PDA

View Full Version : NIV vs KJV?



EaglezEye
Apr 6th 2010, 02:15 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.

Slug1
Apr 6th 2010, 02:20 PM
The Bible is the inspired Word of God... it is living, just as our Savior is Living!!!

Jesus will speak to you through any version you are led to read. I have owned the NIV, NKJV, KJV, HCSB, and ESV and when the Lord wants to speak and answer, minister and even HEAL... it don't matter the version, age, translation, hardcover, softcover... it's all in how the reader allows the Holy Spirit to "illuminate" the meaning to you and allow Jesus to do His work.

NIV is much easier to read due to the more common language. The KJV is harder to read due to the not so common old English language. Both, the Lord will work through in power.

tango
Apr 6th 2010, 02:30 PM
It's more important that you're reading the Bible than what translation you're reading. So on that basis alone the NIV is just fine.

What you'll find is that some translations are very formal (like the KJV), and others use much more colloquial language (e.g. the NLT, New Living Translation). Then there is The Message, which is an interpretation rather than a translation.

Trying to study in depth using a more colloquial translation or interpretation is less likely to yield good results than something more formal. The Message makes no pretense of even being a translation so although you may be able to relate one passage to another to see common themes throughout it, it's not going to withstand detailed scrutiny.

What I'd recommend you do is download yourself a copy of e-sword (www.e-sword.net) - you can download it for free and then make a donation if you so choose (and it's a genuine choice whether to donate or not). Then you can download a few Bibles (many of which are also free) and compare them side by side. That way you can see what different translations say literally side by side without having several physical Bibles to page through.

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 6th 2010, 02:41 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.

I think whatever works for you and is an accurate translation would be the best translation. I personally like the ESV because of its readability and accuracy, you might like to check it out too.

I guess you already know this but if you don't there are basically 2 kinds of translations, dynamic and literal.

Dynamic - translates thought for thought. Downside is the translator translates according to what he thinks the passage means or is saying and introduces his theological bents to the translated text.

Literal - still suffers from introducing theological bents but tries to keep true to the literal wordings used in the original manuscripts. Because one Greek/Hebrew word can have a variety of meanings, sometimes a best guess still needs to be made based on the grammar and context of (which is up to interpretation) of the surrounding passages.

ESV, NASB and KJV are literal. NIV is dynamic. If you want it for study, a literal version would be recommended.

-SEEKING-
Apr 6th 2010, 03:02 PM
I have about 10 different translations. They all, at the core, have the same message. I like reading all of them because it helps me study better.

moonglow
Apr 6th 2010, 03:04 PM
I have a number of bibles in different translations...the one I read the most is the New Living Translation though I was raised with the KJV too..while the beauty of the old english is lovely with certain scriptures...when it comes to actually studying it, I just can't understand it. Online I use biblegateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which gives a person a choice of many different translations and I tend to use the New King James Version the most. Its very similar to the KJV but uses more modern English so is easier to understand..at least for me. As others have said what is important is you read one you can understand and the fact you are reading it. I would make on suggestion...since you said you backslid and are just now coming back to the faith that you start with the Gospels rather then the OT. You need to reconnect with Jesus first and foremost. :)

God bless

EaglezEye
Apr 6th 2010, 03:05 PM
Thanks so much for the replies.

Slug1 - I fully believe it what your thread. God has been speaking to me in so many ways lately and has changed my life so much for the better I just want to scream it to everyone. Thanks.
Tango - I'm going to give that download a try. Thanks for sharing that link.
ThyWordIsTruth - I didn't know the exact differences. Thanks so much for clarifying.
Moonglow - You hit the nail on the head. I stopped reading the OT because I found it way to powerfull for a fresh start. I watched the 'Passion of the Christ' just recently and realized I needed to start elsewhere in the bible and come back to the OT later. Thanks

Slug1
Apr 6th 2010, 03:09 PM
Thanks so much to all three replies.

Slug1 - I fully believe it what your thread. God has been speaking to me in so many ways lately and has changed my life so much for the better I just want to scream it to everyone. Thanks.
Amen... just don't get caught in studying to know about God. Let the Bible speak to you as the Holy Spirit does His ministering by placing God's meaning into your spirit and go past just knowing "about" God... simply, Know God!

The Mighty Sword
Apr 6th 2010, 03:36 PM
I didn't always think this way, but the NIV is great for a new Christian because there are some changing of scripture in the NIV as opposed to the KJV, but for the most part it is a good beginner bible, then we you're ready to sink your teeth into some meat switch to the KJV, that's just my simple opinion.

Jemand
Apr 6th 2010, 05:23 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.

I am blessed to learn that you have rededicated your life to Christ! The pleasures of the world can seem to be desirable for a time, but nothing at all compares with the joy and feeling of fulfillment found only in a life dedicated to Christ.

In my home library, I have about 55 English translations of the Bible. For studying the Bible in English, I use mostly the following translations,

Revised Version
American Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
New American Standard Version
Updated New American Standard Version
New King James Version
New Jerusalem Bible
New American Bible
New English Bible
Revised English Bible

I own many copies of the KJV in text, reference, and study Bible editions, but I do not use the KJV for Bible study because it does not reflect the past 400 years of Biblical scholarship. I own several copies of the NIV in text, reference, and study Bible editions, but I do not use the NIV because it is far too paraphrastic and the editors have an overactive imagination.

The very important thing, however, is that you very carefully and prayerfully read the Bible, and that that you pray earnestly everyday to God for Him to teach you His truths and to protect you from error. May God bless you in your reading of the Bible.

Firefighter
Apr 6th 2010, 05:57 PM
In my home library, I have about 55 English translations of the Bible.

Assuming you are not including electronic copies, WOW! I finally found someone that has more Bibles than me!!! It is nice to know that there is another Scripture bibliophile out there...

Ryan R
Apr 6th 2010, 06:18 PM
It doesn't make any difference which one you read, as long as you understand that neither version is the original language then you're fine. The most important part is that you read it and understand it, so if the KJV is an obstacle to that then go with the NIV. If you find that you need to do comparisons, then you could get yourself a KJV after that, but you might not find much need for it.

I am curious as to how the "Passion of the Christ" inspired that response, if you don't mind elaborating.

Reynolds357
Apr 6th 2010, 08:19 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.

My OPINION. I do not like NIV at all. There are many modern translations I do like, but NIV is not one of them. I have some major problems with a couple of members of the translation staff, and there are text and omitted text in the NIV that I do not agree with. That is just my OPINION.

Reynolds357
Apr 6th 2010, 08:21 PM
Assuming you are not including electronic copies, WOW! I finally found someone that has more Bibles than me!!! It is nice to know that there is another Scripture bibliophile out there...

Yeah, 55 is a lot. I have no need for that many versions in book form because I study from the computer 99% of the time. I probably have 10 different versions at most.

holyrokker
Apr 6th 2010, 09:10 PM
I recommend neither the NIV nor the KJV.

I recommend the ESV.

The Mighty Sword
Apr 6th 2010, 09:13 PM
I recommend neither the NIV nor the KJV.

I recommend the ESV.

Instead of the KJV try the RJV.

Ta-An
Apr 6th 2010, 09:21 PM
I find more difficult translations to be better for me, because then I concentrate on what I read, and make sure I understand what I read by comparing that to easier translations.

For example, the OT I'll take the Hebrew, and do a word study on the words, and then compare that to easier translations.... but that is time consuming, yet very fulfilling :)

Firefighter
Apr 6th 2010, 09:48 PM
My OPINION. I do not like NIV at all. There are many modern translations I do like, but NIV is not one of them. I have some major problems with a couple of members of the translation staff, and there are text and omitted text in the NIV that I do not agree with. That is just my OPINION.

NIV Hater!!! :lol:

EaglezEye
Apr 6th 2010, 11:11 PM
I recommend neither the NIV nor the KJV.

I recommend the ESV.

Maybe I missed it above but what is ESV? and why do you recommend it?

Nomad
Apr 6th 2010, 11:23 PM
Maybe I missed it above but what is ESV? and why do you recommend it?

ESV stands for English Standard Version. This revision of the Revised Standard Version is a relatively new "formal equivalent" (word for word) translation that combines translation accuracy with the readability of a "dynamic equivalent" (thought for thought) translation such as the NIV. After many years of searching various tranlations it's my favorite by far. You can take a look at the ESV at BibleGateway.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Reynolds357
Apr 6th 2010, 11:26 PM
ESV stands for English Standard Version. This revision of the Revised Standard Version is a relatively new "formal equivalent" (word for word) translation that combines translation accuracy with the readability of a dynamic equivalent such as the NIV. After many years of searching various tranlations it's my favorite by far. You take a look at the ESV at BibleGateway.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

The ESV is my favorite modern. I am yet to find any real problems with it.

Nomad
Apr 6th 2010, 11:35 PM
The ESV is my favorite modern. I am yet to find any real problems with it.

The nice thing about it is that you can have a formal equivalent that isn't difficult to read like the NASB and the KJV.

Sirus
Apr 6th 2010, 11:48 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.Hello. I haven'r read others responses so forgive me if I repeat something already said.

I would go mostly with the KJV even if you don't understand it. I know that sounds weird. Being raised on it I'm guess you do understand it, but if not, and in a short time if you still do not then try something else. Anything that is not a paraphrase bible!!! -NIV, Message....
After the KJV I'd suggest the NKJV then if needed the ESV. I think the KJV and ESV is a great combo.

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 7th 2010, 12:25 AM
Maybe I missed it above but what is ESV? and why do you recommend it?

I recommend the ESV very highly too. I like it because of its:

1) accuracy. In many verses where there were conflicting choices of words between KJV and ESV, I've found after careful study and consulting with my pastor (who lectures on Greek) that ESV has the more accurate meaning in today's English. E.g. heretick & divisive man, etc. I personally find a number of translation errors with the KJV (swapping of Jesus and Joshua, etc.) troublesome to me (because I need to remember where they occur) and because the meaning of English words has changed throughout the centuries, the original meaning some words held in the 1600s might not mean the same thing today anymore. (e.g. one simple example would be the word "gay" in our century, v.s. 1600s, "quit ye like men", etc). However the KJV is superior in readability in certain places surprisingly, but I still find the ESV better overall.

