Which translation and why?

[JM]

I believe the preserved Word of God is found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Text family referred to as the Byzantine or Majority, of which, the Textus Receptus is apart. I don't believe modern translations are reliable because of the method used in translation as well as the mss used in the translation.

Steve, weren't you a NLT not too long ago?

 

[Vic C.]

Nice post, Jason.

 

[Lewis]

I believe the preserved Word of God is found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Text family referred to as the Byzantine or Majority, of which, the Textus Receptus is apart. I don't believe modern translations are reliable because of the method used in translation as well as the mss used in the translation.

Steve, weren't you a NLT not too long ago?

I have a Hebrew Masoretic Text, too and I won't be getting rid of that.

 

[AVBunyan]

Brethren - sorry, I try to understand but I just don't see God keeping his word hidden in languages and texts that the comman man can't get without being "educated". :o

God bless

 

[jgredline]

When I teach I seem to use the KJV most of the time along with the NASB.
When I do my bible reading I have pretty much settled on the NKJV and now the ESV. I do think the KJV only thing is ridiculas though. Over the years I have heard everything and every excuse for the KJV but in bible college and seminaries the NASB and ESV are the choice of most teachers.

 

[JM]

Which NASB version do you use?

The ever changing "literal" NASB

There are a multitude of examples found in the New American Standard Version where it is far less "literal" than the King James Bible or, for that matter, the previous Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901.

The following is a very incomplete list of some of the examples I have found in my personal studies over the past few years. This list could easily be three times as long, but these few should be sufficient to refute the oft repeated claim that the NASB is the most literal of the modern versions.

The NASB gospel of John came out in 1960. The complete New Testament in 1963, and the whole Bible in 1971. Since then the NASB has come out with five different editions (1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and the Updated 1995). Each of these editions differs from the others in both it's English translations of many verses and some even differ in the underlying Greek texts of the New Testament.

Brother Laurence M. Vance has written a book called Double Jeopardy, in which he documents word for word the changes made in the 1995 NASB as compared to the previous 1977 NASB. The 1995 NASB now has almost 7000 fewer words in it than did the previous 1977 edition.

The NASB often rejects the Hebrew readings, but they never tell you this in their footnotes. You have to consult other versions like the RSV, ESV, and NIV to verify this. Many examples of the NASB not following the Hebrew texts are found here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html and here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

Here's another example:

ESV reading:
Sa 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Was it Elhanan?

AV 1611 reading:
2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

1Ch 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

No, the AV has it right. The modern translation will often contain a contradiction.

Peace,

JM

 

[mutzrein]

Brethren - sorry, I try to understand but I just don't see God keeping his word hidden in languages and texts that the comman man can't get without being "educated". :o

God bless

Yes, I agree with you again AV. And this is a worry :wink: since I am not a trinitarian, nor educated in any way pertaining to theology and the doctrines of man.

I'd be lost if my salvation hinged on a 'correct' theological understanding of things.

What does scripture say? "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

Ah the wondrous grace of God!!

 

[Vic C.]

Brethren - sorry, I try to understand but I just don't see God keeping his word hidden in languages and texts that the comman man can't get without being "educated". :o

God bless

I hear you AV, but have you read or looked into the LITV? It is translated from the Textus Receptus, just as the KJ. http://www.litvonline.com It actually complements the KJV in many places.

Young's Literal Translation rounds out my top three. (also from the TR)

 

[JM]

Brethren - sorry, I try to understand but I just don't see God keeping his word hidden in languages and texts that the comman man can't get without being "educated". :o

God bless

I hear you AV, but have you read or looked into the LITV? It is translated from the Textus Receptus, just as the KJ. http://www.litvonline.com It actually complements the KJV in many places.

Young's Literal Translation rounds out my top three. (also from the TR)

What is the method of translation Vic?

 

[Vic C.]

A very literal, word for word translation of the TR and is much easier to read than the YLT.

http://www.kconline.com/paul/litv/litv.htm

 

[AVBunyan]

I hear you AV, but have you read or looked into the LITV? It is translated from the Textus Receptus, just as the KJ. http://www.litvonline.com It actually complements the KJV in many places.

