Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

I hear you. I am a KJV man but the New King James Version is pretty much the same without changing the original language, but at least the translation is a lot like we speak and is easy to understand. I'm not a fan of too many other translations and least of all, paraphrase translations. I've included a chart to compare translations that are "word" translations vs "thought" and "paraphrase" translations. The latter two I am wary of because I have to ask 'whose thought or paraphrase (some paraphrased versions are only from one person)? However, the downside with word translations there are often idioms we have to learn. However, being a bible-based nation (and those nations that speak English) and background, many of our idioms in our English language came from the bible anyway. Otherwise, it makes most sense that word-for-word is used. Not thoughts, and not opinions, er, I mean paraphrases.

 

[Free]

I hear you. I am a KJV man but the New King James Version is pretty much the same without changing the original language, but at least the translation is a lot like we speak and is easy to understand. I'm not a fan of too many other translations and least of all, paraphrase translations. I've included a chart to compare translations that are "word" translations vs "thought" and "paraphrase" translations. The latter two I am wary of because I have to ask 'whose thought or paraphrase (some paraphrased versions are only from one person)? However, the downside with word translations there are often idioms we have to learn. However, being a bible-based nation (and those nations that speak English) and background, many of our idioms in our English language came from the bible anyway. Otherwise, it makes most sense that word-for-word is used. Not thoughts, and not opinions, er, I mean paraphrases.

The main problem is that when translating from one language to another, it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to translate directly "word-for-word." Every formal equivalence translation is still going to have some "thought-for-thought" translation and translators still have to make decisions about which word choice best fits what they think is being said. In many instances, a dynamic equivalence is going to more accurately render what the author had intended.

 

[jaybo]

The main problem is that when translating from one language to another, it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to translate directly "word-for-word." Every formal equivalence translation is still going to have some "thought-for-thought" translation and translators still have to make decisions about which word choice best fits what they think is being said. In many instances, a dynamic equivalence is going to more accurately render what the author had intended.

Very true! People don't realize that, not only can the vocabulary be different, but so can the verb tenses and idioms. IMHO the main goal should be for us to understand the writings in the same way that the original hearers understood them. Considering that we live in an entirely different world than what existed in Bible times, that is a very difficult task. After all, how many of us are shepherds?

 

[tim-from-pa]

The main problem is that when translating from one language to another, it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to translate directly "word-for-word." Every formal equivalence translation is still going to have some "thought-for-thought" translation and translators still have to make decisions about which word choice best fits what they think is being said. In many instances, a dynamic equivalence is going to more accurately render what the author had intended.

Yes. Notice the KJV is actually on the border of the word-for-word and thought. Your concern is similar to the idiom conundrum I brought up. Language is based on culture, and some cultures are different from others so a direct translation does not always convey the meaning. But imagine that issue along with say, a paraphrase on top of it. It could be that the "paraphraser" personality misunderstands altogether and makes the situation worse. So it's still best to go closer to a word translation, albeit not without problems.

 

[D-D-W]

The main problem is that when translating from one language to another, it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to translate directly "word-for-word." Every formal equivalence translation is still going to have some "thought-for-thought" translation and translators still have to make decisions about which word choice best fits what they think is being said. In many instances, a dynamic equivalence is going to more accurately render what the author had intended.

The Italians have a phrase - traladore tratore - which means something like "The translator is a traitor," It is used to drive home the understanding that there is no 1:1 equivalence when translating languages, even languages closely related. And the more different the languages, the more chance there is for error.

Take the words for Messiah used in the scriptural texts; mashiach in the Hebrew and christos in the Greek. Both mean "anointed one" so they are exactly the same, right? Wrong.

Mashiach means anointed by pouring a large amount of oil over the head. See Psalm 133:2.
Christos means anointed by dabbing a drip of oil on the forehead.

How do you annotate that difference without translating a paragraph for each word?

All words have both annotated (dictionary) meanings and connotated (common use) meanings.

 

[gordon777]

The correct bible version is the words of life that lead us to life.

Everything else in the earth and heaven passes away, and only if the life of Jesus Christ is in us, do we live, or be risen up.



Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.



If anyone has love in them, laying their life down, being the least, the last, the lowest, not seeking their own, being with charity in the heart, they were guided to the correct bible version and translation, because the language is heavenly, and it was translated into earthly human language, quite successfully, which the wisest in this world ( who understand languages and about all translations that ever existed) just cant quite grasp it, because Christ is understanding the power of God, which to those Greeks wisdom and Jewish signs, is foolishness and stumblingblocks ( but nice to know in faith, nothing can fool those which are called, nor be a stumblingblock to them, meaning all translations are there to fool the fools, but those who God calls hear Him directly, because of His Spirit, which is the bible version that does not lie, or have any confusion at all.



1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

[Free]

Yes. Notice the KJV is actually on the border of the word-for-word and thought. Your concern is similar to the idiom conundrum I brought up. Language is based on culture, and some cultures are different from others so a direct translation does not always convey the meaning. But imagine that issue along with say, a paraphrase on top of it. It could be that the "paraphraser" personality misunderstands altogether and makes the situation worse. So it's still best to go closer to a word translation, albeit not without problems.

Not necessarily. While thought-for-thought is certainly paraphrasing, I would carefully differentiate between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase translations, realizing, of course, that there is a fair bit of overlap. My only point here is that there is certainly a difference between The Message and the NIV, for example, as I'm sure you would agree. Bit of a grey area regarding just how far can paraphrasing go before the meaning really gets obscured.