2) ease of reading

3) very solid bible reference notes

4) support from the most respected bible scholars today

If you're considering the ESV you might want to get the single spaced version that reads like a book (single column in one page). It makes the Psalms and Proverbs really easy to read, as it falls beautifully across one line, instead of line-wrapping across several.

Nomad
Apr 7th 2010, 01:10 AM
I would go mostly with the KJV even if you don't understand it. I know that sounds weird.

That's the most asinine advice I've ever read. What good is God's word if you don't understand it? Are you serious?

Firefighter
Apr 7th 2010, 01:14 AM
I would go mostly with the KJV even if you don't understand it. I know that sounds weird.

You are exactly right... :lol:

Firefighter
Apr 7th 2010, 01:17 AM
That's the most asinine advice I've ever read.

You haven't been here long have you??? ;)

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 7th 2010, 01:27 AM
Here is a cool site that enables not only reading of the ESV Bible but listening to it as well. Very cool. Choose your chapter/verse then click on "Listen" at the top.

I like to use this in my daily devotion to read over a text to me first before I go into detail to study verse by verse.

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/browse/

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 7th 2010, 01:28 AM
You haven't been here long have you??? ;)

BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lolol

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 02:35 AM
That's the most asinine advice I've ever read. What good is God's word if you don't understand it? Are you serious?First. You do not understand context. You haven't been here long, but one thing you will learn today and I will make certain you always remember is to never quote me or the bible out of context. I will ever expose your error. What I said was....
"I would go mostly with the KJV even if you don't understand it. I know that sounds weird. Being raised on it I'm guessing you do understand it, but if not, and in a short time if you still do not then try something else."

Yes I am serious. I have seen many claim they do not understand the KJV to actually find it very easy. It's only because they don't have a want to. Small children understand it. It's the easiest to understand for many linguistic reasons. It is not kj English. It is not how man has ever spoke in any period. Just read the dedication/forward from the kj translators....ding ding! Since it does not flow as modern English it's just avoided, not to mention it has become unpopular to like in the modern sick weak apostate church. When people wanna get into the meat and realize just how consistently translated it is word by word to the point no dictionary is needed to define any particular word because it is it's own dictionary/concordance, they realize just how inconvenient the other translations are to study. What good is a modern translation if you can't study it? Are you serious?

EaglezEye
Apr 7th 2010, 02:38 AM
My original question was just to understand why KJV has been used for so long. How did we end up here?

-SEEKING-
Apr 7th 2010, 02:39 AM
You haven't been here long have you??? ;)

Dude! :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 02:44 AM
My original question was just to understand why KJV has been used for so long. How did we end up here?
I little leaven leavens the whole lump?

-SEEKING-
Apr 7th 2010, 02:52 AM
My original question was just to understand why KJV has been used for so long. How did we end up here?

I guess simply due to the fact that it was one of the first English translations. For many people that was all they had.

Nomad
Apr 7th 2010, 03:07 AM
Yes I am serious. I have seen many claim they do not understand the KJV to actually find it very easy.

What??? You sir, are insane.

Firefighter
Apr 7th 2010, 03:11 AM
First. You do not understand context. You haven't been here long, but one thing you will learn today and I will make certain you always remember is to never quote me or the bible out of context. I will ever expose your error. What I said was....
"I would go mostly with the KJV even if you don't understand it. I know that sounds weird. Being raised on it I'm guessing you do understand it, but if not, and in a short time if you still do not then try something else."

Yes I am serious. I have seen many claim they do not understand the KJV to actually find it very easy. It's only because they don't have a want to. Small children understand it. It's the easiest to understand for many linguistic reasons. It is not kj English. It is not how man has ever spoke in any period. Just read the dedication/forward from the kj translators....ding ding! Since it does not flow as modern English it's just avoided, not to mention it has become unpopular to like in the modern sick weak apostate church. When people wanna get into the meat and realize just how consistently translated it is word by word to the point no dictionary is needed to define any particular word because it is it's own dictionary/concordance, they realize just how inconvenient the other translations are to study. What good is a modern translation if you can't study it? Are you serious?

Yeah... that don't really help your advice make sense at all.

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 03:21 AM
That's the most asinine advice I've ever read. What good is God's word if you don't understand it? Are you serious?Case in point

I find more difficult translations to be better for me, because then I concentrate on what I read, and make sure I understand what I read by comparing that to easier translations.

For example, the OT I'll take the Hebrew, and do a word study on the words, and then compare that to easier translations.... but that is time consuming, yet very fulfilling :)Here's an individual that wants to learn. When they weren't sucking on a bottle so they could grow stronger they teethed in order to get teeth so they could eat meat. When they got to that point they wanted more meat because it was satisfying. They didn't want to gloss over easy english words they'd forget the next day like a magazine or news article. They want to meditate on a little and learn a lot. Not read a lot and learn very little.

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 03:23 AM
Yeah... that don't really help your advice make sense at all.

It don't? :rofl:

What's hard about it. Try the best. If you truly can't handle it downgrade. Is that easy enough for ya ;)

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 03:24 AM
What??? You sir, are insane.Hang around and read a few of my posts. Thanks for the compliment!

Firefighter
Apr 7th 2010, 03:57 AM
It don't? :rofl:

What's hard about it. Try the best. If you truly can't handle it downgrade. Is that easy enough for ya ;)

I don't get the point of "harder is somehow better"...

Romans 1:16-17 (KJV of course! :lol: )For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, regardless of the translation. One being harder to understand doesn't make it superior, it just makes it harder. I personally prefer the Greek NT, but I also understand that it is difficult, if not impossible to understand for most people. The Bible that someone will read and understand is the BEST bible whatever the translation is, as long as it is the gospel.

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 04:00 AM
That's funny.....that's what I said. What are you missing? I didn't say harder is better. In fact I said the KJ is easier. The opposite of what I said earlier is that some people are too intellectual for their own good. They couldn't understand a children's book for their life.

Firefighter
Apr 7th 2010, 04:09 AM
When people wanna get into the meat and realize just how consistently translated it is word by word to the point no dictionary is needed to define any particular word because it is it's own dictionary/concordance, they realize just how inconvenient the other translations are to study.

Php 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

Without using ANY outside sources, and ONLY using the KJV, PLEASE explain to me what "bowels and mercies" means.

You also make the assumption that there is no meat in the modern translations... not true.

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 04:19 AM
Php 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

Without using ANY outside sources, and ONLY using the KJV, PLEASE explain to me what "bowels and mercies" means.I'll have to play with that tomorrow


You also make the assumption that there is no meat in the modern translations... not true.I niether said or implied any such thing.

Firefighter
Apr 7th 2010, 04:27 AM
I'll have to play with that tomorrow

Shouldn't take but a couple of seconds since the KJV is easy...

Sirus
Apr 7th 2010, 06:16 AM
Shouldn't take but a couple of seconds since the KJV is easy...Yes, what I meant is it was time to call it a night, but as usual I got silly with the family and a second wind.

Bowels in the KJ is always the seat of what is natural. It is expressed in child bearing and emotions. The emotions can range from good to bad but in the NT is always good -tender affections. The idea in Php 2:1 is a resort to what is good and right within the new creature.

Was this supposed to be a challenge or something?
Easy to read doesn't mean study is not required. Again, you simply have not understood anything I have said. I have in fact said the opposite.

David Taylor
Apr 7th 2010, 02:45 PM
My original question was just to understand why KJV has been used for so long. How did we end up here?

And to be honest, for the first 300 years of it's life as the primarily first widespread and foremost English translation, it was revered to the point of exclusiveness.

What I mean to say is that, until the last century, the bible hadn't been a tool for making money and mass production as a means of profit.

Go into any Bookstore, and there are dozens of packaged and re-packaged flavors of bibles....not because we need dozens and even hundreds of different bibles, but because they all attempt to cater to different niches and desires; therefore creating a money-making marketplace that didn't exist in the early days of the English Bible.

Throw out the personal commentaries, imbedded summaries, footnotes, prefaces, charts, and maps; and the contents of "THE SCRIPTURES" part of the bible (Gen 1 - Rev 22) hasn't really changed that much at all since 1611. The common useage of the English language has changed, but the context of the Scriptures haven't.

That's why I'm a pretty big advocate of using a parallel Bible. They usually avoid all of the externally imbedded commentary stuff that is the authors opinion; and they focus the precious type-space on including as many of the most prevalent and respected bible translations available.

This allows you to focus solely on the scriptures, and not on the author's opinions; and it also allows you to make up your own mind along with the Holy Spirit's leading on issues involving textual criticism and differences between manuscripts, since you can compare the differences right there on the same page side-by-side to consider the context.

Izdaari
Apr 8th 2010, 10:11 AM
IMHO, the two best all-purpose translations in English are the ESV and HCSB.

But I own and use many others, including the KJV and the NIV. At present, I prefer the TNIV over the NIV, because it includes many updates the NIV should've had, but which the publishers were too timid to include because of evangelical uproars. All that may change with the 2011 revision of the NIV... I hope so.

Jemand
Apr 8th 2010, 05:37 PM
I have seen many claim they do not understand the KJV to actually find it very easy. It's only because they don't have a want to. Small children understand it. It's the easiest to understand for many linguistic reasons

These are not true statements. For example, how many children know the difference in meaning between an hungred (found in the New Testament of the KJV in nine places) and hungry? For that matter, do you know the difference in meaning between an hungred and hungry? The difference in meaning is real (An hungred is neither syntactically nor semantically equivalent to the adjective hungry) and important, but do you know what it is? The morpheme an in this usage is clearly not the English indefinite article an, so what is it and what does it mean? What part of speech is the word hungred in this usage? Don’t bother to ask your child’s English teacher or even a professor of English in a university because very few teachers of English know the answers to these questions. Indeed, even Bible publishers, editors, and societies find these problems extremely perplexing.

