King James Vs NAB Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter peeteyg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
Quoting someone and ignoring all contrary evidence doesn’t make you right.
Click to expand...
Howdy Farsight. I just quoted it interestingly enough cause that is one of the sights I was kindly given here as part of examining “evidence”. I don’t interpet that quote as an “onlyist” comment.
 
Justice_Mercy said:
The KJV certainly has literary qualities to it - it was made to be read aloud publicly. I appreciate the KJV, but it is equally true the need for revision and refinement in translation has led to the RSV, ESV and others.Having a legacy of literary appeal does not equal translation accuracy.
Click to expand...
Hi JM. Just when I am about to agree with you I can’t . It is a bit of a slam on KJV. I would rather say it was the best word for word translation AND beautiful literary qualities ,both for reading AND public transmision,as any good bible/good news should be, at the time. The KJV itself has been revised, and I might agree that RSV, etc. continue in that vein.
 
Tony_the_mad said:
Trying to find the absolute best translation of the Bible is like “straining gnats but swallowing a camel”. Protestants need a word for word translation (straining gnats) because they have already swallowed the camel of ‘the only authority is scripture’. The Word of God is not so fragile that it is only preserved in the absolute ‘best’ translations.

My advise is pick a Bible translated by someone you trust and read. Don’t try to read too much into exactly what this or that word means; it only leads to heartbreak and heresy.

Lest you think I am being overly callous, consider how the authors of the New Testament quoted scripture. The writers of the New Testament were continually quoting scriptures but the words they quoted are almost never if ever a word for word translation of the Old Testament into Greek. When they were word for word they were word for word with the Septuagint, which is a Hebrew to Greek translation that if I recall correctly was not that great of a translation. Often though their quotations were more of a paraphrase or ‘thought for thought’ if you will of the Septuagint.

Also, consider the fact that much of the New Testament is written with poor Greek grammar. Some Greek speaking Romans had a hard time accepting the New Testament because the grammar was so poor in places. What is the best way to translate a run-on sentence where it is not clear exactly what it means. Should the translators deliberately fix the grammar in the process of translation or should the deliberately write it in bad English?

To me the idea that a typical person can benefit more from a more ‘accurate’ translation is silly. I am a physicist by training and by profession. To me, expecting a non-expert to gain any meaning from a word to word translation versus a thought for thought process is like trying to teach a person physics by explaining every single caveat of every single law rather than starting from the basics and then adding the caveats later one by one. Any non-expert who thinks that they can truly benefit from a word to word translation is like the person who sees a Nova special and by cobbling together a number of equations think they have solved the mystery of space-time. It is an illusion and arrogance on a stick. Worse, arrogance with the Bible can lead to many heresies.

So relax and don’t fret too much about getting the absolute best translation. Don’t try to force the Bible to be something it was never intended to be; not as a history book, nor as prophesies for the future, nor as an instruction manual for all of Christian theology and practice. It contains some of all of these, but none of these are the main purpose which was to guide and inspire.
Click to expand...
Thank-you .Am short on time but when dealing in laws of physics are they thought for thought or word for word /equations ? Are we dealing in theories , seeing thru a glass darkly (St. Paul) ,or can we indeed know all things , by the unction of the Holy One as ST. John says ? But intersting points you bring up.thanks again-deserves more thought on my part.
 
Tony_the_mad said:
Trying to find the absolute best translation of the Bible is like “straining gnats but swallowing a camel”. Protestants need a word for word translation (straining gnats) because they have already swallowed the camel of ‘the only authority is scripture’. The Word of God is not so fragile that it is only preserved in the absolute ‘best’ translations.

My advise is pick a Bible translated by someone you trust and read. Don’t try to read too much into exactly what this or that word means; it only leads to heartbreak and heresy.

Lest you think I am being overly callous, consider how the authors of the New Testament quoted scripture. The writers of the New Testament were continually quoting scriptures but the words they quoted are almost never if ever a word for word translation of the Old Testament into Greek. When they were word for word they were word for word with the Septuagint, which is a Hebrew to Greek translation that if I recall correctly was not that great of a translation. Often though their quotations were more of a paraphrase or ‘thought for thought’ if you will of the Septuagint.

Also, consider the fact that much of the New Testament is written with poor Greek grammar. Some Greek speaking Romans had a hard time accepting the New Testament because the grammar was so poor in places. What is the best way to translate a run-on sentence where it is not clear exactly what it means. Should the translators deliberately fix the grammar in the process of translation or should the deliberately write it in bad English?

