What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. 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!

Which translation and why?

I forgot...

One problem with the new versions, at least in my opinion anyway, is the excessive use of inclusive language. Some use of it is correct, as the Greek word, 'anthropos' can be used for either sex. However, Bibles such as the NRSV, TNIV, NCV, NLT, GW use plurals instead of singulars just for the purposes of being inclusive; ergo, I do feel this is tampering with tthe Word. Also, there are a few places in the NLT and a few others where the term 'Jewish leaders' instead of 'the Jews' is used, especially as regards Our Lord's crucifixion. The Greek word is judaioi, and that 'could' mean Jewish leaders, but most probably does not. Also, there is some groisseh Yiddishe salami with a gazillion bucks who comes at Bible translators hot and hard to convince them to tone down allegedly anti-Jewish words and/or expressions in the NT. The society during OT & NT times was indeed patriarchal, and to mute that because of political correctness is a sham. So, yes, from about 1985 onwards, ya have to watch it with the inclusive language garbage. Check Psalm 1:1 as a test. If it says, 'Blessed is the man...' then you more trhan likely have a faithful text. The Psalm is Messianic. To mute that with a 'Blessed are they...' is unfaithful. The first few chapters of Proverbs is also telling. Solomon is writing to his SON, and, it should read...'my son...' NOT 'my child.'
 
Steve, could you explain to us why you think the Byzantine text type and it's sucessor, the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Alexandrian text type?

Also, could you explain to us why just about all translations from the Alexandrian use a "thought for thought" method of translating, while most every TR based translation is "word for word"?

The last thing I need in my Bibile is the critical interpretation of the likes of Westcott, Hort and your beloved translators of the Nearly Inspired Version.

One more thing... why should I trust any Bible that got some of it's manuscripts from the garbage of a monastery?
 
Vic C. said:
Steve, could you explain to us why you think the Byzantine text type and it's sucessor, the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Alexandrian text type?

Also, could you explain to us why just about all translations from the Alexandrian use a "thought for thought" method of translating, while most every TR based translation is "word for word"?

The last thing I need in my Bibile is the critical interpretation of the likes of Westcott, Hort and your beloved translators of the Nearly Inspired Version.

One more thing... why should I trust any Bible that got some of it's manuscripts from the garbage of a monastery?
Click to expand...





Vic, Vic, Vic... :smt009 . Now, as a Roman Catholic, you and I NEVER used a KJV. So, this is all new stuff to you, right? Or, basically new. How did you get into this KJVO bag? It's amazing!
The Byzantine manuscripts are all late...4th-5th centuries. If you go back into the Fathers, etc., when they quote from the Scriptures, it matches to the Alexandrian manuscripts. Even though there is a majority of Byzantine manuscripts, they have been copied and copied by some very careless scribes who added verses to agree with similar passages in other books. FACT. That's not Steve speaking; that's facts. Pardon my grammatical monstrosity there. The earliest manuscripts and papyri agree with the Alexandrian texts.
Regarding Dynamic Equivalence, the ESV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NJB are all Formal Equivalence translations from the minority text. The NIV is termed a 'balanced' type translation, in the middle between FE and DE.
Westcott and Hort were NOT occultists, and all this other trash that KJVO people try to conjure(good word) up. Westcott was a respected scholar and Church of England Bishop. That was hardly the age of liberalism. Even Dean Burgon, whom KJOs love to almost canonise, said quite clearl, that the Textus Receptus is far from perfect and needs to be revised. By the way, the versions from 1952 on do NOT use Westcott and Hort. The ONLY Bible translated from the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses!!! Betcha didn't know that! We are far beyond Westcott and Hort. They don't even enter into the equation anymore. Today's excellent scholars are mainly using an Eclectic text, based on Aland and UBS texts, the 27th edition(UBS).
Mor KJVO fancy! Lobegott Konstantin Tischendorf did NOT obtain the 'scripts from the garbage can! Ol' Tishy went around the world searching for ancient manuscripts. He was another respected scholar---not a garbage picker. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in jars in a cave, with the Isaiah scroll 200 years older than what we have, and it matched perfectly.
The NIV, which I have never defended particularly, is better than some and worse than others. There are places where it undertranslates and makes a few clangers. But there is a heckuva lot more clanging coming out of the KJV. The KJV is soooooooooooooo outdated. So archaic. The syntax is horrendous. It's basically about the worst translation one can use today. You have to translate the English first. Who needs from that? When I want the Scriptures, I want them warm and understandable, not covered with x layers of barnacles that need to be scraped off. Even back in 1833, Daniel Webster stated the KJV needed to be revised, and he did a version of the Bible. Translating has been ongoing since 1611. A lot of the translations most people have never heard of. KJV has been outdated practically since day 1. TRADITION can be a hard thing to overcome, can't it. As I have said many times, you KJVO folks are like Traditionalist Catholics who won't give up the Latin Mass, and think the new Mass invalid. :roll:
 
Vic, Vic, Vic... . Now, as a Roman Catholic, you and I NEVER used a KJV. So, this is all new stuff to you, right? Or, basically new. How did you get into this KJVO bag? It's amazing!
The Byzantine manuscripts are all late...4th-5th centuries. If you go back into the Fathers, etc., when they quote from the Scriptures, it matches to the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ on that last comment. Take a look. That page is rife with quotes from Early Church Fathers that support many TR readings.