In first edition of the KJV, we find the form an hungred, but in subsequent editions we the following variations:

he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

The last of these four, ahungered, is found in KJV Bibles published by the American Bible Society.

No, I did not find these variations on an anti-KJV website—I found all five of these variations in KJV Bibles in my home library. And I did not have to read very far into the New Testament in the KJV to find this extremely difficult to understand archaic form—it first appears in Matt. 4:2. It is a translation of a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb, but the very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb in Mark 11:12 is translated as, he was hungry.

Oddly enough, we find the English in the KJV to be consistent when the Greek is very different. For example,

Mark 10:18
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
KJV: Why callest me thou good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18:19
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

But in Matthew 19:17
Greek: Why me questionest thou concerning the good? one is the good.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.


Another feature in the King James Version that makes it difficult to read and understand is the variety of spellings it uses for proper nouns. New readers of the Bible could easily get lost in the confusion. Some examples of persons are:

Agar, Hagar
Balak, Balac
Cis, Kish
EliJah, Elias
Elisha, Eliseus
Enos, Enosh
Gideon, Gedeon
Hezekiah, Ezekiah
Hosea, Osee
Isaiah, Esaias, Esay
Jephthae, Jephthah
Jered, Jared
Jeremiah, Jememias, Jeremie
Jonah, Jona, Jonas
Joshua, Jesus
Judas, Judah, Juda, Jude
korah, Core
Luke, Lucas
Marcus, Mark
Noe, Noah
Henoch, Enoch
Puoh, Puah
Raguel, Reuel
Samuel, Shemuel
Sara, Sarah
Sheth, Seth
Timothy, Timotheus
Zechariah, Zecharias
Zera, Zarah

Some examples of places are:

Azza, Gaza
Canaan, Channan
Kidron, Cedron
Midian, Madian
Sodom, Sodoma
Phoneonicia, Phenice
Phut, Put
Raamses, Rameses
Saron, Sharon
Sina, Sinai
Sina, Sinai
Tyrus, Tyre

Jemand
Apr 8th 2010, 05:45 PM
The English language is very much alive and constantly changing. Therefore, translations of foreign language works into English must either be revised often to maintain the accuracy and readability or they gradually become more and more inaccurate and unreadable. The most popular versions of the Bible are being revised frequently because the English language is rapidly changing and because of progress in Biblical scholarship. Here are some examples along with their revision dates:

Jerusalem Bible, 1966
New Jerusalem Bible, 1985

New American Bible, 1970
New American Bible, with the Revised New Testament, 1986

Revised Standard Version, 1946, 1952, 1971
New Revised Standard Version, 1989

New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995
New American Standard Bible, Updated Version, 1995

New English Bible, 1961, 1970
Revised English Bible, 1989

When translations of the Bible are not frequently revised, we find people trying to make sense of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended vpon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. KJV, 1611

Instead of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently. (NASB, 1995)

And we find archaism like these in the KJV:

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"

And like these:

"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"


And we find translation errors like these,

"devils" (Matt. 4:24; 8:16, 33; Mark 1:32; 5:12; etc.) for "demons"
"by" (Matt. 5:21) for "to"
"of" (Matt. 6:1) for "with"
"I am a" (Matt. 8:9) for "I, too, am a"
"Who is" (Matt. 18:1) for "Who, then, is"
"are gone out" (Matt. 25:8) for "are going out"
"in the end of the Sabbath" (Matt. 28:1) for "after the Sabbath"
"observed" (Mark 6:20) for "kept safe"
"pineth away" (Mark 9:18) for "stiffens out" or "becomes rigid"
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty" (Luke 3:23) for "And when He began his ministry, Jesus himself was about thirty"
"in the plain" (Luke 6:17) for "on a level place"
"Herod will kill" (Luke 13:31) for "Herod wants to Kill"
"husks" (Luke 15:16) for "pods"
"in their generation" (Luke 16:8) for "in relation to their own generation"
"possess" (Luke 18:12) for "get"
"possess" (Luke 21:19) for "gain"
"bare" (John 12:6) for "used to pilfer"
"comfortless" (John 14:18) for "orphans"
"Touch me not" (John 20:17) for "stop clinging to me"
"when this was noised abroad" (Acts 2:6) for "when this sound occurred"
"should be saved" (Acts 2:47) for "were being saved"
"Grecians" Acts 6:1; 9:29) for "Hellenists" or "Hellenistic Jews"
"Libertines" (Acts 6:9) for "Freedmen"
"since you believed" (Acts 19:2) for "when you believed"
"taken up" (Acts 27:40) for "casting off" or "cutting loose"
"they" (Acts 28:1) for "we"
"remission" (Rom. 3:25) for "passing over"
"ordinances" (1 Cor. 11:2) for "traditions"
"gathering" (1 Cor. 16:1, 2) for "collection"
"all died" (2 Cor. 5:14) for "were all dead"
"knew" (2 Cor. 12:2) for "know"
"large a letter" (Gal. 6:11) for "large letters"
"dung" (Phil. 3:8) for "rubbish"
"Euodias" (Phil. 4:2) for "Euodia" (Euodias is masculine rather than feminine)
"gain is godliness" (1 Tim. 6:5) for "godliness is a means of gain"
"embraced" (Heb. 11:13) for "obtained"
"appearing" (1 Peter 1:7, 13) for "revelation"
"sincere" (1 Peter 2:2) for "pure"
"kings and priests" (Rev. 1:6) for "a kingdom, priests"
"kingdoms" (Rev. 11:15) for "kingdom"

Jemand
Apr 8th 2010, 07:32 PM
My original question was just to understand why KJV has been used for so long. How did we end up here?

The need for a more accurate English translation than the KJV was urged upon the House of Commons in England by Dr. John Lightfoot in 1645. In 1653, the English Parliament passed a bill warning of the danger of translations of the Bible by single individuals not having sufficient knowledge to adequately perform the task, and a committee was formed to examine any proposed revisions of the KJV. In 1657, a committee began meeting in the home of Bulstrode Whitelocke, commissioner of the Great Seal, to discuss a revision of the KJV that would correct some of the errors. However, with the restoration of the Stuart dynasty and the dissolution of Parliament, these efforts came to naught.

Beginning in 1729, we find many translations of the New Testament being published, including those of Daniel Mace (1729), Edward Harwood (1768), Rodolphus Dickinson (1733), Philip Doddridge (1739-56), John Wesley (1755), and Gilbert Wakefield (1791). In 1792, Archbishop William Newcome, in his An Historical View of the English Biblical Translations, urged that the revision of the KJV be authorized, and in 1796, he published his translation of the New Testament.

Noah Webster, the American lexicographer, wrote, “A version of the Scriptures for popular use should consist of words expressing the sense which is most common in popular usage, so that the first ideas suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such words according to the original language.” Webster’s revision of the KJV was published in 1833 with the title, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, in the Common Version, with Amendments of the Language.

The need for an English Bible in contemporary English based upon a more accurate Greek text of the New Testament became obvious to many, and in 1870, the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury made the decision to produce such an English Bible. The result was the English Revised Version, the New Testament being first published on May 17, 1881, and the Old and New Testaments being published on May 19, 1885, as THE HOLY BIBLE CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES : BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH A.D. 1611 COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED. Oxford: University Press, 1885. The KJV included the Apocrypha, and in 1895, the English Revised Version was published with the Apocrypha. In 1901, an American edition was published as The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Translated out of the Original Tongues, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A.D. 1881-1885, Newly Edited by the American Revision Committee A.D. 1901, Standard Edition. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.

A further revision was published in 1952 as the Revised Standard Version. Beginning in 1971, the Revised Standard Version was published with the Second Edition of the New Testament. Yet a further revision was published in 1989 as the New Revised Standard Version.

BadDog
Apr 8th 2010, 07:42 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.
EaglezEye,

Any Bible that you read regularly is a good one! That first response to this thread, by slug1, is a good one - take it to heart.

There are some groups out who put down such modern translations as the NIV, but they in general do not know about which they speak. :P The NIV is a good translation.

Take care,

BD

Reynolds357
Apr 8th 2010, 08:36 PM
My original question was just to understand why KJV has been used for so long. How did we end up here?

It was the first English translation readily available to the masses. It was not the first, but it was the first that any significant quantity were printed.

EaglezEye
Apr 8th 2010, 08:44 PM
I do enjoy the NIV. I have a study buble that has been lost since our last move. My wife bought it for me 12 years ago and i'm hoping we find it again soon as I will use it for studying purposes. As of now I bought a $12 NIV leather bound bible from Sam's Club and I enjoy it.

I didn't realize people spent so much time and effort discussing translations and their differences. I surely didn't intend on bringing those conversations out.

Thanks again for all responses.

Nomad
Apr 8th 2010, 09:03 PM
I do enjoy the NIV...

I didn't realize people spent so much time and effort discussing translations and their differences. I surely didn't intend on bringing those conversations out.

Don't sweat it. All in all, the NIV is a good translation. Enjoy it to the glory of God.

Sirus
Apr 9th 2010, 04:41 AM
EaglezEye,

Any Bible that you read regularly is a good one! That first response to this thread, by slug1, is a good one - take it to heart.

There are some groups out who put down such modern translations as the NIV, but they in general do not know about which they speak. :P The NIV is a good translation.

Take care,

BDAre you saying a paraphrase bible is good for serious study? The OP mentioned comparing. That'd be kinda hard to do if it's not there to compare.

Jemand
Apr 9th 2010, 05:05 PM
It was the first English translation readily available to the masses. It was not the first, but it was the first that any significant quantity were printed.

These are not accurate statements. The first English translation readily available to the masses was the Geneva Bible. It was first published in 1560 and proved to be so popular that was published in 160 editions and it continued to be published for more than 100 years. The Bishop’s Bible was first published in 1568, and although it never gained the widespread popularity of the Geneva Bible, it was the official basis of the King James Version. The Douay-Rheims Bible was first published in 1609 and continued to be published until 1749 when parts of it were revised. Further revisions were competed in 1750 and 1752.