To me the idea that a typical person can benefit more from a more ‘accurate’ translation is silly. I am a physicist by training and by profession. To me, expecting a non-expert to gain any meaning from a word to word translation versus a thought for thought process is like trying to teach a person physics by explaining every single caveat of every single law rather than starting from the basics and then adding the caveats later one by one. Any non-expert who thinks that they can truly benefit from a word to word translation is like the person who sees a Nova special and by cobbling together a number of equations think they have solved the mystery of space-time. It is an illusion and arrogance on a stick. Worse, arrogance with the Bible can lead to many heresies.

So relax and don’t fret too much about getting the absolute best translation. Don’t try to force the Bible to be something it was never intended to be; not as a history book, nor as prophesies for the future, nor as an instruction manual for all of Christian theology and practice. It contains some of all of these, but none of these are the main purpose which was to guide and inspire.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the wording is completely unimportant, simply because it’s not true for any translations. If I wanted to translate this post into Spanish, it would be very easy for me to manipulate the outcome of a debate or lead people to believe a certain viewpoint simply by changing a few words here and there.

Se relaxan y no se preoccupes de su translaccion Biblica. No se tratan hacer la Biblia a ser algo que no es – un guia de historia, un libro de prophecia, o un libro de teologia y practica cristano.

Relax dudes, don’t worry about your Bible translation. Don’t try to make it what it isn’t – a history guide, a book of prophecy, or a book on theology or christian practices.

See what I mean – a poor translation of what you actually said makes what you said into something you never said. And unless someone can read the original languages (which in the US is a VERY small population) it’s easy enough for someone with an agenda to “retranslate” a section of scriptures to allow for homosexuality, or allow abortions, or change the meaning of Matt 18’s “Give you the Keys of Heaven” verses. “let you unlock heaven’s padlock” is not the same thing. Whether or not KJV is THE version is besides the point – the point is that it’s a decent guard against bad translations and agendas sneaking in under the guise of readable Bibles.
 
septimine said:
I disagree that the wording is completely unimportant, simply because it’s not true for any translations. If I wanted to translate this post into Spanish, it would be very easy for me to manipulate the outcome of a debate or lead people to believe a certain viewpoint simply by changing a few words here and there.

Se relaxan y no se preoccupes de su translaccion Biblica. No se tratan hacer la Biblia a ser algo que no es – un guia de historia, un libro de prophecia, o un libro de teologia y practica cristano.

Relax dudes, don’t worry about your Bible translation. Don’t try to make it what it isn’t – a history guide, a book of prophecy, or a book on theology or christian practices.

See what I mean – a poor translation of what you actually said makes what you said into something you never said. And unless someone can read the original languages (which in the US is a VERY small population) it’s easy enough for someone with an agenda to “retranslate” a section of scriptures to allow for homosexuality, or allow abortions, or change the meaning of Matt 18’s “Give you the Keys of Heaven” verses. “let you unlock heaven’s padlock” is not the same thing. Whether or not KJV is THE version is besides the point – the point is that it’s a decent guard against bad translations and agendas sneaking in under the guise of readable Bibles.
Click to expand...
Not a problem…I also write and read in Spanish…😉
 
david_ruiz said:
Hi JM. Just when I am about to agree with you I can’t . It is a bit of a slam on KJV. I would rather say it was the best word for word translation AND beautiful literary qualities ,both for reading AND public transmision,as any good bible/good news should be, at the time. The KJV itself has been revised, and I might agree that RSV, etc. continue in that vein.
Click to expand...
As I said before: for the time the KJV was translated (the 17th century), yes, it was the best English translation available. That is fact. In light of increasing knowledge of the languages of the manuscripts and other factors i have spoken about, it is not the best English translation available in the 21st century. That is also just plain fact,

If that offends you, I am sorry. I cannot alter objective facts.
 
Justice_Mercy said:
As I said before: for the time the KJV was translated (the 17th century), yes, it was the best English translation available. That is fact. In light of increasing knowledge of the languages of the manuscripts and other factors i have spoken about, it is not the best English translation available in the 21st century. That is also just plain fact,

If that offends you, I am sorry. I cannot alter objective facts.
Click to expand...
Not offended.Thank-you.
 
septimine said:
Se relaxan y no se preoccupes de su translaccion Biblica. No se tratan hacer la Biblia a ser algo que no es – un guia de historia, un libro de prophecia, o un libro de teologia y practica cristano.
Click to expand...
Relájanse y no se preocupen de su traducción Bíblica. No hagan de la Biblia algo que no es – una guía histórica, un libro de profecías, o un libro the teologia y práctica Cristiana.

