PDA

View Full Version : Bible Translations how to tell



CRJarvis
Mar 11th 2010, 05:55 AM
I make a lot of Videos on youtube, and I am thinking of making a new one on Bible Translations.

after seeing many videos by people saying that their bible is the One, and this other bible is not, because it does not have this scripture or has added a scripture and should not be used.

Now they show me in their bible that this scripture is in their bible and clearly is not in this other bible.
And this is why they will not use this other bible.

So my thoughts on this are Why did they not go back to the Hebrew or even the Greek text of the Book and show that its in the original Text and my Bible has it,
And this other one does not, or see their bible has it and the Original does not.

See if they do not look at the Hebrew and Greek text then how do they know that the scripture that is in their bible is not the one added?

If anyone has ideas on how I could go about this in a way not to get people fired up. But to open their eyes to the hypocrisy of it all.

Firefighter
Mar 11th 2010, 01:23 PM
There are thousands of manuscripts in the original languages and no two of them are the same. Every last one has (at least) minor discrepancies from one copy to the next. Until the original manuscripts are found, or the Lord returns, people are going to cling to one (theirs) being better than someone else's because it gives them something to feel superior about. I have (I think) somewhere around 29 Bibles. I have MANY different translations and I use them all.

Crosstalk
Mar 12th 2010, 03:57 AM
For study purposes and for purity of the text I tend to prefer the transliteral Bible versions more than the thought for thought translations. Especially when I'm doing a single word study.

RockSolid
Mar 12th 2010, 01:55 PM
No question about this. If you want Old Testament, get a Jewish Tanakh. Trust me, no one preserves the Old Testament like the Jews, it's their whole heritage. JPS makes a good Hebrew-English Tanakh. It's the same one that the Jews use in the Temple readings. It is from the oldest known Hebrew manuscripts, word-for-word. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (the only complete scroll) was practically identical to the JPS.
New Testament is a different story. There is no one version that is the best. I choose NIV, but many are suitable.

CaptainM
Mar 12th 2010, 02:09 PM
I make a lot of Videos on youtube, and I am thinking of making a new one on Bible Translations...If anyone has ideas on how I could go about this in a way not to get people fired up. But to open their eyes to the hypocrisy of it all.

Why do you want to do this? Like Urban Missionary said, people will not be satisfied until the originals are found or until Christ returns. Some won't be even satisfied then...
Don't get wrapped up in the pride of this. It's an off-ramp from the gospel. Just preach Jesus to them...

Firefighter
Mar 12th 2010, 02:09 PM
I really like the New Jerusalem Bible (original) for the NT, quickly followed by the NASB, NIV, and ESV.

Jemand
Mar 12th 2010, 06:28 PM
I make a lot of Videos on youtube, and I am thinking of making a new one on Bible Translations.

after seeing many videos by people saying that their bible is the One, and this other bible is not, because it does not have this scripture or has added a scripture and should not be used.

Now they show me in their bible that this scripture is in their bible and clearly is not in this other bible.
And this is why they will not use this other bible.

So my thoughts on this are Why did they not go back to the Hebrew or even the Greek text of the Book and show that its in the original Text and my Bible has it,
And this other one does not, or see their bible has it and the Original does not.

See if they do not look at the Hebrew and Greek text then how do they know that the scripture that is in their bible is not the one added?

If anyone has ideas on how I could go about this in a way not to get people fired up. But to open their eyes to the hypocrisy of it all.

The more than 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that are now known are commonly categorized as follows:

Alexandrian text type

Proto- Alexandrian text type
Alexandrian text type
Western text type

Caesarean text type

Byzantine text type

The New Testament of the King James Version was based upon the Byzantine text type, with some variations. Beginning with the publication of the New Testament of the Revised Version in 1881, the large majority of English translations of the New Testament have been based upon the Alexandrian text type, with some variations. The most important exception is the New Testament of the New King James Version, which was based upon the Byzantine text type, with some variations.

There are thousands of differences between the Byzantine text type and the Alexandrian text type, including the absence or presence of words, phrases, verses, and even a few larger units, resulting in the absence or presence of these words, phrases, verses, and larger units in the English translations. The very large majority of scholars of the text of the New Testament believe that the Alexandrian text type is closer to the wording of the original manuscripts (based upon massive amounts of data and a very carefully analysis of the data), but since these manuscripts have been lost, the matter cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Most unfortunately, superstition, pride, ignorance, and willful deception have had a very large role in the translation debate.