MaddJack
Apr 10th 2010, 12:35 AM
These are not accurate statements. The first English translation readily available to the masses was the Geneva Bible. It was first published in 1560 and proved to be so popular that was published in 160 editions and it continued to be published for more than 100 years. The Bishop’s Bible was first published in 1568, and although it never gained the widespread popularity of the Geneva Bible, it was the official basis of the King James Version. The Douay-Rheims Bible was first published in 1609 and continued to be published until 1749 when parts of it were revised. Further revisions were competed in 1750 and 1752.

So you mean the KJV just didn't drop down out of heaven and there it was? I mean if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it should be good enough for us.:D

Seriously though, this is a subject that I have read on and sought info out. For years, I thought the KJV was the ONLY Bible that God approved of. I am not an NIV fan per say & I am not saying it is a good translation but I lean more toward the translations that attempt to go word for word such as the NASB.

I am becoming a fan of the ESV as I find it more easy to read and from what I have read on the ESV, it is the most accurate of the English translations. I may know about 5 Greek words & can recognize about 7-8 letters of the Greek alphabet, I know little about Hebrew and the Hebrew alphabet. I still have a lot of KJV onlyism in my mind. I love the KJV and think it is a great translation and I use it a lot. I especially love reading the Psalms in the KJV,

In my unqualified humble opinion, I would go with a parallel Bible with at least the KJV and ESV.

Sirus
Apr 10th 2010, 01:45 AM
These are not true statements. For example, how many children know the difference in meaning between an hungred (found in the New Testament of the KJV in nine places) and hungry? For that matter, do you know the difference in meaning between an hungred and hungry? The difference in meaning is real (An hungred is neither syntactically nor semantically equivalent to the adjective hungry) and important, but do you know what it is? The morpheme an in this usage is clearly not the English indefinite article an, so what is it and what does it mean? What part of speech is the word hungred in this usage? Don’t bother to ask your child’s English teacher or even a professor of English in a university because very few teachers of English know the answers to these questions. Indeed, even Bible publishers, editors, and societies find these problems extremely perplexing.

In first edition of the KJV, we find the form an hungred, but in subsequent editions we the following variations:

he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

The last of these four, ahungered, is found in KJV Bibles published by the American Bible Society.

No, I did not find these variations on an anti-KJV website—I found all five of these variations in KJV Bibles in my home library. And I did not have to read very far into the New Testament in the KJV to find this extremely difficult to understand archaic form—it first appears in Matt. 4:2. It is a translation of a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb, but the very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb in Mark 11:12 is translated as, he was hungry.You asked me this last week (or so) and the answer is still the same. Doctrine is not effected. Let anyone think what they will here. It's not important. It can be both. Neither is wrong. If someone cannot get hungry out of hungered they need to learn how to read.


Oddly enough, we find the English in the KJV to be consistent when the Greek is very different. For example,

Mark 10:18
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
KJV: Why callest me thou good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18:19
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

But in Matthew 19:17
Greek: Why me questionest thou concerning the good? one is the good.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
If you are correct, it posses problems for other translations (such as the ESV). Why aren't you criticizing them here? Why single out the KJV? Think before you regurgitate yet another accusation that makes no difference whatsoever.

Why "Greek" for Matthew 19:17 and not "Literal Greek" like the other two? Hmmmm?

Mark 10:18
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
ESV: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
KJV: Why callest me thou good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18:19
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
ESV: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

But in Matthew 19:17
Greek: Why me questionest thou concerning the good? one is the good.
ESV: Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

The ESV makes no sense here at all.


Another feature in the King James Version that makes it difficult to read and understand is the variety of spellings it uses for proper nouns. New readers of the Bible could easily get lost in the confusion. Some examples of persons are:

Agar, Hagar
Balak, Balac
Cis, Kish
EliJah, Elias
Elisha, Eliseus
Enos, Enosh
Gideon, Gedeon
Hezekiah, Ezekiah
Hosea, Osee
Isaiah, Esaias, Esay
Jephthae, Jephthah
Jered, Jared
Jeremiah, Jememias, Jeremie
Jonah, Jona, Jonas
Joshua, Jesus
Judas, Judah, Juda, Jude
korah, Core
Luke, Lucas
Marcus, Mark
Noe, Noah
Henoch, Enoch
Puoh, Puah
Raguel, Reuel
Samuel, Shemuel
Sara, Sarah
Sheth, Seth
Timothy, Timotheus
Zechariah, Zecharias
Zera, Zarah

Some examples of places are:

Azza, Gaza
Canaan, Channan
Kidron, Cedron
Midian, Madian
Sodom, Sodoma
Phoneonicia, Phenice
Phut, Put
Raamses, Rameses
Saron, Sharon
Sina, Sinai
Sina, Sinai
Tyrus, TyreSome of these aren't even in the KJV. Did you do copy and paste someone elses work or is it your error? Some are obvious. Others can be easily found and learned by context, with one click, or an concordance. In any case it cannot cause confusion and does not matter not effecting doctrine.

Do you have any real problems with the KJV that effect doctrine? Why do English speaking people that claim to have the Spirit and therefore know all things, are led into all truth, can pray and interpret tongues, claim they can't understand an English translation? That somehow the message can be understood by the Spirit with any version but the KJV. I don't need to say what this is because I think there may be a very good possibility that you already know what words can be used to describe this.

BadDog
Apr 10th 2010, 04:43 PM
Are you saying a paraphrase bible is good for serious study? The OP mentioned comparing. That'd be kinda hard to do if it's not there to compare.Are you saying that the NIV is a paraphrase Bible? I sure hope not, for I wholeheartedly disagree. Most translators today consider the NIV to be more accurate than the KJV. Translation is not a matter of simply exchanging verbs, nouns, adjectives, conjunctions, etc. from one language into another. The critical component is to get the intended meaning translated from the source language into the target language.

Why don't you pick a few example texts to look at, and we can see which translates the Greek more accurately. I suggest that you pick those in which the actual Greek text behind the translation is not the issue, since you referred to the NIV as a paraphrase. If you select others, we'll see, in most cases, that the Textus Receptus was in error, I suspect, and most times we'll probably not agree about that. But that doesn't relate to the point you'e trying to make.

The KJV was a good revision of a good translation--at the time. But they did not have as thorough understanding of the correct meaning of some Greek terms as modern scholarship. This was not due, in general, to incompetence at the time at all. But starting back a little over a hundred years ago other Greek MSS (extrabiblical - such as business documents from which the meanings of words have been better deduced) have been discovered and used to correct the understanding of various Greek terms.

The KJV revisors, who revised Tyndale's translation from the Greek--the first English translation from the Greek (NT)--followed a more wooden approach, such as taken by the NASB translators. Sometimes that works reasonably well, and sometimes it just doesn't. But the KJV is a revision of a translation made in 1526. Compare Tyndale's work and the KJV... outside spelling differences, they are quite similar. In over 480 years, we have learned a lot. Does anyone really think that a translation made nearly 500 years ago (or, if you prefer, about 400 yr. ago) is going to be superior to recent ones? ...unless they hold to some sort of conspiracy theory. :P (Which KJV-only adherrants in general do. Let's not turn this thread into a KJV-only debate--please!)

I suggest that we look at specific cases, and compare them to the Greek text. There are places where the NIV did not do the best job--I'll grant you that. But there are many places where the KJV didn't do so hot as well. I'll let you, or anyone else, choose which texts. I am that confident that the NIV, in general, did a better job of translation.


Now, especially for those lurking, may I share a few words about translation? I hope the following doesn't bore most of you:

Translation is an activity involving the interpretation of the meaning of a text in the source language into equivalent text in the target language. The translators need to determine an equivalence of intended meaning between the source and target languages (IOW to ensure that both texts communicate the same message). What good does it do if the words or phrases are "translated" fairly accurately if the meaning in the two languages is not the same? That is not translation. They need to take into account the immediate and larger contexts, the rules of grammar of both languages, the writing conventions in both languages, the idioms in the source language and how to not just accurately translate them, but to do so with the same sort of impact in the target language, and the like.

So translation involves understanding the intended meaning in the source language (interpretation) as well as expressing it in the target language in a manner that is accurately understood as well. We've all read technical manuals in which precise language is used, and we often do not understand what was being said. Can such be said to be "accurate?" Have you ever read a manual for an appliance made in an Asian country? Sometimes it can be quite humorous. That is another dynamic to consider.

English and Greek are not both Romance languages, which complicates things, and they come from nearly 2000 years separation in time and culture. Many Christians improperly think that translation is an exact science, and mistakenly assume that a precisely defined one-to-one correspondence exists between the words and phrases in Greek and English which make translation fixed. That is simply not true. It is not just a science, it is an art. Hence various translations are different not simply due to disagreement about the meaning in the source language but because of different philosophies of translation. That's part of the reason we have such a proliferation of translations today.

The RSV translation philosophy was expressed, for example, "As accurate as possible, as free as necessary." What this means is that where possible a more word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase style translation was followed. But when meaning would become lost or distorted, then necessarily a more free interpretation was required so as to not lose the intended meaning in the original languages. Such "free translation" is not paraphrase. Technically a paraphrase involves re-wording within the same language. When going from one language into another the proper term is "paraphrastic," but I understand what you mean. You consider the NIV to be paraphrastic--to be very free, to the point where intended meaning has been lost. I disagree.

Consider those places in the NT where the Holy Spirit quotes the OT. Are they, in general, more word-for-word? No, they are not. Anyone who doubts this can simply look them up themselves. And if the Spirit did not follow a wooden translation, then I would say that meaning-based translation trumps word-for-word translation. (IOW a DE [dynamic equivalence] style of translation was used by the Holy Spirit instead of a more FE [formal equivalent] approach.) A FE translation style, such as was used with the KJV, NASB, etc., gives greater emphasis to the original "forms"--the word order and phraseology in the original Greek/Hebrew is followed even when intended meaning is confused or even lost altogether or distorted. A DE translation style uses English word/phrase order, not that of the source language. It also gives greater consideration to idiomatic speech in the source language.

That brings us to another issue to consider: in the Greek word order was much different than in English. The main siginficance of word order in Greek was to, at times, give added emphasis.

