between Bible publishers.) That's why the KJV gets so much stick - not because it's a bad translation - it most certainly isn't - but because of a legal loophole that allows a lot of demonstrably bad translations to get published.
This is the modern world!
But God's Word doesn't change. |
Didn't answer the fact that there are two possible routes for the word Monogenes but thanks anyway
_________________
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eli
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 29
Location: Firmly in the Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darthmiller wrote: |
Is it not possible that we know more about ancient Greek and Hebrew now than say, 300 years ago? |
No.
We* might think we* do, but then ancient Greeks and Hebrews didn't write the Bible.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2Tim 3:16-17
God's Word - man's hands. So the issue about modern linguistic knowledge is a red herring, repeated ad nauseam by scholars as a justification for their further "research". Hebrew hasn't changed significantly in 4000 years and Koine is a colloquial version of Greek with a limited vocabulary- that's why you get all the nonsense about "nuances" in meaning - English has too many words.
God's Word is the same today as it always was.
* Who's the "we"? Are you putting your trust in the theologically liberal scholars who keep tinkering with the scriptures in order to keep those royalty checks coming in? Remember, modern translations have added nothing to our understanding of God. Some of them have attempted to take away some of our understanding of God (but that's a different matter.)
_________________
I am not ashamed of...
The Gospel of Jesus Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