The variation between the ancient Hebrew manuscripts is far less significant, but in some places, even the very best Hebrew manuscripts show signs of corruption. Therefore, even the translators of the King James Version at times translated from ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament in languages other than Hebrew. The most significant causes of variation in the English translations of the Old Testament are the period and style of the English, the degree of literalness employed by the translators, whether it is translated from a Jewish perspective, a Christian perspective or a purely academic perspective, and the treatment of gender.

CRJarvis
Mar 13th 2010, 07:23 AM
Why do you want to do this? Like Urban Missionary said, people will not be satisfied until the originals are found or until Christ returns. Some won't be even satisfied then...
Don't get wrapped up in the pride of this. It's an off-ramp from the gospel. Just preach Jesus to them...

well i not sure i am wrapped up in Pride seeing i am looking for the truth of it.
Like Jesus Christ tells us to. like it said in the bible to (2 Timothy 2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
well i am not going to close my eyes as a blind man and walk in the dark.

i am going to do what Jesus, the Bible, and God tells me.

and now they are finding out that most of the NT was Originally wrote in Hebrew then translated in to the other languages.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2662031810327980639&ei=Vj6bS7iDC9SalAem2t3-DQ&q=the+hebrew+yeshua+vs.+the+greek+jesus&hl=en#

Jemand
Mar 13th 2010, 06:29 PM
well i not sure i am wrapped up in Pride seeing i am looking for the truth of it.
Like Jesus Christ tells us to. like it said in the bible to (2 Timothy 2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
well i am not going to close my eyes as a blind man and walk in the dark.

i am going to do what Jesus, the Bible, and God tells me.

and now they are finding out that most of the NT was Originally wrote in Hebrew then translated in to the other languages.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2662031810327980639&ei=Vj6bS7iDC9SalAem2t3-DQ&q=the+hebrew+yeshua+vs.+the+greek+jesus&hl=en#

“Jesus, the Bible, and God” have told many people to do crazy and outright sinful and destructive things. The problem is that the people did not know the Bible well enough to understand it. Consequently, they were deceived by the powers of darkness and mistook the voice of the enemy for the voice of God. Please be careful lest you become one of those many people. God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit together constitute the Trinity. The phrase, “Jesus, the Bible, and God,” grammatically distinguishes between Jesus and God, making Jesus to be someone other than God.

BadDog
Mar 13th 2010, 07:16 PM
CRJarvis,

It's not that simple. Translation also depends upon translation philosophy, and there are different Greek and Hebrew text families followed. Perhaps you should research the issue before posting on youtube. I've spent several years on this, and feel like I still have a lot to learn.

BD

Athanasius
Mar 13th 2010, 08:39 PM
There are thousands of manuscripts in the original languages and no two of them are the same. Every last one has (at least) minor discrepancies from one copy to the next. Until the original manuscripts are found, or the Lord returns, people are going to cling to one (theirs) being better than someone else's because it gives them something to feel superior about. I have (I think) somewhere around 29 Bibles. I have MANY different translations and I use them all.

To add to this, over 400,000 textual variations, though almost all fo them are minor.

CRJarvis
Mar 14th 2010, 04:34 AM
“Jesus, the Bible, and God” have told many people to do crazy and outright sinful and destructive things. The problem is that the people did not know the Bible well enough to understand it. Consequently, they were deceived by the powers of darkness and mistook the voice of the enemy for the voice of God. Please be careful lest you become one of those many people. God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit together constitute the Trinity. The phrase, “Jesus, the Bible, and God,” grammatically distinguishes between Jesus and God, making Jesus to be someone other than God.

Are you saying that because i write Jesus, the bible, and God that is does not support this Trinity of Jesus being God?
and by someone writting "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" in this way it destorys the Trinity?

if my writting of "Jesus the bible and God" make Jesus other than One with God. you really need to talk to all of the people that wrote the New Testament and Not me.
seeing they have wrote it like below;

"And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
"but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
"God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ,"
"from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father"
"Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man"
"Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people"
"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God"
"the only true God, and Jesus Christ"
"the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"
"Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
"from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"But to us there is but one God" "and one Lord Jesus Christ"
"no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:"
"The God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
"by Jesus Christ, and God the Father"
"from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."
"God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ"
"the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord"
"every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God"

CRJarvis
Mar 16th 2010, 02:20 AM
what is the oldest english bible?
Wycliffe Bible (1395)

BadDog
Mar 16th 2010, 07:52 PM
what is the oldest english bible?
Wycliffe Bible (1395)

Yes, though I've also seen 1384,5 as dates. I guess they're not really sure. But it was a translation from the Latin, not the original languages (Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic). So then, what was the first translation of the Greek NT into English?

