Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • We stand with Ukraine. Please consider supporting Ukraine through a qualified organization.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Question about Bible Version....

Louis J

Member
From
Oyster Bay
Gender
Male
Messages
1
Joined
May 8, 2022
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?
 

Mungo

Catholicism Overseer
Catholicism Overseer
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
1,227
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
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?
Try the RSV
(or even better the RSVCE)
 

for_his_glory

Fight the good fight of faith
Staff member
Administrator
From
South Carolina
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
Messages
23,967
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Hi Louis J and welcome to CF :wave2

I'm a bit old school and use the KJV as I do not care much for more modern versions. It's probably best for you to look into different versions for yourself and pick out one that you can understand better. You can download different versions online and sort through them.
 

T. E. Smith

Romantic Rationalist
Member
From
USA
Gender
Female
Messages
1,297
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
NASB if you really want something like that, but it is poorly written. I do not recommend the KJV personally because
  1. incoherent to many modern readers, e.g., "He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers: Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks" (Job 15:26-27)
  2. Translation authorized by King James for political reasons - questionable at best
  3. translators fairly unfamiliar with NT Greek
  4. NT translation based upon unreliable manuscripts, none earlier than 12-century A.D.
However that's just my thoughts and use whatever translation you like.
 

Dorothy Mae

Preterist Overseer
Preterist Overseer
From
Europe
Gender
Female
Messages
3,182
Joined
May 23, 2020
Try an older NIV before the WOKE people decided what to write.

The KJV is something you get used to same as reading Shakespeare. No one suggests changing Shakespeare but rather the mind needs the challenge and is improved by reading it.
 

T. E. Smith

Romantic Rationalist
Member
From
USA
Gender
Female
Messages
1,297
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
Why do you consider it "poorly written?" I have been using the NASB since 1974 and have loved it.
It translates the text very literally, such that the English is often not very smooth and free-flowing.

One big issue is the usage of calques. A calque is a word in translation taken to be an exact equivalency for a word in another language. The best example, perhaps, is "law" for Torah. Another good example is "peace" for shalom. The NASB translators embrace calques, to their detriment, since nearly always they will translate torah as "law". Often it means more "instruction" or "teaching", but this rigid use of calques creates issues for English readers.

Another example: σαρξ, "sarx", a Greek word translated "flesh", is translated as "flesh" virtually every time. In fact, the word can often mean something more like "the whole body" or "physical existence."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dorothy Mae

Preterist Overseer
Preterist Overseer
From
Europe
Gender
Female
Messages
3,182
Joined
May 23, 2020
So now, in order to make any judgments on translation, one must have to go to a university and study ancient languages? At any rate, my religious preferences have nothing to do with whether or not the NASB is a good translation.
The judgement as to whether a translation is a good one depends upon the degree to which the reader achieves the same thinking or understanding as the writer.

If I’m asked to translate a piece, the job I do is not judged by the wonderful words I chose but by the accuracy of the match between what is written and what the other understands.

There are very modern “translations” that are horrible because the thoughts they communicate are off. The flow is great. The message is deeply off.
 

T. E. Smith

Romantic Rationalist
Member
From
USA
Gender
Female
Messages
1,297
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
The judgement as to whether a translation is a good one depends upon the degree to which the reader achieves the same thinking or understanding as the writer.

If I’m asked to translate a piece, the job I do is not judged by the wonderful words I chose but by the accuracy of the match between what is written and what the other understands.

There are very modern “translations” that are horrible because the thoughts they communicate are off. The flow is great. The message is deeply off.
all agreed.
 

D-D-W

2022 Supporter
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
786
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
It translates the text very literally, such that the English is often not very smooth and free-flowing.
Yes. That is what i like about it. Why does that make it "poorly written?" I take that as a plus, not a minus.
One big issue is the usage of calques. A calque is a word in translation taken to be an exact equivalency for a word in another language. The best example, perhaps, is "law" for Torah. Another good example is "peace" for shalom. The NASB translators embrace calques, to their detriment, since nearly always they will translate torah as "law". Often it means more "instruction" or "teaching", but this rigid use of calques creates issues for English readers.
No more or less than any strict translation before it.
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,902
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
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?

Louis,

The NIV is a dynamic equivalance translation (meaning-for-meaning) instead of a formal equivalence translation (i.e. word-for-word). The NIV will change "man" to someone if that is the meaning in context. The NIV is not a PC translation by a dynamic equivalence. So if adelphoi is used, as in 1 Cor 14:26, the translation will not be brothers, but brothers and sisters as that is the meaning because it refers to "each one" and not brothers only: "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up" (1 Cor 14:26 NIV).

Oz
 

D-D-W

2022 Supporter
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
786
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Louis,

The NIV is a dynamic equivalance translation (meaning-for-meaning) instead of a formal equivalence translation (i.e. word-for-word). The NIV will change "man" to someone if that is the meaning in context. The NIV is not a PC translation by a dynamic equivalence. So if adelphoi is used, as in 1 Cor 14:26, the translation will not be brothers, but brothers and sisters as that is the meaning because it refers to "each one" and not brothers only: "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up" (1 Cor 14:26 NIV).

