Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

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?

 

[jaybo]

With all respect due your education, your posts do not reflect that. Free brings up the Apocrypha and you jump on that like a dog on a June bug unable to see the hypocrisy in asking me about that knowing full well It is not in your Bible. I would not have guess a PhD educated man would respond that way.

What you have not begun to explore is how much I know and it is a lot more than we have begun to discuss. But I am not sure you and Free can actually think about this matter. The questions Free asks are of a more ad hominem nature, like do I trust, which has nothing whatsoever to do with an intellectual discussion. Can you imagine a discussion on Bibles at a university event and one professor ask the other if he personally trusts?

The battle in the matter of the Bibles has historical roots. And even if these are not taken seriously, although a PhD ought to be able to do so, The kind of verses missing in the newer works are suspect. The missing verses alone tell a story even if the history is doubted. This is something I doubt you two are ready to deal with.

Dorothy, I have read too many of your posts. Basically, you have your own "truth" in mind and insist that others agree with it -- even if it's illogical and/or false.

When you say something like "The kind of verses missing in the newer works are suspect", it shows that you are simply biased and try to force your opinion on others. "The kind of verses" meaning what? What kind specifically?

You are clearly not aware of the fundamentals of Bible translation! a) There are no original sources! b) The ones that do exist are often incomplete and, being the product of human copyists, contain differences, a.k.a., errors. c) There is often no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and the destination language. There are differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. that make a perfect translation into the destination language, in this case, English, impossible. d) The best modern translations are created by committees of scholars, experts in their field, who have devoted years to the art/science of translation.

So, why should anyone accept your obviously biased opinion??? What are your credentials???

 

[jaybo]

Here is a brief paragraph describing a modern translation...

The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has completed their work to update the New International Version of the Bible. The CBT was formed in 1965 to create a modern English Bible translation from the oldest and best-available biblical manuscripts. The NIV rapidly became the world’s most read modern English Bible with more than 400 million copies in print. Since the most recent NIV update in 1984, the CBT has continued to meet every year in accordance with the NIV charter, which demands constant monitoring of developments in Biblical scholarship and English usage and the reflection of these developments in periodic updates to the text. The committee represents the very best in evangelical biblical scholarship with its members drawn from various denominations and from some of the finest academic institutions in the world. (With my emphases)

And another...

The NET Bible (New English Translation) is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked.

The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations).

This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives."

And another...

Motivated by love and respect for Scripture, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) hopes that you will find this New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) suitable to inspire, inform, and guide daily living. The goal of the NRSVue is to offer a readable and accurate version of the Holy Bible to the global English-speaking community for public worship and personal study, for scholarship and study in classrooms, and for informing faith and action in response to God.

Together with religious leaders from diverse communities of faith, we join in the conviction that the Scriptures offer good news of God’s love—wisdom to guide, hope to sustain, truth to empower, forgiveness to change, and peace to bless all of creation.

The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions. The NRSVue, like the NRSV, follows “in the tradition of the King James Bible, [introducing] such changes as are warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage, . . . as literal as possible, as free as necessary” (NRSV’s preface “To the Reader”). As also stated in the NRSV preface, the Bible’s message “must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.”

It is time to end the debate of the supposed inaccuracies of modern translations, which is false "reasoning". Don't forget that the KJV was itself a revision of earlier translations and has been altered many times throughout its history. It is not the pure word of God.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Did you develop this example yourself? If not, it is courteous to acknowledge the source of your diagram.

Oz

I found this among many diagrams that say basically the same thing and appears to be my experience as well. So I selected one I thought was easy to understand.

I forgotten where I got this picture from, but fear not. I merely did a right click and the picture address came up to this site apparently interested in studying the bible and about the various translations. The picture is from this web site:

Study Driven Faith – A study-driven approach to the Bible

studydrivenfaith.org

 

[jerry63935]

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 new king james version

 

[OzSpen]

He didn’t answer if the apocrypha is in his NIV. He needs to answer that first or its hypocritical. If it’s not in his Bible, why does it have to be in mine?

You already know the Apocrypha is NOT in the NIV. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You've built a straw man logical fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

try the new king james version

It is based on inferior transcripts. Choose the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NLT or NET.

Oz

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You already know the Apocrypha is NOT in the NIV. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You've built a straw man logical fallacy.

It is not in the KJV either. Why the false accusation?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy, I have read too many of your posts. Basically, you have your own "truth" in mind and insist that others agree with it -- even if it's illogical and/or false.

Untrue. But you can provide examples if you think you can prove it. I know illogical and I know fallacies. That is a rational response in intellectual discussions.

When you say something like "The kind of verses missing in the newer works are suspect", it shows that you are simply biased and try to force your opinion on others. "The kind of verses" meaning what? What kind specifically?

No, it shows that I see that pattern same as a detective sees patterns in trying to figure out motives. Do you really want to see the kinds of verses that are deleted? They are often concerned with the deity of Christ.

You are clearly not aware of the fundamentals of Bible translation! a) There are no original sources!

