BIBLE VERSIONS

[KJV]

Are you aware there are many different “Bible†versions today claiming to be the Word of God. Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc.. But which of them is God’s Word? Since they all disagree with one another, we can’t possibly say that they all are. Can we? Are we to suppose that God has written more than one Bible and that he makes statements in one and then disagrees with himself in another? No, of course not. God only wrote one Bible. How, then, do we go about determining which “Bible†is the Bible? If we look to human opinion for the answer, we will find nearly as many opinions as we find people. One person will like one. Another person will prefer another. Yet a third person will assure us that it really doesn’t matter, telling us that any of them will do just fine. Since we aren’t interested in human opinion here, we need to look to scripture for help in resolving this issue. There are two questions that we will need to consider. (1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

 

[Solo]

I prefer using the KJV, but it has its shortcomings on a couple of items. The translation of the word Sheol should have been left as one name instead of the three that the KJV translators used. Sheol was translated grave 31 times, hell 31 times, and pit 3 times. Sheol is more than just a grave where a body is buried; it is that plus the place where the soul remains until the body is resurrected. One day, Sheol, which is translated Hades in the Greek, and death will be cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Rick W]

This is assuming we are talking only about "English" versions? I would assume each language has it's own strengths and weaknesses that may influence translation.

 

[JM]

AV, where ya at?

 

[jgredline]

ok, I will bite.....I prefer the NLT.....

 

[JM]

ok, I will bite.....I prefer the NLT.....

Me too!

I'll pick Scrivener's New Testament Greek.

~JM~

 

[stranger]

Are you aware there are many different “Bible†versions today claiming to be the Word of God. Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc.. But which of them is God’s Word? . . . . There are two questions that we will need to consider. (1) Which are the correct manuscripts? (2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

KJV

The original autographs penned by the authors were the correct manuscripts.

The translation depends upon which language - English is prolific in producing translations. Though I don't speak Hebrew or Greek the modern day equivalents of these two languages would have considerable advantages in which translations are the best (as pointed out 'which language'). Not only are some words difficult to translate as a one to one
equivalent, but cultural equivalents even more so. NASB user.

blessings: stranger

 

[Solo]

KJV

The original autographs penned by the authors were the correct manuscripts.

The translation depends upon which language - English is prolific in producing translations. Though I don't speak Hebrew or Greek the modern day equivalents of these two languages would have considerable advantages in which translations are the best (as pointed out 'which language'). Not only are some words difficult to translate as a one to one
equivalent, but cultural equivalents even more so. NASB user.

blessings: stranger

The NASB and the RSV both translate the Hebrew word for Sheol, Sheol in every instance, and the word Hades for the word Hades in every instance. I prefer the reading of the King James Version, and seldom have any major conflicts with individuals who agree with salvation, sanctification, and glorification of the believer as I. Most of the other issues fall right in line depending on the level of Christian maturity that one has.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

This is assuming we are talking only about "English" versions? I would assume each language has it's own strengths and weaknesses that may influence translation.

I would much prefer the origional languages myself. Unfortunately, I don't speak any of them.:-D

I once heard a missionary speak of translating the Word of God into other languages. (Such as Wycliffe does) In listening to her speak, I realized that they were translating FROM an English version into the native language of the New Guinea people where she was sent.

This lady said that the people where she was sent had no written word. She first had to learn their language. Then create a written language for it. Then translate Scripture into that language.

Forty years later, she presented the first printed copy of Scripture in their language. During that time she was able to lead most of a village to Christ.

 

[stranger]

The NASB and the RSV both translate the Hebrew word for Sheol, Sheol in every instance, and the word Hades for the word Hades in every instance. I prefer the reading of the King James Version, and seldom have any major conflicts with individuals who agree with salvation, sanctification, and glorification of the believer as I. Most of the other issues fall right in line depending on the level of Christian maturity that one has.

Hi Solo,

Yes, over time issues fall into place and presumeably the present one also.

blessings: stranger

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

By the way KJV;

welcome to the forum

 

[wavy]

KJV

The original autographs penned by the authors were the correct manuscripts.