Sorry but my Spanish sensors were tingling… really bad :D;)
 
Tony_the_mad said:
Trying to find the absolute best translation of the Bible is like “straining gnats but swallowing a camel”. Protestants need a word for word translation (straining gnats) because they have already swallowed the camel of ‘the only authority is scripture’. The Word of God is not so fragile that it is only preserved in the absolute ‘best’ translations.

My advise is pick a Bible translated by someone you trust and read. Don’t try to read too much into exactly what this or that word means; it only leads to heartbreak and heresy.

…
Click to expand...
I agree with Tony. The quest for the perfect translation is a snare and a delusion. Find a good translation you like and enjoy reading.

Personally, I am fond of the RSV/NRSV/ESV family of translations, and would be happy enough with any of them, though I also own and use a good many others. They’re available in editions to suit Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and that’s an ecumenical bonus.
 
Izdaari said:
I agree with Tony. The quest for the perfect translation is a snare and a delusion. Find a good translation you like and enjoy reading.

Personally, I am fond of the RSV/NRSV/ESV family of translations, and would be happy enough with any of them, though I also own and use a good many others. They’re available in editions to suit Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and that’s an ecumenical bonus.
Click to expand...
I am a fan of that line, too, for many of the reasons you have stated. They seem to be widely accepted and a good meeting ground to discuss holy scripture. 🙂
 
Any translation is the translator’s (or translators’) opinion(s) about the meaning of the text.
 
david_ruiz said:
Well i watched the video .Mr white is a better debater ,and he had some good points Still I would not make a hasty decsion based on a better debater .At best I would walk away thinking the KJV has 3 minor “flaws” and should not go around saying it is perfect .However from the debate would not guess which translation is better ,if any .Mr White sure put down a few translations but was happy only to debunk KJV as “king of the mountain " but would not say which is best .Not sure i agree with Mr Whites assertion that early church worried more about” getting the word out" than accuracy , suggesting that is how God worked .This is certainly not how God worked a century earlier before the church age ,where accuracy was paramount in manuscript writing in Old Testament tradition.Yes there were variations ,but what97 % agreed . Perhaps this is so no man would boast ,and needful of reliance of the Holy Ghost and so no man would say I am of Peter or Paul ,or of this translation or that,or of this tradition or that ,or of this church or that, for it is God who saves .Yet we are thankful for apostles and good translations,traditions and churches.
Click to expand...
in the early church days 97% of christians believed in what is now the Catholic Church. If you study extensively the beliefs of the early christians you’ll see how much it resembles what Catholics believe. And how alien it looks to most protestant beliefs.
 
David,

I have looked extensively into the issue of translations… while I am no textual critic, I do believer that every translation is exactly that: an attempt in some way to bring the meaning of the original languages it is being translated from into the language that it being translated to. As you know, there is difficulty doing that between ANY two languages. Add in cultural factors, idioms of speech, and a host of other things, the translators have to make certain choices. Most are a balance between thought-for-thought and word literalism.

I have taken several languages in college. One of them was Biblical Hebrew. While I have probably forgotten more than I rememebr, I do remember that ancient Hebrew is a terse and very barebones language … much of the meanings are implied ones as they are literal (you need to look at the context, etc). There is no way I could 100% translate a Hebrew sentence into an English one word for word. It just cannot be done. SO, what we did was read what the Hebrew said and with our knowledge, we would write up a sentence in English that brought out the thoughts of the Hebrew.

All that being said, as far as Bible translations go, every one of them has certain strengths and weaknesses based on how the translators try to get across the literal words vs thoughts of the authors. It is a balance. Some translations do this better than others. The KJV translators did the best they could in those days. I admit that. It is a decent, if not archaic, English translation, but it is not without its faults (as I have said before).

However, many that hold the KJV as THE BEST translation use historical revisionism (like covering up James’ homosexuality or the fact that Erasmus was a Subordinationist, etc), ad hominem attacks on modern translators, anti-intellectual arguments (especially against textual criticism) and a host of other complex arguments that have no basis in fact to make the KJV look the best and brightest in people’s eyes.

If you like the KJV, then use it… but I recommend that you continually compare it to translations like the RSV, ESV, NASB and even thought-for-thought leaning translations like the NLT, etc. Why do I say this? Because then you will see where the KJV shines and where it is dull.

Do not hold a version of the Bible above the true author of the Bible: God Almighty!

God has used many translation to have his Word spread among the world.

There are many books out there on the KJV Controversy. There are many unbiased books on the history of the KJV Bible. Get those and read them. I have! That is why I have a broad view of this controversy.