Young's Literal Translation rounds out my top three. (also from the TR)

Hi Vic – I respect you so I took a few minutes to read the LITV in some suspect places - While I admit the LITV is not as the modern versions in certain areas I did some simple checks and I could not with a clear conscience read it. Based upon the few verses below then I still believe the KJV to be superior and more reliable. The YLT changes to much doctrine for me - see below...

And below is just 10 minutes of work - what else would one uncover if given the time? This should be a great concern.

I Tim. 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all evils,
KVJ – “the†root – big difference between just “aâ€Â.

John 3:7 Do not wonder because I said to you, You must be generated from above.
KJV - Ye must be born again. Difference - "You" is singular meaning Nicodemus - "Ye" is plurah which makes the reference to Israel as a nation (see Isa. 66:8) where at end of tribulation israel will be born again as a nation.
Also - born again (KJV) is different than "generated" Webster - GEN'ERATED, pp. Begotten; engendered; procreated; produced; formed.

Israel will be born again not "generated" - the saint today is created a new creature. Big doctrinal difference - Israel will not become new creatures just born again to get into the land (Ezek. 37).

Gal. 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by works of Law, but that it is through faith in Jesus Christ (we also believed into Christ Jesus
KJV – “faith of Jesus Christ†– our faith “in†cannot justify only Christ’s faith can – major doctrinal error here.

Phil 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave
KJV - has servant instead of slave - just look at the definitions - a servant chooses to serve - a slave has no choice -

Mici 5:2 And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, being least among the thousands of Judah, out of you He shall come forth to Me to become One ruling in Israel; and His goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.
KVJ – “from everlasting†is eternal – now it is just “days of eternity� – Are there days in eternity???

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
KJV – heaven – “heavens†“hides†the gap

Dan. 3:25 He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
KJV – “the Son of God.†– clear attack upon deity of Christ here - Jesus is not a son of the gods.

Acts 7:5 which also was brought in, our fathers having received with Joshua,
KJV – Jesus – hides the prophecy that Jesus will lead Israel into the land at end of tribulation

Acts 12:4 whom also capturing him, he put him into prison, delivering him to four sets of four soldiers to guard him, intending to bring him up to the people after the Passover.
KJV- Easter – takes away truth that Easter has always been pagan and Rome celebrated it.

Acts 19:37 For you brought these men, being neither temple robbers nor blaspheming your goddess.
KJV – “robbers of churches†– giving advanced church age revelation of state of modern churches – see page 126 2nd paragraph – “Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence†Dr. Ruckman

Jude 13 These are springs without water, clouds being driven by tempest, for whom the blackness of darkness has been kept to the ages.
KJV – ends with “for ever.†– gone from above

Eph. 5:1 Then become imitators of God, as beloved children,
KJV – followers – Saints cannot imitate God – this teaching agrees wi Thomas akempis and company who believe salvation comes from imitating Christ

22 Keep back from every form of evil.
KJV – “all appearance of evil.â€Â
You can abstain from all forms without abstaining from the “appearance,†– any saint should know this.

It appears that when the LITV changes the KJV it resorts to the same stuff the modern versions come from.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

. Over the years I have heard everything and every excuse for the KJV but in bible college and seminaries the NASB and ESV are the choice of most teachers.

Well. of course - this is true but does it make it right? :o

I'll take ole farmer Jones with a 3rd grade education and a humble, believing heart and sit at his feet any day over any college professor using a NASB or ESV. :-?

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

Why doesn't AV want the Bible in American English? He's keeping it in King James English to make it hard for the common man to understand. Clearly this is some wicked manipulation of the masses. ;-)

 

[jgredline]

. Over the years I have heard everything and every excuse for the KJV but in bible college and seminaries the NASB and ESV are the choice of most teachers.

Well. of course - this is true but does it make it right? :o

I'll take ole farmer Jones with a 3rd grade education and a humble, believing heart and sit at his feet any day over any college professor using a NASB or ESV. :-?

