BIBLE VERSIONS

[JM]

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

Which mss were used in there translation?

 

[Vic C.]

If you are asking what revision of the TR they used, I don't know. :-?

 

[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~

Hi JM,

Yes, . . . I recall a post about how a text is established of which I think you were the author.

The church I attend (Presbyterian) officially uses a KJV. The NASB is viewed by the church as a good translation but not as good as the KJV. I think the churches official KJV is an earlier one than Beza's revision. . and they certainly refer to it as the 'Textus Receptus' or translated from it.

Blessings: stranger

 

[JM]

Interesting quote.

Which edition of the Received Text should we follow today? Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in modern textual criticism from Harvard, made the following important statement in regard to the KJV and the Received Text:

“The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. HENCE THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS....

“BUT WHAT DO WE DO IN THESE FEW PLACES IN WHICH THE SEVERAL EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER? WHICH TEXT DO WE FOLLOW? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS EASY. WE ARE GUIDED BY THE COMMON FAITH. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION, OR, MORE PRECISELY, THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE KING JAMES VERSION. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949 [DWC: It has since been republished by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England, and the Dean Burgon Society of Collingswood, New Jersey.] We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students†(Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, pp. 220, 223).

We agree with Dr. Hills’ position.

The exact Greek text underlying the King James Bible was reconstructed by Frederick Scrivener under the direction of the Cambridge University Press and published in 1891. It is republished today by the Trinitarian Bible Society in England as well as the Dean Burgon Society in America.

 

[Vic C.]

Which mss were used in there translation?

Concerning the YLT; I believe this is what you were looking for Jason.

Young's translation is designed to assist students in the close study of the Biblical text by reproducing in English the Hebrew and Greek idioms, in an exceedingly literal translation. In the New Testament his translation is based on the text of Estienne 1550. The character of the version may be judged from the sample passage below. It will be noticed that the English is highly unnatural. In the pursuit of minute accuracy, Young tries to represent the Greek tenses with certain English tenses consistently, he tries to adhere to the word-order of the original, and he consistently translates a Greek word with the same English word in all of its occurrences. But in doing these things, he often fails to give the sense of the Greek correctly in English. It is doubtful whether the translation is really of much help to those who do not know Greek, because here the English is being forced to observe rules of the Greek language. The reader must become familiar with Greek syntax and vocabulary in order to make sense of the English

http://www.bible-researcher.com/young.html

Estienne 1550
(see Estienne, 1546)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html

 

[JM]

...Young tries to represent the Greek tenses with certain English tenses consistently, he tries to adhere to the word-order of the original, and he consistently translates a Greek word with the same English word in all of its occurrences. But in doing these things, he often fails to give the sense of the Greek correctly in English.

:smt032

 

[Vic C.]

Yeah, I saw that. In a strict word for word translation, that's not really a falure on his part. It's a pitfall of translating language to English in a purely literal sense.

...The reader must become familiar with Greek syntax and vocabulary in order to make sense of the English

 

[jgredline]

...The reader must become familiar with Greek syntax and vocabulary in order to make sense of the English

Yep, this is the key. Like I was saying via the PM Vic, this is where it is at. This is why understanding the Greek ''grammer'' is crucial.....

What I have found works well for me, when I read me Greek NT, Is to have my KJV and I have a Spanish bible as well that I refer too, kinda like a dictionary....

I have found IMO that the youngs translation is not really close to translating the scripture in many areas because even though it is a literal word for word translation, it does not take the grammer requirments of the english language into account....This is where the KJV did a much better job....and don't shoot me, but then the NKJV was still an improvement over the KJV ''IMO'' only because it fits the Modern english language a little bit better....The NKJV came from bascially the same TR but we now have more text, but really this does not matter as the early text were found to be pretty accurate anyway.....

Just my 2 cents worth.....

 

[JM]

The NKJV came from bascially the same TR but we now have more text, but really this does not matter as the early text were found to be pretty accurate anyway.....

jg, what do you mean by "we now have more text?"

 

[jgredline]

jg, what do you mean by "we now have more text?"

JM
I meant manuscripts...
sorry :

 

[Bick]

I enjoy reading from the KJV, but having compared many of it's words and phrases with a complete concordance, such as Young's or Strong's, I know it, like all the other English versions at that time, does not consistently and accurately translate many words from the Greek TR.

So, with the use of other, more literal versions, a concordance, lexicon, commentaries, and other tools, I am able, IMO, to get closer to the original meanings.

I could never do this with just the KJV, NASB, NLT, NIV, RSV and the like.

If examples are desired, I can give them.

 

[Vic C.]

Yep, this is the key. Like I was saying via the PM Vic, this is where it is at. This is why understanding the Greek ''grammer'' is crucial.....

What I have found works well for me, when I read me Greek NT, Is to have my KJV and I have a Spanish bible as well that I refer too, kinda like a dictionary....

cool. Hey, I asked you in a PM if your first language was Spanish. You didn't say, but I assume from above that it is. I mentioned how I learned what little Spanish I know. When I translate her lyrics with Google's language tool, they just don't have the same flair or feeling. So you know firsthand how hard it is to translate a language into English and keep the feeling and meanings intact.

I have found IMO that the youngs translation is not really close to translating the scripture in many areas because even though it is a literal word for word translation, it does not take the grammer requirments of the english language into account.

Yup, that's what that article said also.

...This is where the KJV did a much better job....and don't shoot me, but then the NKJV was still an improvement over the KJV ''IMO'' only because it fits the Modern english language a little bit better....The NKJV came from bascially the same TR but we now have more text, but really this does not matter as the early text were found to be pretty accurate anyway.....

Just my 2 cents worth.....

I won't shoot you. AV might, but I like the NKJV. J, what do you know about the MKJV and the LITV, Jay Green's attempt at a word for word literal translation of the TR?