Tyndale's - 1526 (I think). The KJV is essentially just a revision of Tyndale's work, as it says in the preface.

Take care,

BD

Jemand
Mar 18th 2010, 05:35 PM
Wycliffe died in 1384. It is generally believed that he completed his translation of the New Testament in 1380 and the Old Testament in 1382, probably with the help of Nicholas Hereford.

subarctic_guy
Apr 1st 2010, 11:36 AM
As you probably know, classic christianity holds that it was the original texts that were inspired. the translations are just that, a translation of an inspired text, that is why doctrine is based on the original text, and not on translations which are fallible. I recommend you check out the article "Is the New Testament Text Reliable?" at stand to reason's website (just type the title into the search box). It explains how we can be certain that we have 99.99% of the original inspired text, and how the remaining ambiguous parts are things like the spelling of a name, and other things with absolutely no doctrinal impact. good luck ;) pm me if you have any ?s

thedee
Apr 1st 2010, 01:59 PM
I make a lot of Videos on youtube, and I am thinking of making a new one on Bible Translations.

after seeing many videos by people saying that their bible is the One, and this other bible is not, because it does not have this scripture or has added a scripture and should not be used.

Now they show me in their bible that this scripture is in their bible and clearly is not in this other bible.
And this is why they will not use this other bible.

So my thoughts on this are Why did they not go back to the Hebrew or even the Greek text of the Book and show that its in the original Text and my Bible has it,
And this other one does not, or see their bible has it and the Original does not.

See if they do not look at the Hebrew and Greek text then how do they know that the scripture that is in their bible is not the one added?

If anyone has ideas on how I could go about this in a way not to get people fired up. But to open their eyes to the hypocrisy of it all.

I have read a number of books on this issue. I think this topic can be more of a distraction than anything. There are some bad translations out there. We are without excuse today due to the resources we have. I personally use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, and Darby.

The problem today is not what bible version you are using, the problem is that a majority of the people don't even read the bible.

BroRog
Apr 1st 2010, 06:01 PM
I make a lot of Videos on youtube, and I am thinking of making a new one on Bible Translations.

after seeing many videos by people saying that their bible is the One, and this other bible is not, because it does not have this scripture or has added a scripture and should not be used.

Now they show me in their bible that this scripture is in their bible and clearly is not in this other bible.
And this is why they will not use this other bible.

So my thoughts on this are Why did they not go back to the Hebrew or even the Greek text of the Book and show that its in the original Text and my Bible has it,
And this other one does not, or see their bible has it and the Original does not.

See if they do not look at the Hebrew and Greek text then how do they know that the scripture that is in their bible is not the one added?

If anyone has ideas on how I could go about this in a way not to get people fired up. But to open their eyes to the hypocrisy of it all.If I was doing a teaching video on the subject, I would talk about the goals and methods of translation. I would show the difference between an interlinear translation, a literal translation such as Young's, a paraphrase, an explanitory translation such as the Amplifed version, a more or less word for word translation such as the KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV and a dynamic translation such as the NIV.

I would explain that each translation has different goals, which sometimes conflict. For instance, a paraphrase such as the Living Bible seeks to make the ideas and concepts easy to read, and hopefully easier to understand. An interlinear, on the other hand, seeks to help the Bible Student gain access to the original language in a way that a paraphrase can not do. There are benefits to each approach and there are pitfalls too. Such a video, or series of videos would be able to describe the advantages and the pitfalls and allow those who watch, make an informed decision themselves.

Many of the debates over the KJV are based on misunderstandings of the theories of written language, how it communicates to us, and what we ought to expect from a written document. Christians would be well served if someone could explain the difference between style and substance in this issue. Some of us have come to love the sound of the King James to our ears, and often times our preference for the KJV has more to do with the association we have made between holiness and King James English, even to the point that we find ourselves praying in King James English. A video on the subject would point out, however, that some of the words spoken long ago have the exact opposite meaning today, which is why new translations needed to be made. Even the KJV Bible has undergone revision over the years, seeking to correct these problems.

Christians should be made aware that the meaning behind the scriptures remains the same, but that language itself is fluid and changes over time.

subarctic_guy
Apr 2nd 2010, 12:58 AM
Perhaps mention the difference between a translation and a version.