Well, enough said. Anyone who has taken Spanish, German, French or other languages in high school should recognize the truth in what I am saying. Essentially where Sirus and I disagree is that our opinion regarding the accuracy of intended meaning transfer differs. IMO people understand the intended meaning more precisely with the NIV than with the KJV or the NKJV. Sirus, whom I respect, sees it differently. That's OK. But if anyone would like to suggest some specific verses in the NT to compare--let's have at it. (I've done this before in this forum, BTW, and in nearly every text the NIV was shown to handle the Greek more accurately.)

Let me add that I do not personally prefer the NIV. I prefer the HCSB, the NRSV, the ESV, the WEB and even the NASB to it. I do like the NKJV almost as well as the NIV, which follows the identical Greek text in the NT as the KJV, and in general the same phrase order as in the KJV.


Let me add one important comment: I think that if someone prefers a particular translation, and spends much times reading/studying it, that God will use it to impact their lives. Praise God that they are getting into His Word! I have no bone to pick about the KJV. Anyone who loves it--I think that is great. It was my first Bible for many years. I still have the ole Schofield Study Bible that I dug into when I first began to pursue God. My concern here is that a good translation, which is used by more English-speaking Americans than ony other today--the NIV, is not improperly vilified. It's not my favorite Bible, just as the KJV is no longer my personal Bible. But let's be fair, and respect what the Spirit is doing in hundreds of millions of lives through the NIV.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Apr 10th 2010, 06:00 PM
I see that Jemand already listed 3 examples, which Sirus addressed, so I'll consider them as well:


Mark 10:18
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God. [BD: Uh, is this Greek? Looks like English to me... and not today's English at that. :P And actually "thou" ("you") is not there... if you want to be precise. I have no problem with you including it, FWIW. But that is "translation"... not literal Greek.]
ESV: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
KJV: Why callest me thou good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
Greek: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός.
My trans.: And/But Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except one-God."
BD: FWIW, εἰ μὴ ("if not") is consistently translated as "except" in English. It does not mean "but." Of course, "but" is used here in a similar manner as "except." But "except" is simply more precise.


Luke 18:19
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God. [BD: See Mark 10 about "thou."]
ESV: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Greek: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. (Same as Mark 10, except a slight change in word order in first phrase - which is not included in the portion of Luke 18:19 Sirus considered. So, why did the KJV translate it slightly different? The Greek text is identical. :P )
My trans.: Same as in Mark 10:18.


But in Matthew 19:17
Greek: Why me questionest thou concerning the good? one is the good.
ESV: Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

The ESV makes no sense here at all. (BD: ?? Let's takes a look.)

Greek: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς.
My trans.: He said to him, "Why do you ask about [what is] good?" "There is only One [who is] good. If you desire to enter life, obey the commandments."

The Greek text simply does not have "God" (θεός) in it, nor does it say, "call me." ἐρωτᾷς means to ask. The ESV is simply much better than the KJV here. Interestingly, the KJV has chosen to be more paraphrastic here than the ESV or the NIV. The Greek text simply does not say, "Why do you call me good?" and it does not add "God." ??? Those are serious issues. It is implied that the only One who is good is God, but the text does not say that. That is too interpretive. It is best for the reader to get the same sense as the original reader, with implications instead of actual statement.

Now, to be fair to the KJV, this is mainly due to a textual variant. The Byzantine text, that the KJV was translated from, is different here. The KJV has accurately translated the Greek text that it used. So Matthew 19:17 should not be included in this comparison. The KJV is OK here, as are the ESV and the NIV.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Apr 10th 2010, 06:53 PM
I mentioned earlier that Koine Greek translation has improved due to a better understanding of Greek lexically. The grammar is better understood today as well. For example, the use of the article in the Greek is better understood now. The KJV, as well as other older translations, really missed the boat on this one, Titus 2:13, since the Granville-Sharp rule wasn't yet developed until the late 18th century:

NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Here it is clear that Jesus Christ is "our great God and Savior."

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The KJV makes it appear that two People will appear: God (the Father) and Jesus Christ. But the Greek text indicates they are the same person! Oops. A lost opportunity to make the fact that Jesus is God is clearly taught in scripture.

Greek: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Since "God" (τοῦ θεοῦ) and "Jesus Christ" (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) are in the same case (genitive) and the first noun (God) includes the article (τοῦ) and the nouns are connected with the conjunction "and" (καὶ), this is an appositive - they are the same person. It would be as if I referred to my wife as "the wife and mother of my children." Would anyone think that there were two people? My wife, and then someone else who was the mother of my children? (Hopefully not! :D ) That's what's happening in the Greek here. It's referred to as TNKN format ("article noun KAI noun - nouns in same case, and singular.) This appears over 100 times in the Greek NT, and in every case, it is referring to the same person.

The Granville Sharp Rule:
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle"

Sharp also developed 6 other rules concerning the use of the article in Koine Greek. Dr. Daniel Wallace did an extensive study of the article more recently, and said in his grammar:

"As he [Sharp] studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”

Incidentally, there are 4 other instances of which I am aware in which the KJV missed this which relates to the deity of Christ, and hence lost the clearly intended deity of Christ statement. Not the translators fault of course... no one had studied the article to the extent that Granville Sharp did and hence they did not understood this particular usage yet. But why not use a Bible more updated in this respect?

Take care,

BD

Nomad
Apr 10th 2010, 07:02 PM
Howdy BadDog,

Your last two posts in that thread are a nice presentations. I hope you don't mind if point out something for the sake of clarity.

You said regarding Matt. 19:17:



The Greek text simply does not have "God" (θεός) in it, nor does it say, "call me."

There are a few variant readings for Matt. 19:17 that account for the KJV translator's use of "God" and "call me." The KJV translators used the reading as found in the Textus Receptus. Notice that the TR contains "θεος" and uses "λεγεις" (you call) as oposed to "ἐρωτᾷς (you ask).


ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρησον τας εντολας




Matthew 19:17:

TEXT: "Why do you ask me about what [is] good? There is [only] One who is good."
EVIDENCE: S B D L Theta f1 700 892text two lat syr(s) some syr(pal)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B
NOTES: "Why do you call me good? No one [is] good except One, [that is], God."
EVIDENCE: C K W Delta f13 28 33 565 1010 1241 Byz Lect two lat syr(p,h) cop(south) some cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn

OTHER: "Why do you ask me about what [is] good? There is [only] One who is good, [that is], God."
EVIDENCE: most lat vg syr(c) some syr(pal) most cop(north)

OTHER: "Why do you ask me about what [is] good? No one is good except One, [that is], God."
EVIDENCE: 892margin two lat

COMMENTS: The reading in the notes seems to have been taken from the parallel passages in Mar_10:18 and Luk_18:19. The reading in the text is found in Caesarean as well as Alexandrian and Western types of ancient text.

A Students Guide To New Testament Textual Variants

BadDog
Apr 10th 2010, 07:45 PM
Howdy BadDog,

Your last two posts in that thread are a nice presentations. I hope you don't mind if point out something for the sake of clarity.

You said regarding Matt. 19:17:




There are a few variant readings for Matt. 19:17 that account for the KJV translator's use of "God" and "call me." The KJV translators used the reading as found in the Textus Receptus. Notice that the TR contains "θεος" and uses "λεγεις" (you call) as oposed to "ἐρωτᾷς (you ask).


ο δε ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος ει δε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην `ηρησον τας εντολας
Nomad,

Thx. I did include in my post what you point out above. I agree that the KJV translators did follow the Greek text which they based their translation upon fairly well. And it isn't just the TR which includes that text, but in general the Byzantine text (majority text) has it consistently.

After translating those 3 texts,I was curious of just what you said, so I pulled out my trusty Greek Majority Text NT (Zane Hodges and Art Farstad), and after verifying that it was a textual difference, I edited the post.

Perhaps you had already began to respond to it before I edited it. But I did post on the Granville Sharp Rule regarding Titus 2:13 after editing it.

Anyway, I don't mind your post. Such things are what should be posted here. Here's what I added a few minutes before your post:

Now, to be fair to the KJV, this is mainly due to a textual variant. The Byzantine text, that the KJV was translated from, is different here. The KJV has accurately translated the Greek text that it used. So Matthew 19:17 should not be included in this comparison. The KJV is OK here, as are the ESV and the NIV.

Thx,

BD

Nomad
Apr 10th 2010, 08:07 PM
BadDog,

We were in fact posting at the same time. When I finished, your "Granville Sharp" post was already there. It's all good. :)

Sirus
Apr 11th 2010, 05:34 PM
BD, it has been two weeks since your last PM to me concerning the Greek we were discussing. It's not even on my to do list but I will reply sooner or later. My point is that this is not important enough to me to spend a lot of time on as you have here. I have advocated the ESV, so I cannot be labeled anti-modern trans or radical kjo. I simply provided a fact concerning the NIV.


Are you saying that the NIV is a paraphrase Bible? I sure hope not, for I wholeheartedly disagree.Yes I am. I know a Wycliffe Bible translator that partially agrees. It is not all paraphrase and it is not all dynamic equivalence. That's a fact, and for serious study there's no room for paraphrasing, which the NIV has a lot of. It's quite simple.


Most translators today consider the NIV to be more accurate than the KJV.Most? Interesting word. Are most Christians really Christians?
My Wycliffe Bible translator friend wholeheartedly disagrees.


The KJV was a good revision of a good translation--at the time. But they did not have as thorough understanding of the correct meaning of some Greek terms as modern scholarship.That's hilarious. 'it's only a revision of a partial translation of only the NT which came from only one man and they did not use any manuscripts'. Funny indeed.


The KJV revisors, who revised Tyndale's translation from the Greek--the first English translation from the Greek (NT)--followed a more wooden approach, such as taken by the NASB translators. Sometimes that works reasonably well, and sometimes it just doesn't. But the KJV is a revision of a translation made in 1526. Compare Tyndale's work and the KJV... outside spelling differences, they are quite similar.Translations that used similar text are similar. What's your point?
Reviser's? Let's not be rude.
First, be accurate. It was not just Tyndale's -enter Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthews', Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva. If you knew the rules you would know they first followed the Bishop's Bible, not Tyndale's partial NT.
Second, do you really think the best of the day didn't bother translating when and if needed? And it was needed, and was done. That's why they are called translators, not revisers.