Wrong, I have known the originals are lost.

b) The ones that do exist are often incomplete and, being the product of human copyists, contain differences, a.k.a., errors.

The originals were the product of human writings. The differences are minor, which you probably do not know.

c) There is often no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and the destination language.

I am bilingual and am more aware of this in modern languages than you are, I suspect. There are concepts in one language that cannot be said in another. And this is in modern languages.

There are differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. that make a perfect translation into the destination language, in this case, English, impossible.

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No but even in a perfect translation, if there were one, there are concepts in the Bible that no man can understand as the writer did unless that same level of walking with God has been achieved. God hides understanding from some people. That is the main problem. No translation can overcome this. Peter wrote that. Paul's letters are hard to understand and they had no language problem whatsoever. This you are probably not aware of.

d) The best modern translations are created by committees of scholars, experts in their field, who have devoted years to the art/science of translation.

Well, there are now a few that are the work of one man. You probably are not aware of these.

So, why should anyone accept your obviously biased opinion??? What are your credentials???

Anyone who can read can see that some passages are missing. Why does it take a doctorate to see that some passages in the new versions are gone?

 

[jerry63935]

It is based on inferior transcripts. Choose the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NLT or NET.

Oz

no thanks

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is based on inferior transcripts. Choose the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NLT or NET.

Oz

Incorrect.

 

[OzSpen]

It is not in the KJV either. Why the false accusation?

Yours is the false accusation. The Apocrypha was in the original KJV. Please get your facts straight. See: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Incorrect.

You gave no reasons, only your opinion.

 

[OzSpen]

no thanks

Again, no evidence provided, only your opinion. No thanks!

 

[OzSpen]

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 changed "man" to person or some appropriate designation because that is what anthropos means in context. Adelphoi (brothers) is most often translated as brothers and sisters because that is the meaning of the Greek noun in many contexts.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Anyone who can read can see that some passages are missing. Why does it take a doctorate to see that some passages in the new versions are gone?

Dorothy,

Why does it take a doctorate to explain why some translations in the KJV needed explaining to make verses understandable? Hence the NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV.

The facts are that words have been added to the KJV to make the meanings clearer. Most people don't have an understanding of Greek and Hebrew, so they need these explanations. The extensive footnotes in the NET Bible show why this is necessary.

Oz

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yours is the false accusation. The Apocrypha was in the original KJV. Please get your facts straight. See: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

Oz

What does that have to do with the KJV sold today or for the last 1000 years? Is that the only thing you have in your arsenal, what was published in 1611? You cannot defend the lack of verses regarding the deity of Christ in your NIV so you attack a 1611 version?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy,

Why does it take a doctorate to explain why some translations in the KJV needed explaining to make verses understandable? Hence the NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV.

I never insisted someone who wants the truth about God needs a doctorate. Your side insists only PhDs can see that major verses ar missing in your versions.

The facts are that words have been added to the KJV to make the meanings clearer.

This you cannot prove. The received text did not add words. The Critical text removed them. The removals make the texts in many cases absurd. The text goes from relaying easily understandable explanations for Jesus’ choices to nonsense or saying nothing like instead of “this kind comes out by prayer and fasting” to “this kind comes out by prayer” which is what they always did anyway…. nonsense.

Most people don't have an understanding of Greek and Hebrew, so they need these explanations. The extensive footnotes in the NET Bible show why this is necessary.

Oz

One doesn’t need Greek or Hebrew. We aren’t Muslims who insist only the original language conveys the meaning. I’ve yet to meet someone who, by knowing Greek or Hebrew, understood the Bible better as evidenced by the power to live it. It’s useful but if the Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal what the original writer intended but instead hides it, no PhD will change that.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You gave no reasons, only your opinion.

You gave no reasons, only your personal opinion.

 

[OzSpen]

What does that have to do with the KJV sold today or for the last 1000 years? Is that the only thing you have in your arsenal, what was published in 1611? You cannot defend the lack of verses regarding the deity of Christ in your NIV so you attack a 1611 version?

Please provide the list of such verses.

 

[OzSpen]

I never insisted someone who wants the truth about God needs a doctorate. Your side insists only PhDs can see that major verses ar missing in your versions.

This you cannot prove. The received text did not add words. The Critical text removed them. The removals make the texts in many cases absurd. The text goes from relaying easily understandable explanations for Jesus’ choices to nonsense or saying nothing like instead of “this kind comes out by prayer and fasting” to “this kind comes out by prayer” which is what they always did anyway…. nonsense.

One doesn’t need Greek or Hebrew. We aren’t Muslims who insist only the original language conveys the meaning. I’ve yet to meet someone who, by knowing Greek or Hebrew, understood the Bible better as evidenced by the power to live it. It’s useful but if the Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal what the original writer intended but instead hides it, no PhD will change that.

Dorothy,

You and I are wasting our time having a discussion on Bible versions as you don't seem to comprehend that the only God-breathed Scriptures are those in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Neither the KJV nor NIV is God-breathed. They are translations from the originals, which we no longer have.

Bye, bye,

Oz