So, while idioms are certainly a cultural issue, there are words that just don't directly translate and require several words to convey the meaning, or tenses that do not come through in a more literal translation. Koine Greek has something like seven tenses (just going by memory) and English has three, which alone means we are losing meaning in a direct translation over a dynamic one. More to what I was initially referring to, which the NASB makes obvious, is that in many instances words have to be added in English to smooth or make more clear what is being said. Even beyond that, translators still have to make judgements on which English word to use, as some Greek words have many definitions, as you know. While formal equivalence stays close to the original text, it doesn't necessarily get us any closer to the authors' meaning than a dynamic equivalence.

I like this quote from Got Questions?

"The goal of most Bible translators is to be as faithful as possible to the original meaning of the text (if not the original words) while using language that is as clearly understood and natural sounding to the modern reader as the original text was to the original readers. Neither method of translation is “better” than the other. The difference boils down to which language receives the deference—either the original language or the language of today’s recipients."

I'm probably not telling you anything you didn't know.

 

[gordon777]

The wise of this world, ( crafty, disputers) have their wisdom as foolishness.




1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.



We see the calling, it is not men who are wise after the flesh, no mighty, no noble, but the fools confound the wise, the weak confounds the mighty, and the despised are chosen by God, to bring to NOTHING, those who think they are something. ( there is no one left who can glory in the presence of God)





1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.




When anyone assumes that using the resources of this world, original Greek, and summing up how translators best did their goals, it is the wisdom of this world.

That is why, such are earthly, of the earth, and such are heavenly, that are of heaven.

God raises up ( those who are nothing on earth) to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, where our conversation is from ( it is not of this earth, and no goal is acceptable from any earthly translators.)

Their avoidance of the preaching of the cross( foolishness to the world) proves immediately, that their wisdom is not from above, but that it is earthy, devilish, in confusion and every evil work, otherwise the wisdom from above is pure ( not goals but it is the Lord from heaven) it is the peace of Christ, it is gentle, and above all, IT IS EASY TO BE INTREATED, already understood because God shed His love into our heart by His mercy and grace, which translates automatically into any language and culture, because it is without unfairness, and it is without lies. ( without needing people who are deceivers)





1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The NWT, for one.

I heard that the NIV removed more verses than the NWT.

 

[gordon777]

Do we hear that God removes our names out of the book of life, because we turn away from the words of life.



Deuteronomy 29:20 The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

 

[Free]

I heard that the NIV removed more verses than the NWT.

That is, of course, untrue and is the fallacy of begging the question.

 

[jaybo]

I heard that the NIV removed more verses than the NWT.

"I heard"? Where did you hear that from? The NIV is an excellent translation and has been so for more than forty years.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That is, of course, untrue and is the fallacy of begging the question.

It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"I heard"? Where did you hear that from? The NIV is an excellent translation and has been so for more than forty years.

It removed many verses and often those dealing with Christ Himself. It’s not excellent. You also cannot quote in publications it without paying the owner. This goes to motivation for its publication.
I have one and I read it and some phrases are improved in generating understanding. But the bits missing are noticeable and sometimes confuse.

 

[OzSpen]

I hear you. I am a KJV man but the New King James Version is pretty much the same without changing the original language, but at least the translation is a lot like we speak and is easy to understand. I'm not a fan of too many other translations and least of all, paraphrase translations. I've included a chart to compare translations that are "word" translations vs "thought" and "paraphrase" translations. The latter two I am wary of because I have to ask 'whose thought or paraphrase (some paraphrased versions are only from one person)? However, the downside with word translations there are often idioms we have to learn. However, being a bible-based nation (and those nations that speak English) and background, many of our idioms in our English language came from the bible anyway. Otherwise, it makes most sense that word-for-word is used. Not thoughts, and not opinions, er, I mean paraphrases.

Did you develop this example yourself? If not, it is courteous to acknowledge the source of your diagram.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement.

The NIV is a meaning-for-meaning (dynamic equivalence) translation. It is expected that there will be translational differences when dynamic equivalence is used. It does not mean the NIV has removed a great deal of the text. It means it is translated to give greater meaning for folks like me who need common language to give better understanding.

Oz

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The NIV is a meaning-for-meaning (dynamic equivalence) translation. It is expected that there will be translational differences when dynamic equivalence is used. It does not mean the NIV has removed a great deal of the text. It means it is translated to give greater meaning for folks like me who need common language to give better understanding.

Oz

It’s simply not the case. This morning I was reading out of John and checked the NIV against other translations and they had inserted a word that really changed the meaning that was in no other version. Sure enough it was not in the Greek.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

There’s a fundamental problem in letting the new cultural norms change the Bible rather than the Bible change the culture. For example, Jesus chose 12 males to be his disciples later apostles. He didn’t choose 12 persons who happened to be male by chance. We can change the text or we can accept it and ask why.

 

[Free]

It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement.

It is a fallacy because you’re beginning with the assumption that those verses are supposed to be there to begin with. You first have to prove that those verses are most likely in the original autographs and then you can make your argument. You can’t begin with the KJV.

 

[gordon777]

Any version of the bible, or any person reading an version of the bible, who does not recognize that the scriptures give instructions of what to do, in belief of Christ, and how the Apostles are examples of them doing what was told, will argue/debate about nonsense, instead of doing what few do, which is to hear the instruction of God and to do it, and in any version, the same applies, Jesus Christ died for our sins, to open our hearts and minds to the love of God, and away from the vanity of man, in discussions, with evidence that is as far as their love and interest of God, goes.


Philippians 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.



Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.