The translation depends upon which language - English is prolific in producing translations. Though I don't speak Hebrew or Greek the modern day equivalents of these two languages would have considerable advantages in which translations are the best (as pointed out 'which language'). Not only are some words difficult to translate as a one to one
equivalent, but cultural equivalents even more so. NASB user.

blessings: stranger

Indeed. I retain the NASB to be one of the more accurate (not literal) translations of the bible.

 

[jgredline]

Really, I usually read the NKJV although when I do study or teach, I will usually use the kjv....Both come from the TR....

I was expecting to get lynched for saying the NLT (new living translation) :

 

[Rick W]

This is assuming we are talking only about "English" versions? I would assume each language has it's own strengths and weaknesses that may influence translation.

I'm just wondering about the other parts of the world that don't speak English.
All the topics of this nature assume English. The KJV written in it's original form was of course English. I'm thinking about translations for Spanish, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese etc. Surely we can't say English is THE language biblical texts must be translated into. Or do other languages around the world have a handicap compared to English?
If we choose an English version, which of course we will since the vast majority here speaks English, does that make any other language any less? Are there common languages around the world that lend themselves more easily to translation compared to the English language?

For example, the word "love" In the english language covers love between man and wife, father/mother to child, boyfriend to girlfriend, love for pets, love for things, love toward God, love of money.... there is no distinction concerning "love". I believe, I may be wrong, the original hebrew texts did have a certain amount of distinctive terms to differentiate between certain kinds/types of love. In english these are all translated into one overall word, love. Period.
So would another language which makes these distinctions have an advantage over english? Not only the word "love" but would other words be more easily, accurately translatable?

 

[Vic C.]

ok, I will bite.....I prefer the NLT.....

Me too!

I'll pick Scrivener's New Testament Greek.

~JM~

:o I am shocked at both of you, especially at my KJV bud Jason. ;-)

Guys, show me Acts 8:37 in the NLT for starters. The NLT is not translated from the TR. :-?

J, you just got your lynching. LOL!

 

[jgredline]

 

[JM]

:o I am shocked at both of you, especially at my KJV bud Jason. ;-)

Guys, show me Acts 8:37 in the NLT for starters. The NLT is not translated from the TR. :-?

J, you just got your lynching. LOL!

Ahhhhh, brother Vic, you missed the trick!

Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament - being the exact Greek Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible.
With notes showing where the English Revised Version (Westcott and Hort) departs from the T.R. in 5,506 places.
The Publisher states: We believe that Scrivener's Greek Text which underlies our King James Bible is the closest to the original New Testatment. We also believe that the changes made by the English Revised Version of 1881 (following the Greek text of Biship B.F. Westcott and Professor F.J.A. Hort) were derived basically from manuscripts "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai). These are two of the worst Greek manuscripts that ever saw the light of day. I have counted 5,604 places where Westcott and Hort's false Greek text has changed the Textus Receptus. The Bold Type (in the Greek Text of this book) shows these 5,604 places. The footnotes show the actual changes that were made. I have found a total of 9,970 Greek words in these footnotes that Westcott and Hort changed by addition, subtraction, or in some other way.

The Greek New Testament also known as the Textus Receptus of the Received Text was further updated Frederick H.A.Scrivener, who adamantly opposed the work done by Westcott and Hort in The New Testament in the Original Greek and He revised Stephanus work to answer the work of Westcott and Hort

Basicly, it's a translation [if you will] of the AV into Biblical Greek.

:

 

[stranger]

Gentlemen,

Was not Erasmus the author/complier of the Greek New Testament upon which the first KJB was based?

So now does this discussion move forward on the first version of the KJB or later editions?

blessings: stranger

 

[JM]

Gentlemen,

Was not Erasmus the author/complier of the Greek New Testament upon which the first KJB was based?

So now does this discussion move forward on the first version of the KJB or later editions?

blessings: stranger

The TR used for the bulk of translation of the AV/KJV was based upon the 4th edition of Erasmus work edited by Theodore Beza, the successor to John Calvin.

The majority of manuscripts [mss] that are in existence today agree with the Textus Receptus and form the family of mss known as the Majority Text.

~JM~

 

[Vic C.]

Let's talk about Young and Green's Literal translations. I like them too.