Bible Study Different versions the same?

[ChristineES]

I thought I would try this here. I have not seen it done (at least not since I have been here).
I am going to post a verse in several different translations. The chosen verse is Corinthians 2:1

ALT: 1Co 2:1 And when _I_ came to you*, brothers [and sisters], I came not according to superiority of speech or of wisdom declaring to you* the testimony of God.
ASV: 1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
BBE: 1Co 2:1 And when I came to you, my brothers, I did not come with wise words of knowledge, putting before you the secret of God.
Darby: 1Co 2:1 And *I*, when I came to you, brethren, came not in excellency of word, or wisdom, announcing to you the testimony of God.
ESV: 1Co 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
KJV: 1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
MJKV: 1Co 2:1 And I, brothers, when I came to you, did not come with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God.

I think it might be interesting to see how different translations can sound when you compare them. 8-) It will be interesting if others who can do it too. Just choose a different verse. (it can be any verse, from any book that you choose)

 

[Bick]

Comparing translations

Hi Christine. Good idea. I am quoting Heb.1:1,2:

KJV, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

RSV, "in many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

Phillips, "God, who gave to our forefathers many different glimpses of the truth in the words of the prophets, has now, at the end of the present age, given us the truth in the Son. Through the Son God made the whole universe, and to the Son he has ordained that all creation shall ultimately belong."

NEB, "When in former times God spoke to our forefathers, he spoke in fragmentary and varied fashion through the prophets. But in this the final age he has spoken to us in the Son whom he has made heir to the whole universe, and through whom he created all orders of existence:"

NIV, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."

Rotherham, "Whereas in many parts and in many ways of old God spake to the fathers in the prophets, at a last stage of these days he spake to us in [his] Son; whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages;"

Young's Literal, "In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages."

Concordant Literal, "By many portions and many modes, of old, God, speaking to the fathers in the prophets, in the last of these days speaks to us in [a] Son, Whom He appoints enjoyer of [the] allotment of all, through Whom He also makes the eons;"

God bless, Bick

 

[thessalonian]

"sameness" is a difficult thing to judge when reading an english translation. First of all there are different approaches to translating. Some translations are literal word for word translations. I beleive the KJV uses this method. A word in Greek or Hebrew is translated in to the word that has the closest meaning in English. The disadvantage of this method is that it cannot capture all the meaning from the original greek and hebrew because there is not a one to one correspondence of words in English to words in greek and hebrew. For instance in the Greek there are many words (I think 11) that speak of various forms of the one word love in english. For instance in John 21 where Jesus asks "Peter do you love me more than these". Jesus uses the word agape which is a deep abiding love. Peter responds "Lord, you know that I phileo you". Phileo is more of a freindship type love. This is lost in the English translation. It is not insignificant. It cannot be said that the English Bible is corrupt in this case because love is the proper translation. But meaning has been lost. It is kind of like describing a ball as round, red, and rubber, vs. describing it by it's diameter and volume, it's color on the color spectrum, and it's chemical composition and elastic constant. The later is a deeper understanding.

In the literal translation it should be noted that a different word with a related but not exact meaning to another word that is used in another Bible may be used at times. In 2 Thes 2:15 for instance, in the NIV it says "hold fast to the teachings you have recieved" rather than the more common "hold fast to the traditions you have recieved". Does this mean it is wrong? No. A tradition is a teaching that has been passed on through the ages. Paradosis is the greek in this passage and it should properly be rendered tradition, because didache is properly teaching. But tecnically it is not wrong.


A second type of translation is one that tries to capture the essence of what is said, i.e. paraphrase rather than focus on the words themselves. This of course has the disadvantage of being more prone to the bias of the translator in what he thinks a passage says. The advantage is that idioms in languages can be considered. For instance I'll use a British English example. A brit might say "What a bloody mess". One who does not realize this is a british figure of speach might take it at face value and have visions of guns and knives. However a proper paraphrase would be "What a terrible mess", realizing that it is a British idiom. It also may produce a more readable bible than the literal translation.

Another consideration in all of this is that languages change. For instance 50 years ago the word gay had a more acceptable "usual" meaning than today. Thus you have to be careful in saying that a passage from an older bible vs. a modern Bible is different. It may be due to variations in languages over the years.

This is what I have learned from my amaeture study of the matter of translations. I hope it helps.

 

[thessalonian]

By the way here is a site that allows you to view 4 different translations of the same verse at once. It has many different translations, however it does not have the NIV and RSV.

http://www.unboundbible.com/

 

[mutzrein]

Here’s a couple of interesting examples

Romans 9:5
KJV - Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
NIV - Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

John 1:18
KJV - No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NIV - No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Notice the difference? One says Jesus IS God – in this case the NIV. The KJV doesn’t.

 

[gingercat]

Here’s a couple of interesting examples

Romans 9:5
KJV - Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
NIV - Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

John 1:18
KJV - No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NIV - No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Notice the difference? One says Jesus IS God – in this case the NIV. The KJV doesn’t.

Thank you mutz, I have been reading NIV and I missed this part and I don't believe Jesus is God. Isn't that interesting?