BIBLE VERSIONS

[Solo]

AVBunyan wrote:


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

The modern versions of the Bible, including the NASB have been translated from the Greek manuscripts available, however, in most instances, Eberhard Nestle's New Testament Greek was followed.

• GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.
  Retrieved from http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html

Eberhard Nestle's translation of the Greek New Testament followed the anti-Christians Westcott and Hort. For a review of the direction that Westcott and Hort desired to take the Bible translations to can be read at
http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_025.html . An excerpt from that reading is as follows:

• V. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.
  
  [*]You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.[/*:m:dd116]
  [*]You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.[/*:m:dd116]
  [*]You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.[/*:m:dd116]
  [*]You have to believe that their killers could be trusted. [/*:m:dd116]
  [*]You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.[/*:m:dd116]
  [*]You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.[/*:m:dd116]

Information concerning Eberhard Nestle's translation of the Greek New Testament can be found at Retrieved from http://www.seekgod.ca/ghostsociety.htm below:

• Dr Eberhard Nestle was part of the revision committee for the translation of a new Greek New Testament, following the efforts of occultists Westcott and Hort. Barbara and Kurt Aland worked alongside Dr. Nestle.[list:dd116]
  "In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published the NESTLE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, which underlies the modern versions. He followed the Hort and Westcott New Greek Text used for the English Revised Version and three other editions of the 1800’s. In 1950, Kurt Aland assumed ownership and the Nestle Text became the NESTLE/ALAND TEXT. The editing committee was comprised of Kurt Aland and Matthew Black, who were unbelievers, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini and two apostates, Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren...
  
  "...Gail Riplinger observes, "Since both the Catholic and "New" Protestant bibles are now based on the identical critical Greek texts (UBS/Nestles), which are based on the same 1% minority Greek Manuscripts (Vaticanus B), the Catholic doctrinal bend in the NIV and NASB and other ‘New’ bibles is substantial." (37)..." 44.

The Aland's and several others edited the book, The Greek New Testament, and stated:

• 
  "Preface to the first edition... vii-ix. The project was initiated, organized and administered by Eugene A. Nida, who also took part in Committee discussions." pg ix
  
  "The [Editorial] Committee carried out its work in four principal stages: (i) on the basis of Westcott's and Hort's edition of the Greek New Testament a comparison was made of the text and apparatus of several other editions including those of Nestle, Bover, Merk, and Volgels, and to some extent those of Tischendorf and von Soden, in order to determine which of the variant readings warranted further study..."45.

In other words, Eugene A. Nida and Dr. Eberhard Nestle were part of that same Revision Committee that collaborated to produce the corrupt text upon which most new Bible versions are based. The text they used had been originally edited for the British and Foreign Bible Society, founded by the Clapham Sect.[/list:u:dd116]AV has given a much better analysis of the various modern translations and the direction that the New Testament Greek translators such as Wescott and Hort intended, and how they took the Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts from spurious locations to propagate their intentions on the unsuspecting.

• Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845. THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY By Dr. Phil Stringer

 

[Radlad72]

CEV

I know it has a few issues with some bits, but as was mentioned before, pretty much all versions do.

 

[AVBunyan]

AV has given a much better analysis of the various modern translations and the direction that the New Testament Greek translators such as Wescott and Hort intended, and how they took the Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts from spurious locations to propagate their intentions on the unsuspecting.

Solo - you are picking this up pretty good -

God bless

 

[Solo]

Solo - you are picking this up pretty good -

God bless

Thanks. You are a good teacher. I haven't seen anything to dispute your findings yet.

Thanks for the hard work.
Michael

 

[Bick]

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?

Hi potluck, I agree that translation from one language to another is not an exact science. There can be so many words in the originals for which there is no equivalent in the new one.

It's true "love" in our vernacular covers so many things. People seldom say, 'I'm so fond of that'. It's usually, "I love that'.

As to 'love' in the Hebrew, using Young's Concordance, I found just two words and they are similar: 'ahabah' and 'ohabim'.

In the Greek there are two main ones: 'agapao'--verb, to love; 'agape'--noun, love; and 'phileo'--friendship or fondness.

In the KJV, 'agapao' is translated 'love' 135 times, and 'beloved' 7 times.
'agape' is translated 'love' 86 times; and 'charity' 27 times.

Anyway, I believe I can arrive at a close meaning of the originals through the use of a number of translations, a complete concordance, lexicons, and other tools.

Bick

 

[jgredline]

bump 8-) ...I suppose I am asking for trouble :wink:

 

[Veritas]

A quick little picture for reference:

How about way on the other side of things. Some fellow believers I know rave
about "The Message". It seems pretty easy to read, but I think it oddly translates things sometimes.