I'm not going to go back and forth wasting time on bias misrepresentations of the truth. My Wycliffe Bible translator friend agrees mostly with what you are saying, except he has great respect for Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthews', Coverdale, Whitchurch, Geneva, and the kj translators/reformers, and understands it is a much more accurate translation than the NIV. Being a modern translator he doesn't like the 'old English' in the KJV for a modern reader but he uses it (and many others) in his work because of its accuracy. He does not use the NIV in his work. Why waste time finding where they did and did not use text or left out text with so many serious translations out there? So I can have a discussion with him because he knows what he is talking about.


In over 480 years, we have learned a lot.Have we? News to me, and opposite of what scripture says. Apostasy. Scripture does not say we will improve anything.
Erasmus did what no one dared to do, altering ‘the word of God’ Latin Vulgate in 'the language (Latin) of the church’, which was considered heretical and punishable by death, but no one could deny his ‘majority’ method and final textual improvements. Modern liberal scholars deny the ‘majority’ method today, but today evil is good and good is evil, so is this a surprise?

Erasmus , Stephanus, Beza, the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthews', Coverdale, Whitchurch, Geneva, and the kj translators/reformers all understood we get accurate translations from “majority text” and get inaccurate translations from “minority text”. Modern scholars worth their salt, and anyone with any common sense, do not completely agree with Westcott and Hort. Even modern scholar Kurt Aland said, "We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our conception of different recensions and text-types although this conception has lost its raison d' ętre, or, it needs at least to be newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the end of Westcott and Hort's conception." Kurt Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research", The Bible in Modern Scholarship, J.P. Hyatt ed., (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 337.


Does anyone really think that a translation made nearly 500 years ago (or, if you prefer, about 400 yr. ago) is going to be superior to recent ones?Why not?


...unless they hold to some sort of conspiracy theory. No need for that.


(Which KJV-only adherrants in general do. Let's not turn this thread into a KJV-only debate--please!)It's not like you to drop the bome and run BD. I've already suggested the ESV so I do not fall in this radical group but if one is lurking you sure have asked for it.


I suggest that we look at specific cases, and compare them to the Greek text.I suggest you try to do that on your own where the NIV did not use any text and added in their attempt to not lose what they thought the meaning was. Let us know how it goes. There is no comparison. How is someone new, wanting to learn the words of God, going to know when they are reading the words of God in the NIV? Always, just because they got it off the christian bookstore shelf?


Translation is an activity involving the interpretation of the meaning of a text in the source language into equivalent text in the target language. The translators need to determine an equivalence of intended meaning between the source and target languages (IOW to ensure that both texts communicate the same message). What good does it do if the words or phrases are "translated" fairly accurately if the meaning in the two languages is not the same? That is not translation. They need to take into account the immediate and larger contexts, the rules of grammar of both languages, the writing conventions in both languages, the idioms in the source language and how to not just accurately translate them, but to do so with the same sort of impact in the target language, and the like.

So translation involves understanding the intended meaning in the source language (interpretation) as well as expressing it in the target language in a manner that is accurately understood as well. We've all read technical manuals in which precise language is used, and we often do not understand what was being said. Can such be said to be "accurate?" Have you ever read a manual for an appliance made in an Asian country? Sometimes it can be quite humorous. That is another dynamic to consider.

English and Greek are not both Romance languages, which complicates things, and they come from nearly 2000 years separation in time and culture. Many Christians improperly think that translation is an exact science, and mistakenly assume that a precisely defined one-to-one correspondence exists between the words and phrases in Greek and English which make translation fixed. That is simply not true. It is not just a science, it is an art. Hence various translations are different not simply due to disagreement about the meaning in the source language but because of different philosophies of translation. That's part of the reason we have such a proliferation of translations today.

Consider those places in the NT where the Holy Spirit quotes the OT. Are they, in general, more word-for-word? No, they are not. Anyone who doubts this can simply look them up themselves. And if the Spirit did not follow a wooden translation, then I would say that meaning-based translation trumps word-for-word translation. (IOW a DE [dynamic equivalence] style of translation was used by the Holy Spirit instead of a more FE [formal equivalent] approach.) A FE translation style, such as was used with the KJV, NASB, etc., gives greater emphasis to the original "forms"--the word order and phraseology in the original Greek/Hebrew is followed even when intended meaning is confused or even lost altogether or distorted. A DE translation style uses English word/phrase order, not that of the source language. It also gives greater consideration to idiomatic speech in the source language.

That brings us to another issue to consider: in the Greek word order was much different than in English. The main siginficance of word order in Greek was to, at times, give added emphasis.It's called semantic domains, and linguistic devices -illocutionary forces, literary devices, grammatical skewing........


The RSV translation philosophy was expressed, for example, "As accurate as possible, as free as necessary." What this means is that where possible a more word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase style translation was followed. But when meaning would become lost or distorted, then necessarily a more free interpretation was required so as to not lose the intended meaning in the original languages. Such "free translation" is not paraphrase. Technically a paraphrase involves re-wording within the same language. When going from one language into another the proper term is "paraphrastic," but I understand what you mean. You consider the NIV to be paraphrastic--to be very free, to the point where intended meaning has been lost. I disagree.As my friend has said, the RSV is a horrible translation.
I personally put it right behind the NIV, and you've nailed the reason why.

I'll have to address your other posts later.

Jemand
Apr 11th 2010, 05:53 PM
You asked me this last week (or so) and the answer is still the same. Doctrine is not effected. Let anyone think what they will here. It's not important. It can be both. Neither is wrong. If someone cannot get hungry out of hungered they need to learn how to read.
An hungred is neither syntactically nor semantically equivalent to the adjective hungry. In other words, An hungred does NOT mean hungry. What does it mean?


If you are correct, it posses problems for other translations (such as the ESV). Why aren't you criticizing them here? Why single out the KJV? Think before you regurgitate yet another accusation that makes no difference whatsoever.

You have repeatedly claimed in your posts that the KJV is easy to read—indeed so easy to read that a child can understand it. I have provided documentation that proves that your claim is false. Your claim was made exclusively about the KJV; therefore, the other translations are irrelevant to your claim.


Why "Greek" for Matthew 19:17 and not "Literal Greek" like the other two? Hmmmm?

My text should have read “Literal Greek” in all three places. I apologize for accidentally omitting the word “Literal” for Matthew 19:17.


Mark 10:18
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
ESV: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
KJV: Why callest me thou good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18:19
Literal Greek: Why me callest thou good? No one good except one, God.
ESV: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

But in Matthew 19:17
Greek: Why me questionest thou concerning the good? one is the good.
ESV: Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

The ESV makes no sense here at all.


The ESV very precisely translates the Greek text of Matthew 19:17; the KJV provides a translation of a corrupted text borrowed from Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19.


Some of these aren't even in the KJV. Did you do copy and paste someone elses work or is it your error? Some are obvious. Others can be easily found and learned by context, with one click, or an concordance. In any case it cannot cause confusion and does not matter not effecting doctrine.

Do you have any real problems with the KJV that effect doctrine? Why do English speaking people that claim to have the Spirit and therefore know all things, are led into all truth, can pray and interpret tongues, claim they can't understand an English translation? That somehow the message can be understood by the Spirit with any version but the KJV. I don't need to say what this is because I think there may be a very good possibility that you already know what words can be used to describe this.


As I demonstrated in my post, the spelling of words varies considerably in KJV’s of the Bible. Therefore, the spellings that I gave from a KJV published by Oxford University Press may not be the same in your copy of the KJV. However, I would appreciate if you would tell me which words are spelled differently in your copy of the KJV and tell me who published it.

Jemand
Apr 11th 2010, 07:24 PM
The RSV translation philosophy was expressed, for example, "As accurate as possible, as free as necessary."

Where in the literature concerning the RSV do you find such a statement?

Would it not be much more accurate to say the translation philosophy was to “[embody] the accuracy of the American Standard Version along with the enduring diction, simplicity, and rhythmic beauty of the King James Version, and [to present] an illuminating text for Christian readers who insist on God’s truth as He has revealed it.” (From the dust jacket of The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, 1946)



Consider those places in the NT where the Holy Spirit quotes the OT. Are they, in general, more word-for-word? No, they are not. Anyone who doubts this can simply look them up themselves. And if the Spirit did not follow a wooden translation, then I would say that meaning-based translation trumps word-for-word translation. (IOW a DE [dynamic equivalence] style of translation was used by the Holy Spirit instead of a more FE [formal equivalent] approach.) A FE translation style, such as was used with the KJV, NASB, etc., gives greater emphasis to the original "forms"--the word order and phraseology in the original Greek/Hebrew is followed even when intended meaning is confused or even lost altogether or distorted. A DE translation style uses English word/phrase order, not that of the source language. It also gives greater consideration to idiomatic speech in the source language.


I freely acknowledge that the quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament are frequently far from word-for-word translations of the Hebrew text as it has come down to us, but let us not jump to the conclusion that the differences are deliberate. I believe that it is far more likely that these difference are primarily due to the New Testament writers quoting from a less than accurate memory in the absence of an Old Testament text, or from the only Old Testament text available to them, which was, in many cases, the Septuagint—a very inaccurate translation of the Hebrew text.

I believe, along with the translators of the RSV, that an English translation of the Bible for general use should not be a “mechanically exact, literal, word-for-word [translation], which follow[s] the order of the Greek words, so far as is possible, [but rather follows] the order which is natural to English.” (From the Preface to The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, 1946). It should be, however, as literal as reasonably possible, leaving the interpretation of the text up to the reader rather than the translator whenever the correct interpretation of the text is subject to reasonable doubt.

Please cite examples from the NASB in which the “intended meaning is confused or even lost altogether or distorted” due to “the word order and phraseology in the original Greek/Hebrew [being] followed.”

Jemand
Apr 11th 2010, 08:23 PM
As my friend has said, the RSV is a horrible translation.