God bless

I told myself to keep out of this debate but have been following in it as its pretty good stuff. I have heard everything in the past and have visited KJV only web sites and so forth so I have heard and read the retoric. I have even heard that if you got saved by hearing the word other than the KJV your not really saved. :o

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Vic – I respect you so I took a few minutes to read the LITV in some suspect places - While I admit the LITV is not as the modern versions in certain areas I did some simple checks and I could not with a clear conscience read it. Based upon the few verses below then I still believe the KJV to be superior and more reliable. The YLT changes to much doctrine for me - see below...

Heh... I still love you but dare I even suggest you took the backward approach? You are comparing the LITV against the KJV to expose alleged discrepencies. I know you don't want to hear this, but the better thing to do is compare both against the actual text both were translated from and see then which one is closer.

I can't possibly see how the YLT changes doctrine if it is as close as one can get to the Hebrew and Greek in good ol' English. I find the YLT the best of the three... even better than the KJB. Sorry. I will agree that in a few places, the LITV did stray from the TR, but I will also say the KJ strays in more places than either the LITV or YLT.

I will never totally give up on the KJV, but I am not a KJO person. I will go as far as saying that I am a TR person, which is why I stick to the three I mentioned.

 

[AVBunyan]

1.You are comparing the LITV against the KJV to expose alleged discrepancies.

2. I know you don't want to hear this, but the better thing to do is compare both against the actual text both were translated from and see then which one is closer.

3. I can't possibly see how the YLT changes doctrine if it is as close as one can get to the Hebrew and Greek in good ol' English.

4. I find the YLT the best of the three... even better than the KJB.

5. Sorry. I will agree that in a few places, the LITV did stray from the TR, but I will also say the KJ strays in more places than either the LITV or YLT.

1. I have to Vic – my final authority is the King James Bible. How can I not compare the LITV with it? I can do no less if I am to be consistent in these matters.

2. “Actual text� Are we sure here Vic? Is it possible that what we have here is a hybrid text – a mixture of TR and some Nestle/Wescott/Hort stuff? I can’t see the TR calling the Son of God a son of the gods or tell me it is my faith that justifies me. Is the love of money “the†root or just “a†root? The NKJV takes some TR and mixes it with Origen.

3. Vic – the deity of Christ (Daniel 3:25, Mic. 5:2) and justification (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16) are changed – I believe this to be a fact. Again – how do we know the text this LITV is from is from the “closest� How can one trust a text that changes what I’ve shown? Why would we trust it if it messes with the deity of Christ even in one verse?

4. And I would defend your right to believe so – though how can you call it superior if the deity and justification are tampered with? Does the KJV tamper with these vital doctrines?

5. “A few places†– should not this be enough? Again, (broken record here) I did the above off the top of my head – who much more “straying†is there Vic?

Again, because it can be right in most places doesn’t justify it being wrong in others. :o
Regardless of how much “right†is there the fact remains - those translators have taken much liberty with the text and have inserted leaven and false doctrine.

The LITV superior Vic? Just don’t see it.

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

So AV, where is this doctrine of infallibility of translation in scripture? Why did it apply to 1611 translators and not to modern day translators? Are they not Christians without the Holy Spirit?

 

[Steve]

Fundamentalists were actually using and promoting the Living Bible when it first started out as Living Letters, Living Gospels, etc., and even after it came out as the whole 'Bible' which was around 1972.

The New American Standard Bible was also used and promoted by Fundamentalists; and even today, there is, for some reason, less squawking about the NASB than any other translation out of them.

So, you just lump all fundementalist together?

Have you read the 2nd chapter of Dr. Ruckman's work, "The Christian's Handbook on Biblical Scholarship" - there he tells you his sources for what he believes.

Have you actually read Dr Ruckman's, "The Christian's Handbook on Manuscripit Evidence" written back ini 1970 and has yet to be refuted?

BTW - what about those few verses I quoted above regarding the deity of Christ?

Later

I have read Peter Ruckman at one time and everything I had went into the trash.

I am sitting in an open office and cannot go through Scripture after Scripture and posting without getting some funny looks, also from the powers-that-be. i have no computer at home.

 

[AVBunyan]

I have read Peter Ruckman at one time and everything I had went into the trash.

I'm not talking about his works in general.

The question was - did you read the two pieces I was referring to?

 

[JM]

Vic, AV made a few good points on YLT, what do you think of them?