Oz
True. One thing that we seem to forget is that in the last half century or so, gender use in language has been drastically changed. In almost all languages before the mid 1900s, if you had a group that consisted of 10,000 women and one man, they were collectively referred to in the masculine.
 

miamited

Member
From
Anderson SC
Gender
Male
Messages
250
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
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?
Hi Louis J. I agree with Dorothy Mae that the original copyright of the NIV is what you likely want. It's what I use and it was written before all of the 'woke' attempt to make the Scriptures gender inclusive. I believe you want a copyright date of 1984 or earlier. The earliest copyright is 1973.

God bless, Ted
 

T. E. Smith

Romantic Rationalist
Member
From
USA
Gender
Female
Messages
1,297
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
Louis J "Man" is a poor translation of anthropos. Aner is the Greek word for man. anthropos means something more like "human." Often times the original text will not include the word "man/human" at all, and so the implied noun "someone" or "one" is the best translation - but supposedly conservative translations will use the word man.

Don't be sure that masculine nouns remain true to the verses. Often they do not.
 
From
United States
Messages
554
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
True. One thing that we seem to forget is that in the last half century or so, gender use in language has been drastically changed. In almost all languages before the mid 1900s, if you had a group that consisted of 10,000 women and one man, they were collectively referred to in the masculine.
Because Eve was taken from Adam. The broad-brush stroke of the title 'Man' , simply is inclusive concerning order. You can consider the woman as the suffix, if you will, of a man- She is a Suffix definition of him- a particle attached to the end of a word (Man in this case) as a modify meaning or change, an extension- into a different word class 'Woman' and sex . So a woman is the suffix of a man -that is allegory . The 'Wo' in 'woman' is etymologically connected to "womb". However, that has recently been altered in translation to mean - wambe meaning "stomach" (modern German retains the colloquial term "Wampe" from Middle High German for "potbelly"). This is the 'Woke' agenda at work. The actual German word for (woman) is - gebärmutter. The old English word is actually 'wimman' . "Wampe" simply does- mean potbelly, like in potbelly pig, potbelly stove etc... If applied to a pregnant woman it is more of a slang reference for " she has a baby in her belly" because of the way the belly looks, you would say- potbelly.

See, they want people to believe it derives from the German meaning- gebärmutter , when actually the slang or cultural inference- conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning: (The way a pregnant woman's belly looks), IS where is actually comes from! Wow! to understand the nuisance in languages is hard!

However, the translation of scripture ( especially concerning the OT that the English have , is from the Greek -γυναίκα .

The Hebrew word for woman is אִשָּׁ֔ה (ishshah, also transliterated ishah).
The Hebrew word for man is אָדָם (adam) or אּישׁ (ish)The "out of man" (מֵאִ֖ישׁ meish, also transliterated me’iysh).

The (shah) added to (ish) is simply feminizing and showing the extension of (man). But I will also add, this is a modern Hebrew translation which is more Yiddish.

Ancient Hebrew -Aramaic- the language of Yeshua (Jesus), the word for 'woman' in Aramaic is attha while the word for 'man' is gabraa. Here is how it is written in the Syriac Estrangelo script.

attha
gabraa

And a couple of examples with the words attha and gabraa.

Bayat d gabra.
the house of the man

Attha tamani.
The woman is there.

This video shows how the Hebrew bible was translated to Greek. It comes from one who is Ethiopian. I think it is important, because Rabbis can be misleading when they speak in bias. This is all inclusive and respects all Canons. So no worries. Blessings.

 

D-D-W

2022 Supporter
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
786
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
The Hebrew word for woman is אִשָּׁ֔ה (ishshah, also transliterated ishah).
The Hebrew word for man is אָדָם (adam) or אּישׁ (ish)The "out of man" (מֵאִ֖ישׁ meish, also transliterated me’iysh).
In Hebrew (even modern Hebrew) there are no vowel letters. Yes, there is a nikkud vowel point system, but it is NOT actual Hebrew letters.

So woman - ishah - is called that because she was taken from man - ish. But without the vowels, it is spelled exactly the same as aish - fire. So the ancient rabbis questioned why does God call man "fire?"
 
From
United States
Messages
554
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
In Hebrew (even modern Hebrew) there are no vowel letters. Yes, there is a nikkud vowel point system, but it is NOT actual Hebrew letters.

So woman - ishah - is called that because she was taken from man - ish. But without the vowels, it is spelled exactly the same as aish - fire. So the ancient rabbis questioned why does God call man "fire?"
Thank you! That is why I said modern Hebrew has more of a Yiddish influence. But Ancient Aramaic I believe too was influenced by the Greeks, no?
So I will move forward a bit as to the ancient Aramaic because that too was an evolved Hebrew. The Ancient Hebrew thing, you have to admit- adding vowels helped all to better know the One True God. Aramaic however, it is the language Yeshua spoke . But yes you are right as to no vowels concerning Ancient Hebrew. That is why I shared the video to share that thought with others. I know you know about all that. Blessings.
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,902
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
True. One thing that we seem to forget is that in the last half century or so, gender use in language has been drastically changed. In almost all languages before the mid 1900s, if you had a group that consisted of 10,000 women and one man, they were collectively referred to in the masculine.

D-D-W,

However, that does not make the "man" use correct when it is the generic for men and women (based on context).

Oz
 

T. E. Smith

Romantic Rationalist
Member
From
USA
Gender
Female
Messages
1,297
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
D-D-W,

However, that does not make the "man" use correct when it is the generic for men and women (based on context).

Oz
D-D-W In the KJV and other early translations, the term "man" made sense to be used. However, English has evolved, as all languages do, and "man" is no longer a helpful translation.
 
Top