Among ultra-conservative evangelicals entangled in McCarthyism, the RSV has been viewed as a horrible translation since 1946 when the RSV of the New Testament was first published. However, when the scathing attacks against the RSV are compared with the facts, the scathing attacks are proven to be nonsense.

BadDog
Apr 11th 2010, 08:44 PM
BD, it has been two weeks since your last PM to me concerning the Greek we were discussing. It's not even on my to do list but I will reply sooner or later. My point is that this is not important enough to me to spend a lot of time on as you have here. I have advocated the ESV, so I cannot be labeled anti-modern trans or radical kjo. I simply provided a fact concerning the NIV.

Are you saying that the NIV is a paraphrase Bible? I sure hope not, for I wholeheartedly disagree.


Yes I am. I know a Wycliffe Bible translator that partially agrees. It is not all paraphrase and it is not all dynamic equivalence. That's a fact, and for serious study there's no room for paraphrasing, which the NIV has a lot of. It's quite simple.
Understood. But the NIV is only slightly more free than the RSV. And the ESV is a very mild revision of the RSV, so how can you like the ESV, and disdain the RSV? Compare them. They're extremely close.


Most translators today consider the NIV to be more accurate than the KJV.

Most? Interesting word. Are most Christians really Christians?
My Wycliffe Bible translator friend wholeheartedly disagrees.
I have been a member of BTranslators - of which very many Wycliffe and other translators are members. I have interacted many times with translators there regarding this issue. Join it yourself, and you'll see: 90% hold to a meaning based translation philosophy. And almost all Wycliffe translators hold to a meaning based translation style. I know that the Summer Insitute for Linguistics (Wycliffe) holds to such, and teaches such.


The KJV was a good revision of a good translation--at the time. But they did not have as thorough understanding of the correct meaning of some Greek terms as modern scholarship.

That's hilarious. 'it's only a revision of a partial translation of only the NT which came from only one man and they did not use any manuscripts'. Funny indeed.
??? That is not what I said. Tyndale translated the entire NT, and about 1/2 of the OT before he was captured and executed by the Church of England. Coverdale finished the OT, using Luther's German translation as an aid, since his Hebrew wasn't great. Now, are you objecting to calling the KJV a revision of Tyndale's (and other Bibles - all revisions of Tyndale's work)?

The KJV translators were instructed to take the Bishops' Bible as their primary basis and not to make changes in that text unless they had good reason to: "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit." (And the translators who worked on the Bishops Bible' had similar instructions about the Great Bible, so some wordings went back even further). The King James translators were instructed that whenever Tyndale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, or the Geneva Bible agreed better with the original text than the Bishops' Bible, they were to use the better wording. Actually, one of the instructions to the King James translators was that the "old ecclesiastical words" should be retained. Apparently at the time King James did not want the Bible to be "too Puritan," so-to-speak.

Here's the preface of the KJV:

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
Now, can there be any doubt that the KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible and Tyndale's Bible? (All of those listed were revision's of Tyndale's work.)


The KJV revisors, who revised Tyndale's translation from the Greek--the first English translation from the Greek (NT)--followed a more wooden approach, such as taken by the NASB translators. Sometimes that works reasonably well, and sometimes it just doesn't. But the KJV is a revision of a translation made in 1526. Compare Tyndale's work and the KJV... outside spelling differences, they are quite similar.

Translations that used similar text are similar. What's your point?
Reviser's? Let's not be rude.

BD: There are many verses in the TR and the Alexandrian text (take the UBS or NA Greek text) which are identical, yet are not translated in a wooden manner. I am merely saying that even some modern translations are more "word-for-word," such as the NASB.

Now, go back and read the above indented KJV preface. They referred to it as revision themselves earlier in the preface. If you would call the ESV a new translation, then I guess you'd call the KJV a new translation. Why does it bother you to call it a revision? How does that affect the quality of work?

First, be accurate. It was not just Tyndale's -enter Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthews', Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva. If you knew the rules you would know they first followed the Bishop's Bible, not Tyndale's partial NT.
BD: I know. Erasmus compiled the Greek text which Tyndale used to do the first translation of the NT from Greek into English. He was not a translator of any of those Bibles. But Tyndale, Matthews, Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva were all revisions of Tyndale's work. The KJV translators considered all of them - especially the Bishop's Bible.

Second, do you really think the best of the day didn't bother translating when and if needed? And it was needed, and was done. That's why they are called translators, not revisers.

BD: I recognize that. But they started by comparing the various English texts. It's always best to start with the original languages. And when you consider the the amount of changes made were slight, how much actual translation did they actually do? But that doesn't matter to me. I am just concerned about the quality of the KJV translation and the degree to which it is "word-for-word" FE style translation. Isn't that the question at hand here?

I'm not going to go back and forth wasting time on bias misrepresentations of the truth. My Wycliffe Bible translator friend agrees mostly with what you are saying, except he has great respect for Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthews', Coverdale, Whitchurch, Geneva, and the kj translators/reformers, and understands it is a much more accurate translation than the NIV. Being a modern translator he doesn't like the 'old English' in the KJV for a modern reader but he uses it (and many others) in his work because of its accuracy. He does not use the NIV in his work. Why waste time finding where they did and did not use text or left out text with so many serious translations out there? So I can have a discussion with him because he knows what he is talking about.
Sirus,

FWIW, I have a greater respect for the work done on the KJV and the other older Bibles you listed above than most people here. I have researched it. I think it's a great story how God led people to translate His Word into English, starting with Wycliffe. I have been (mildly) involved in translation work myself (revision of the ASV-1901 into the WEB) in the past, and hence appreciate the commitment it takes. I do not mean to be disrespectful of the KJV.

Now I know that Wycliffe uses the Nestle-Aland Greek text, not the TR or the Byzantine text, so I imagine your friend must be using it. The reason I say this is that any text "left out" or "added" would be based on the Greek texts used. hence all modern translations will look pretty much the same in that regard. (Except the NKJV, of course, and the WEB, which I worked on, and which is a majority text NT revision. yes, I used to hold strongly to the majority text.)

Again, the NIV is not one of my favorite translations, but that is because of what I perceive as a slight reformed bias, and how it handles certain Greek terms (SARX - "flesh" translated as "nature" and also translating ANTHROPOS - "person," "man" - as "nature").


In over 480 years, we have learned a lot.

Have we? News to me, and opposite of what scripture says. Apostasy. Scripture does not say we will improve anything.
[b]BD: Where does it say that translation will get worse?

Erasmus did what no one dared to do, altering ‘the word of God’ Latin Vulgate in 'the language (Latin) of the church’, which was considered heretical and punishable by death, but no one could deny his ‘majority’ method and final textual improvements. Modern liberal scholars deny the ‘majority’ method today, but today evil is good and good is evil, so is this a surprise?
BD: Erasmus compiled about 7 Greek MSS into one MS of the Greek NT? Now it wasn't much of a majority, since very few of his Greek MS portions overlapped. Look it up. Now the MSS he used were of the majority text family - I'll grant you that.

Now are you saying that today's translators are trying to distort the Bible? They are doing what they consider, and are convinced, is best.

Erasmus , Stephanus, Beza, the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthews', Coverdale, Whitchurch, Geneva, and the kj translators/reformers all understood we get accurate translations from “majority text” and get inaccurate translations from “minority text”. Modern scholars worth their salt, and anyone with any common sense, do not completely agree with Westcott and Hort. Even modern scholar Kurt Aland said, "We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our conception of different recensions and text-types although this conception has lost its raison d' ętre, or, it needs at least to be newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the end of Westcott and Hort's conception." Kurt Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research", The Bible in Modern Scholarship, J.P. Hyatt ed., (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 337.
Those translators did not have many texts available which were not of the majority text style. There is no evidence that they preferred the handful of MSS they had to otehr much older MSS.

Incidentally, almost all of the papyri are of the Alexandrian text family.



Does anyone really think that a translation made nearly 500 years ago (or, if you prefer, about 400 yr. ago) is going to be superior to recent ones?

Why not?
Scholarship has improved in leaps and bounds. As Newton said, we're standing on the shoulders of giants.


...unless they hold to some sort of conspiracy theory.

No need for that.


(Which KJV-only adherents in general do. Let's not turn this thread into a KJV-only debate--please!)

It's not like you to drop the bomb and run BD. I've already suggested the ESV so I do not fall in this radical group but if one is lurking you sure have asked for it.
:D Good to hear that you like the ESV. When I was in training with the Navs I memorized a bunch of scripture in the RSV and it was my study Bible for awhile.


I suggest that we look at specific cases, and compare them to the Greek text.

I suggest you try to do that on your own where the NIV did not use any text and added in their attempt to not lose what they thought the meaning was. Let us know how it goes. There is no comparison. How is someone new, wanting to learn the words of God, going to know when they are reading the words of God in the NIV? Always, just because they got it off the christian bookstore shelf?
I just analyzed three Bible texts from Jemand. The Greek text for the MT and the CT was the same for two of them.

Sirus, what you do not seem to understand is that the ESV, the RSV, the NASB, the NIV and the HCSB all used the critical text Greek NT.


It's called semantic domains, and linguistic devices -illocutionary forces, literary devices, grammatical skewing........
You're going to have to explain yourself here. Do you think that considering semantic domains is wrong?! Sorry... I'm confused. Do you disagree with what I said there? I am absolutely positive your Wycliffe friend does not.


The RSV translation philosophy was expressed, for example, "As accurate as possible, as free as necessary." What this means is that where possible a more word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase style translation was followed. But when meaning would become lost or distorted, then necessarily a more free interpretation was required so as to not lose the intended meaning in the original languages. Such "free translation" is not paraphrase. Technically a paraphrase involves re-wording within the same language. When going from one language into another the proper term is "paraphrastic," but I understand what you mean. You consider the NIV to be paraphrastic--to be very free, to the point where intended meaning has been lost. I disagree.

As my friend has said, the RSV is a horrible translation.
I personally put it right behind the NIV, and you've nailed the reason why.

I'll have to address your other posts later.
If you agree with your friend that the RSV is a horrible translation, then why do you like the ESV?