When I was growing up, I memorized my Bible verses from the KJV… I still find it to have fond memories for me. I do not hate it. I just know it is not the only, pure Bible out there. If I talk to others that have no idea who Christ is, I always speak in plain English to them, by translating the verses I have memorized in KJV English to common English on the fly. So, in that sense, I am a translator LOL. 😉

If you visit pro-KJV Only or KJV-Preferred sights, you will get all of the conspiracy theories against other translations and none of the objective evidence for and against the KJV or any other translation.

Most KJV supporters are very Fundamentalist. If that’s your bag, then the KJV is the only Bible for you! However, if you are a thinking person, then you may prefer to use the KJV presently or maybe even for the rest of your life, but you will be open to the advantages of reading other translations, too. With effort, you will find the ones that speak the Word of God PLAINLY to you.


http://kjvonlydebate.com/

kjv-only.com/

In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture :


http://www.amazon.com/In-Beginning-Changed-Language-Culture/dp/0385722168/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337647326&sr=1-1

God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible:

amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337647326&sr=1-2

King James Only Controversy
[

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-On...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337647461&sr=1-1](http://www.amazon.com/King-James-On...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337647461&sr=1-1)

I may post more later.
peace
 
SaintPatrick333 said:
in the early church days 97% of christians believed in what is now the Catholic Church. If you study extensively the beliefs of the early christians you’ll see how much it resembles what Catholics believe. And how alien it looks to most protestant beliefs.
Click to expand...
How can I argue with a St. Patrick, but may I humbly say the term catholic is appropriate for the early church .I have read some early church fathers, up to 130 A.D. and St. Augustine’s " Confessions". So, a century into the church shows, to me, that it was quite universal by today’s standards. That is , a Christian of any denomination , including Catholics ,would be blessed and feel at home with such saintly writings. A key word you state is beliefs, of the early church, for certainly it’s practices would not resemble today’s Catholicism as far as baptism, confession, even confirmation, communion, priesthood, head bishop (pope). But it’s beliefs were universal and laid groundwork for future “practices”. I have not read much further past 130 A.D. and for sure CC practices began to evolve , as witnessed by writings of the period. I am sorry we are at odds over this ,but if we disagree on scriptural foundation on differences, we will most certainly disagree on any historical data /writings also. I understand the CC teaches she is One ,Apostolic , Holy and Universal etc and has been from day 1 at Pentecost, and that all her practices have biblical and apostolic foundations.
 
Justice_Mercy said:
David,
I have looked extensively into the issue of translations… while I am no textual critic, I do believer that every translation is exactly that: an attempt in some way to bring the meaning of the original languages it is being translated from into the language that it being translated to. As you know, there is difficulty doing that between ANY two languages. Add in cultural factors, idioms of speech, and a host of other things, the translators have to make certain choices. Most are a balance between thought-for-thought and word literalism.
I have taken several languages in college. One of them was Biblical Hebrew. While I have probably forgotten more than I rememebr, I do remember that ancient Hebrew is a terse and very barebones language … much of the meanings are implied ones as they are literal (you need to look at the context, etc). There is no way I could 100% translate a Hebrew sentence into an English one word for word. It just cannot be done. SO, what we did was read what the Hebrew said and with our knowledge, we would write up a sentence in English that brought out the thoughts of the Hebrew.

All that being said, as far as Bible translations go, every one of them has certain strengths and weaknesses based on how the translators try to get across the literal words vs thoughts of the authors. It is a balance. Some translations do this better than others. The KJV translators did the best they could in those days. I admit that. It is a decent, if not archaic, English translation, but it is not without its faults (as I have said before).

However, many that hold the KJV as THE BEST translation use historical revisionism (like covering up James’ homosexuality or the fact that Erasmus was a Subordinationist, etc), ad hominem attacks on modern translators, anti-intellectual arguments (especially against textual criticism) and a host of other complex arguments that have no basis in fact to make the KJV look the best and brightest in people’s eyes.