I don't agree that the TR is infallible but I believe all the demonstrated quoted verses to be genuine. And one of the most interesting texts to study for support of TR readings, which are also one of the earliest set of texts (earlier than most extant Greek copies) that we have are the Old Latin (Itala) manuscripts. These are unfortunately often over-looked. The site talks about those also.
 
First of all, there were no 'authors' of the NIV. There were about 125 well-respected TRANSLATORS, though......
Click to expand...

Well respected? Virginia Mollencott- a self professed lesbian? Martin Woudstra a homosexual? You call these well- respected? :roll: Maybe that's why you won't find the word "sodomite" in the NIV.

I have seen those boring charts of KJV vs NIV---WHO CARES , because the KJV is NOT a standard to compare anything to. You compare with the GREEK manuscripts; and your beloved KJV will come up short by adding to the Word of God. The newer versions have not omitted; the KJV has ADDED.
Click to expand...

The King James is the standard by which ALL versions are measured. Why do you think all this debate is about? Not the NIV vs the NASB or ASV. What other bible so vehemently attacked today, has withstood the test of time...over 350 years, my friend! The NIV doesn't compare itself to the RSV or the NASB nor does the NWT compare itself to the Amplified. They ALL are compared to the KJB. Ever thought about why all these bibles are copyrighted? They all have to be different from others so that the publishers can apply for that copyright... elsewise it's plagerism. The KJB has never been copyrighted (other than perhaps the maps)...not the text. You don't bind the Word of God with man's copyright laws. The KJB is THE standard by which ALL bibles are compared.

To reiterate a little, it's been noted that the NWT agrees with the NIV 14 out of 15 verses!! Don't know about you, but; that tells me something.
 
D46
Well respected? Virginia Mollencott- a self professed lesbian? Martin Woudstra a homosexual? You call these well- respected?
Click to expand...

I was gonna say the same thing. But I think the quiz alone can put things into better terms. I did not want to start in on the people who wrote it. LOL That's Steve's studying, not mine. I found that out like 7yrs ago. Elementary Bible stuff here. I bet Steve did not do the quiz, or even thought about taking it.. Some might read the Word and others actually Study the Word. Anyone who Studies the Word and is a good Bible Student can not or at least should not refute the truth here. But people like Steve will always try to tell, debate, and refute us, that we are wrong and they are right.
 
...just a short version of just what Westcott and HOrt believed in...

If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture?
This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.

What they said about............
The Scriptures:
I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly. (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p.vii).

Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible. (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration. (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2 Timothy 3:16 as, Every scripture inspired of God instead of All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (KJV).

The Deity of Christ:

He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him. (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ. (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.(Hort, Revelation, p.36).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38 And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him. which said, The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator. (thus calling Christ a creature.)

Salvation:

The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood. (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1 Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, (ASV).

Hell:
(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning. (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matt. 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.

Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Romanism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).
Westcott and Hort talked to Spirits of the dead.

-Enough said? They WERE spiritist and believed in the occult. In fact, they started the Ghostly Guild.

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/ghostly_guild.htm
 
I was gonna say the same thing. But I think the quiz alone can put things into better terms. I did not want to start in on the people who wrote it. LOL That's Steve's studying, not mine. I found that out like 7yrs ago. Elementary Bible stuff here. I bet Steve did not do the quiz, or even thought about taking it.. Some might read the Word and others actually Study the Word. Anyone who Studies the Word and is a good Bible Student can not or at least should not refute the truth here. But people like Steve will always try to tell, debate, and refute us, that we are wrong and they are right.
Click to expand...

All we should try to do is just bring to light the facts. It's always up to the individual to accept or reject-to turn away or to do research/study all their own. God is not the author of confusion and I believe this is a big tool of the devil to get debate going over the word of God. It worked in the beginning and it for sure is still working. The ultimate decision of what one believes lie in what they have heard and been taught. I pray for discernment regardless of what I've heard or have been taught. Truth is my only goal and when 2+2 equals 4, I can't deny the outcome. It's an interesting topic and one that needs to be approached with an open mind and heart-the one thing most will shut out. I understand everyone liking a particular bible...completely understandable. I've almost lost friends I've known since the first grade over this topic but, I will stand firm on my convictions and in the truth of historically documented evidence despite the undertoe.
 
Okay People I'm unlocking this thread. I had to clean up three pages of garbage. Please NO personal attacks, or this thread will be locked again. I went through this entire thread with a fine toothcomb. I know who the violators were, and I tell you this. I have my eye on this thread and certain people who were posting on this thread. I'm asking ALL of you to be cool on here. I'm trying to be nice by unlocking this thread, please don't take this as a weakness.. You'll be mistaken..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top