 

[Bick]

Hi Veritas. In my opinion, as far as I can see, if I understand the Acronyms for the different versions, none of them are an accurate, word-for-word translation.

I'll give one example: the word "aion" in the Greek means an unknown, but not unending, period of time.

And it is translated as "age" or "ages" correctly in many places.

But an "aion" cannot mean "forever" or "eternity" by itself, for it occurs in the plural, such as in Rom. 1:25, "..Creator, who is blessed for ever.." AV.
Literally, "..who is blessed for the eons."

Also, the ages or "eons" are said to come to an end in Heb. 9:26.

The AV, as well as some others, have "world" for "aion" which confuses these verses:
"For then must he have often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

BUT, we know the world didn't end when Christ appeared put away sin by his sacrifice.

A much better translation is this: "..since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudistion of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest." CV

Bick

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Veritas. In my opinion, as far as I can see, if I understand the Acronyms for the different versions, none of them are an accurate, word-for-word translation.

I'll give one example: the word "aion" in the Greek means an unknown, but not unending, period of time.

And it is translated as "age" or "ages" correctly in many places.

But an "aion" cannot mean "forever" or "eternity" by itself, for it occurs in the plural, such as in Rom. 1:25, "..Creator, who is blessed for ever.." AV.
Literally, "..who is blessed for the eons."

Also, the ages or "eons" are said to come to an end in Heb. 9:26.

The AV, as well as some others, have "world" for "aion" which confuses these verses:
"For then must he have often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

BUT, we know the world didn't end when Christ appeared put away sin by his sacrifice.

A much better translation is this: "..since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudistion of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest." CV

Bick

Good point. I also noticed the two literal translation I use often are not on the scale; Young's Literal and Green's Literal.

 

[jgredline]

Good point. I also noticed the twp literal translation I use often are not on the scale; Young's Literal and Green's Literal.

Yes, both of you bring good points...This may come as a surprise but the spanish bibles are really closer to the actual greek than the english translations and it flows....Kinda of like the

Hot dogs = english

peros caliente = spanish

κυνάριον ζεστός = greek
peros caliente = spanish
dogs hot = english

The Greek and Spanish syntax is the same...This is why it was easy for me to learn Greek...I was the only one in my classes that spoke and read spanish fluently and it was a huge help. I had to learn the characters but not the Grammar...The Grammar is the tough part...Now in saying that, I am currently taking an advanced Grammatical class and it has opened up my understanding of the scriptures a little bit more and I have even started reading my Spanish bibles again...

Anyway, just my two cents worth

 

[Bick]

Terrific Vic C.! Could you give me your literal translation of
1 Thes. 4:14-15?

And Heb. 9:26?

Thanks, Bick

 

[Bick]

OOPS! I read Vic C's quote, but it is JGredline who is proficient in Spanish and Greek, and maybe some more.

So, JG, could you give me your literal translation of 1 Thes. 4:14-15; and Heb. 9:26

Thank you, Bick

 

[jgredline]

OOPS! I read Vic C's quote, but it is JGredline who is proficient in Spanish and Greek, and maybe some more.

So, JG, could you give me your literal translation of 1 Thes. 4:14-15; and Heb. 9:26

Thank you, Bick

OK, I will give it a try
1 thess 4:14-15 1550TR
ει γαρ πιστευομεν οτι Ιησους απεθανεν και ανεστη ουτως και ο Θεος τους κοιμηθεντας δια του Ιησου αξει συν αυτω
τουτο γαρ υμιν λεγομεν εν λογω Κυριου οτι ημεις οι ζωντες οι περιλειπομενοι εις την παρουσιαν του Κυριου ου μη φθασωμεν τους κοιμηθεντας

for if webelieve that jesus died and roseagain so also God those who are fallen asleep through jesus willbring with him for this to you we say in word of LORD that we the living who remain to the coming ofthe LORD in no wise may anticipate those who are fallen asleep

In these two verses there are 8 definate articles in the Greek

KJV
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

By contrast, the kjv only has 3 definate articles...

This verse also has 3 indefinate articles...Why is this important? Because the Greek has no indefinate articles...The spanish / Latin also does not have an indefinate article...When the Greek Language uses a definate article, it does so. to make an emphatic expression...or emphasize a noun...In other words, it makes a big deal out of what it is describing...

Now this is not a knock on the KJV, IT is simply a fact that the english language is different......

14 Porque si creemos que Jesús murió y resucitó, así también Dios traerá con El a los que durmieron en Jesús.
15 Por lo cual os decimos esto por la palabra del Señor: que nosotros los que estemos vivos y que permanezcamos hasta la venida del Señor, no precederemos a los que durmieron.

In spanish it also has 8 definate articles...

Hope this helps.