If you like the KJV, then use it… but I recommend that you continually compare it to translations like the RSV, ESV, NASB and even thought-for-thought leaning translations like the NLT, etc. Why do I say this? Because then you will see where the KJV shines and where it is dull.
Do not hold a version of the Bible above the true author of the Bible: God Almighty!
God has used many translation to have his Word spread among the world.
There are many books out there on the KJV Controversy. There are many unbiased books on the history of the KJV Bible. Get those and read them. I have! That is why I have a broad view of this controversy.
When I was growing up, I memorized my Bible verses from the KJV… I still find it to have fond memories for me. I do not hate it. I just know it is not the only, pure Bible out there. If I talk to others that have no idea who Christ is, I always speak in plain English to them, by translating the verses I have memorized in KJV English to common English on the fly. So, in that sense, I am a translator LOL. 😉
If you visit pro-KJV Only or KJV-Preferred sights, you will get all of the conspiracy theories against other translations and none of the objective evidence for and against the KJV or any other translation.
Most KJV supporters are very Fundamentalist. If that’s your bag, then the KJV is the only Bible for you! However, if you are a thinking person, then you may prefer to use the KJV presently or maybe even for the rest of your life, but you will be open to the advantages of reading other translations, too. With effort, you will find the ones that speak the Word of God PLAINLY to you.

I may post more later.
peace
Click to expand...
Thank-you .The only thing I can add , that perhaps you may have implied, is that of subjectivity in translating. It is more than thought for thought balancing with word for word. Indeed choices are made, and intellect has a heart for understanding. What is spirit, from which to discern with ? Certainly there is a basis for this “fact”, apart from “conspiracy”. I did read one site written in 1880’s , facing some of the translation errors of KJV , wishing to correct them, ,but because of this “problem”, division of “thoughts” on just what is correct context coming fro foundational beliefs, saw it as a pandoras box. The author I feel was quite prophetic, for a slew of translations have come out, and will continue to.
Again, many would like to see some of these errors corrected (KJV), but I don’t see it with the Hort or Nestle Greek texts cause they introduce new problems with discerning of not adding many verses etc .The fact is there is a controversy because indeed there is ammunition on both sides. Why does the TR and MT and Byzantine and Alexandrian texts have these variations ? If I have heard some say the Byzantine stuff is corrupted , I have heard others say the Alexandrian ones are. If some say one is older/better, others say one is more numerous/better…Again, where one sits is where one usually stands on a matter. .If one is birthed /nurtured in a certain environment, they probably will remain here. I would add that my environment was “fundamental” , with a liking to KJV ,though able to read any translation. That is, this was not top down dogmatism ,but with a healthy respect for individual conscience before God on the matter. He is a discerner of ALL things , and desires us to be one with Him on the matter. That is ,we are not alone in this good, holy quest for proper transmission of His word.
 
david_ruiz said:
Thank-you .The only thing I can add , that perhaps you may have implied, is that of subjectivity in translating. It is more than thought for thought balancing with word for word. Indeed choices are made, and intellect has a heart for understanding. What is spirit, from which to discern with ? Certainly there is a basis for this “fact”, apart from “conspiracy”. I did read one site written in 1880’s , facing some of the translation errors of KJV , wishing to correct them, ,but because of this “problem”, division of “thoughts” on just what is correct context coming fro foundational beliefs, saw it as a pandoras box. The author I feel was quite prophetic, for a slew of translations have come out, and will continue to.
Again, many would like to see some of these errors corrected (KJV), but I don’t see it with the Hort or Nestle Greek texts cause they introduce new problems with discerning of not adding many verses etc .The fact is there is a controversy because indeed there is ammunition on both sides. Why does the TR and MT and Byzantine and Alexandrian texts have these variations ? If I have heard some say the Byzantine stuff is corrupted , I have heard others say the Alexandrian ones are. If some say one is older/better, others say one is more numerous/better…Again, where one sits is where one usually stands on a matter. .If one is birthed /nurtured in a certain environment, they probably will remain here. I would add that my environment was “fundamental” , with a liking to KJV ,though able to read any translation. That is, this was not top down dogmatism ,but with a healthy respect for individual conscience before God on the matter. He is a discerner of ALL things , and desires us to be one with Him on the matter. That is ,we are not alone in this good, holy quest for proper transmission of His word.
Click to expand...
One thing I do know for sure is this:
Our holy God speaks to me and to everyone that believes through sacred scripture by the illumination of the Spirit 🙂

I am thankful for the Bible, whether it is a KJV or other translation. I just hate to see this issue as so divisive among people. I know there are some really horrid modern translations. If I only had a KJV Bible, I know I would still have the gospel in my hands. 🙂
 
Justice_Mercy said:
One thing I do know for sure is this:
Our holy God speaks to me and to everyone that believes through sacred scripture by the illumination of the Spirit 🙂

I am thankful for the Bible, whether it is a KJV or other translation. I just hate to see this issue as so divisive among people. I know there are some really horrid modern translations. If I only had a KJV Bible, I know I would still have the gospel in my hands. 🙂
Click to expand...
Amen…for now…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top