If you get some time, I'd like your input on this:

http://www.mkjvonline.com/mkjv/mkjv.htm

http://www.litvonline.com

 

[xicali]

Hello all...

I use the kjv for many years than I discovered Reina Valera from whence I received Grace Revelation. Now I use them interchangeably they kind of interpet each other for me. I use the Greek also for reference.

 

[jgredline]

I won't shoot you. AV might, but I like the NKJV. J, what do you know about the MKJV and the LITV, Jay Green's attempt at a word for word literal translation of the TR?

If you get some time, I'd like your input on this:

http://www.mkjvonline.com/mkjv/mkjv.htm

http://www.litvonline.com

I really have not had much expieriance with those translations. From the little I read, they sounded ok, but really I don't know.


oh and Spanish is my first language..

 

[Lewis]

Well' I am still a KJV and Amplified man. Some of my other translations' I gave away and I still have some. But I don't open them anymore. One that I should have kept was my Williams' Beck' KJV' and ASV parallel New Testament Bible. But I want a medium print KJV and Amplified parallel Bible.

 

[mutzrein]

I really have not had much expieriance with those translations. From the little I read, they sounded ok, but really I don't know.


oh and Spanish is my first language..

Ah . . . so that explains your occasional slip-up in english :wink:

 

[jgredline]

Ah . . . so that explains your occasional slip-up in english :wink:

Actually yes. I often have to write things two or three times before posting them and even then, sometimes :

 

[mutzrein]

Actually yes. I often have to write things two or three times before posting them and even then, sometimes :

And if I was doing as well as you in a second language, I reckon I would be doing OK. Even in my first I have to read my own two or three times before posting . . . and even afterwards too sometimes :wink:

 

[AVBunyan]

1. KJV appropriately asked:
“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?â€Â

2.Stranger stated:
“The original autographs penned by the authors were the correct manuscripts.â€Â

3. Jgredline mentioned:
“The NKJV came from basically the same TR but we now have more text, but really this does not matter as the early text were found to be pretty accurate anyway.....â€Â

4. Many added:
“The Greek/Hebrew, etc.â€Â

Greetings – Happy New year to all
Will weigh in briefly – very little time – very sore wrist
Forgive mem for the length - but I can only get one shot for the next few days so I lumped together all the issues I wanted to deal with for now – sorry - not practicing what I preacher earlier regarding lengthy posts

1. KJV is right – (1) being the most important. If folks can get this settled and understand the “origen†of these and the purpose behind them then the modern versions will be cast aside by the more spiritually discerning saint. There will always be the counterfeit for the unsuspecting soul.
(2) IMHO (and many others much smarter than me) the proper translations of those (correct) manuscripts is already found in any modern day King James Bible – Yes, there will still be typos, publishers’ liberties, etc. One has to know the real thing first so he can spot the counterfeit. Problem today is saints are weak in their doctrine so they don't notice or care about the leaven. Stick with AV - this will save you much time and Motrin.

2. Here we go again – these originals are gone – we know that.
Plus can anybody here prove 2 the following from any “versionâ€Â:
a. Only the originals were inspired.
b. The originals were even inspired.
Just give me chapter and verse for the above “accepted†truths - Have fun!

3. Yes..and…no. The NKJV was based upon the TR but it strays a great deal and when it does stray it goes back to Origen and Egypt. So, in the NKJV you have some of God’s words and a lot of other stuff. I, and others, do not care for the “stuffâ€Â. I know where that “stuff†came from and will not touch it but instead will flush it.

4. Folks – herein lies another problem. My bone to pick. Several things here:
a. I’m not against some folks referring to the Greek/Hebrew for “clarification†but not to change the AV, which many do. The average saint can’t even get the English right so therefore needs to leave the Greek/Hebrew alone. If one wants to start doubting then just get them submersed in the Greek/Hebrew for the Greek/Hebrew can get really “flexible†depending on a lot of “ever-changing†factors.

b. How to study a King James Bible:
1) Get a Webster’s 1828 Dictionary for the English words and make sure you have an understanding of the English word first.
2) Run the references of the word or words you are studying along with the key words of the definitions through the bible using a good concordance.
3) Study the context.
4) Rightly divide the word of truth.
5) Pray and do the above three again!
6) If you still can’t get it then the Greek/Hebrew, versions, etc. certainly will not help – It may be God is not ready to show you – nothing wrong with that!

This is all I can add at the moment.

God bless 8-)

 

[stranger]

AVBunyan wrote:

2. Here we go again – these originals are gone – we know that.
Plus can anybody here prove 2 the following from any “versionâ€Â:
a. Only the originals were inspired.
b. The originals were even inspired.
Just give me chapter and verse for the above “accepted†truths - Have fun!

Hi,

We know that the originals are gone and were inspired and inerrant. Copies of these originals remain as manuscripts and fragments etc from the 3rd century onwards. To answer point (a) the originals were certainly inspired as the ink dried, i don't claim that only the originals were inspired so no proof needed. (b) did you mean that some believe that the originals weren't inspired?

From these Greek NT's have been compiled and published from the 1500's to the present day. I would be interested to know exactly how many.
Furthermore, considerable sledging occurs between supporters of various Greek NT's published and I have read many 'biased' accounts how one version is better than another.

With the AV I have my doubts about 'Erasmus' who was a Roman Catholic and remained distant from the Reformers as well as the Catholic church. I have read that in his first edition Erasmus translated parts of the book of Revelation from the Latin back to the Greek and that he was in a hurry to have his work published first. Erasmus is not one of the recognized reformers that Protestants refer to.

All in all I have selected the NASB as tentatively the best reliable English translation. I respect those who have made some other choice.

blessings: stranger