The motto listed above ("As accurate as possible, as free as necessary.") is something you should endorse, whether or not you agree that they succeeded in following it. What it means is to be FE in translation style except when to do so would be to mis-translate, lose accuracy or distort meaning. Surely you do not think that we should keep things word-for-word style even when the wrong meaning comes out!

Now, I would be interested in why your friend does not like the RSV-specifically. Can he list any verses where he feels the RSV messed up? I'd like to look at them. Perhaps we can compare how the NIV and KJV did with them. :D Also, does your friend do actual translation work? ...from the original languages? The reason I ask is I know how strongly Wycliffe supports the CT Greek. If he didn't that would be quite rare among Wycliffe translators... ask him about this. I'm sure he'll agree with this statement.


Sirus, I do not like the contentious directions these posts are becoming. I respond to KJV-NIV threads because invariably the NIV is unfairly put down. I am not a fan of the NIV, but I will support it, just as I will support the KJV from those who unfairly rip it. I love God's Word, and i hate it when I see people in ignorance attack the work of godly men and women. (I realize that it is usually done in ignorance. That doesn't make it right.)

Take care, Sirus, and let's try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

BD

BadDog
Apr 11th 2010, 09:03 PM
Among ultra-conservative evangelicals entangled in McCarthyism, the RSV has been viewed as a horrible translation since 1946 when the RSV of the New Testament was first published. However, when the scathing attacks against the RSV are compared with the facts, the scathing attacks are proven to be nonsense.
Jemand,

I agree wholeheartedly. The real issue was based mainly on one verse: Isaiah 7:14

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.

The RSV translates it as "young women," which is the correct meaning in Hebrew. People have reasoned that young maidens in those days were virgins, which was in general true. But the issue becomes one of whether or not we allow the NT quoting of scripture to affect how we translate the OT text. Most Bibles translate the Hebrew as "virgin" since the NT does. The RSV translators had the courage to do what was right. God's Word can stand up for itself. Let's not feel the need to help it out by changing our translation fro what it should be. Here's the NET note on it. Incidentally, the NET translated it correctly also:

Isaiah 7:10-16 The Lord again spoke to Ahaz: “Ask for a confirming sign from the Lord your God. You can even ask for something miraculous.”

But Ahaz responded, “I don’t want to ask; I don’t want to put the Lord to a test.”

So Isaiah replied, “Pay attention, family of David. Do you consider it too insignificant to try the patience of men? Is that why you are also trying the patience of my God? 7:14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman26 is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel. He will eat sour milk and honey, which will help him know how to reject evil and choose what is right. Here is why this will be so: Before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right, the land whose two kings you fear will be desolate.
tn26 - Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

The context of vs. 14 above makes it clear that there was an immediate fulfillment in that a young woman was going to get pregnant and give birth to a young boy. Before he was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, Assyria would leave Israel. Now it is very common for OT prophecies to have a dual fulfillment - one more immediate, and one in the future. I believe that's what happened here. As the note says, it does not affect the tremendous prophecy and amazing birth of our Lord.

BD

EaglezEye
Apr 12th 2010, 01:38 AM
I still can't believe how big of a thread this has become from my little ole' question.

BadDog
Apr 12th 2010, 02:22 AM
I still can't believe how big of a thread this has become from my little ole' question. :spin:

Yup. Those NIV vs. KJV threads can get pretty intense and long. I'm not sure why people react so strongly to the NIV and don't similarly respond to the NLT, NASB, RSV, ESV or even The Message.

But it is a good idea for a thread, since you focused on the idea of the style of translation, instead of whether or not the NIV has removed or added stuff. THAT was a good focus.

BD

Sirus
Apr 12th 2010, 03:08 AM
But in Matthew 19:17
Greek: Why me questionest thou concerning the good? one is the good.
ESV: Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
KJV: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

The ESV makes no sense here at all. (BD: ?? Let's takes a look.)

Greek: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς.
My trans.: He said to him, "Why do you ask about [what is] good?" "There is only One [who is] good. If you desire to enter life, obey the commandments."

The Greek text simply does not have "God" (θεός) in it, nor does it say, "call me." ἐρωτᾷς means to ask. The ESV is simply much better than the KJV here. Interestingly, the KJV has chosen to be more paraphrastic here than the ESV or the NIV. The Greek text simply does not say, "Why do you call me good?" and it does not add "God." ??? Those are serious issues. It is implied that the only One who is good is God, but the text does not say that. That is too interpretive. It is best for the reader to get the same sense as the original reader, with implications instead of actual statement.

Now, to be fair to the KJV, this is mainly due to a textual variant. The Byzantine text, that the KJV was translated from, is different here. The KJV has accurately translated the Greek text that it used. So Matthew 19:17 should not be included in this comparison. The KJV is OK here, as are the ESV and the NIV.First, why do you say there are serious issues with the KJV here, post Greek the KJ translators did not use, then say it was accurately translated from the text they did use? Enough said :P

I said the ESV makes no sense because first it (and your translation) says 'what'
"Why do you ask me about what is good?"
"Why do you ask about [what is] good?"
but next says 'who'
"There is only one who is good."
"There is only One [who is] good."
Don't you find that odd? The Greek used by the KJV is consistent all three instances but the ESV and the Greek used for it is not. Now for some things such as kingdom mystery parables this is not unusual for the Greek used for the KJV, and it is not at all unusual for the KJV to maintain such, but this behavior is very odd for modern translations. What happened to 3 gospel harmony? Which I do not believe in BTW.

Sirus
Apr 12th 2010, 03:11 AM
I mentioned earlier that Koine Greek translation has improved due to a better understanding of Greek lexically. The grammar is better understood today as well. For example, the use of the article in the Greek is better understood now. The KJV, as well as other older translations, really missed the boat on this one, Titus 2:13, since the Granville-Sharp rule wasn't yet developed until the late 18th century:

NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Here it is clear that Jesus Christ is "our great God and Savior."

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The KJV makes it appear that two People will appear: God (the Father) and Jesus Christ. But the Greek text indicates they are the same person! Oops. A lost opportunity to make the fact that Jesus is God is clearly taught in scripture.You're on a roll. I have never thought this or known anyone to think this in my 19 Christian years. You have to be really desperate to pull this on out of your hat.

Sirus
Apr 12th 2010, 03:20 AM
Among ultra-conservative evangelicals entangled in McCarthyism, the RSV has been viewed as a horrible translation since 1946 when the RSV of the New Testament was first published. However, when the scathing attacks against the RSV are compared with the facts, the scathing attacks are proven to be nonsense.McCarthyism? You are a close second to BD. Oh how I almost wish I could burden my friend and allow you to read things he has written so you could not accuse him of such nonsense.

Sirus
Apr 12th 2010, 04:29 AM
I still can't believe how big of a thread this has become from my little ole' question.It's only 5 pages. They usually run 10-15+. This is nothing.
The answer to your question of 'why the KJV for so long', put simply, is found in majority text vs minority text. The KJV has always been attacked.

Jemand
Apr 12th 2010, 06:48 AM
McCarthyism? You are a close second to BD. Oh how I almost wish I could burden my friend and allow you to read things he has written so you could not accuse him of such nonsense.

I have not accused your friend of anything at all, and I was not referring to either you or him in my post.

Nomad
Apr 12th 2010, 11:46 AM
It's only 5 pages. They usually run 10-15+. This is nothing.
The answer to your question of 'why the KJV for so long', put simply, is found in majority text vs minority text. The KJV has always been attacked.

Are you under the impression that the various versions of the Textus Receptus, which are based on relatively few late date manuscripts, are the same as the Majority Text? They are not the same.

BadDog
Apr 12th 2010, 04:53 PM
Are you under the impression that the various versions of the Textus Receptus, which are based on relatively few late date manuscripts, are the same as the Majority Text? They are not the same.

The TR is of the majority text family, as I'm sure Nomad knows. But it has several places where it differs from the majority text.

BD

Jemand
Apr 12th 2010, 06:44 PM
I mentioned earlier that Koine Greek translation has improved due to a better understanding of Greek lexically. The grammar is better understood today as well. For example, the use of the article in the Greek is better understood now. The KJV, as well as other older translations, really missed the boat on this one, Titus 2:13, since the Granville-Sharp rule wasn't yet developed until the late 18th century:

NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Here it is clear that Jesus Christ is "our great God and Savior."

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The KJV makes it appear that two People will appear: God (the Father) and Jesus Christ. But the Greek text indicates they are the same person! Oops. A lost opportunity to make the fact that Jesus is God is clearly taught in scripture.

Greek: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Since "God" (τοῦ θεοῦ) and "Jesus Christ" (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) are in the same case (genitive) and the first noun (God) includes the article (τοῦ) and the nouns are connected with the conjunction "and" (καὶ), this is an appositive - they are the same person. It would be as if I referred to my wife as "the wife and mother of my children." Would anyone think that there were two people? My wife, and then someone else who was the mother of my children? (Hopefully not! :D ) That's what's happening in the Greek here. It's referred to as TNKN format ("article noun KAI noun - nouns in same case, and singular.) This appears over 100 times in the Greek NT, and in every case, it is referring to the same person.

The Granville Sharp Rule:
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle"

Sharp also developed 6 other rules concerning the use of the article in Koine Greek. Dr. Daniel Wallace did an extensive study of the article more recently, and said in his grammar:

"As he [Sharp] studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”

Incidentally, there are 4 other instances of which I am aware in which the KJV missed this which relates to the deity of Christ, and hence lost the clearly intended deity of Christ statement. Not the translators fault of course... no one had studied the article to the extent that Granville Sharp did and hence they did not understood this particular usage yet. But why not use a Bible more updated in this respect?

Take care,

BD

A very lengthy article by Daniel Wallace on Granville Sharp and his rule can be read online here:

http://bible.org/article/granville-sharp-model-evangelical-scholarship-and-social-activism

Nomad
Apr 12th 2010, 09:16 PM
The TR is of the majority text family, as I'm sure Nomad knows. But it has several places where it differs from the majority text.

Yes, thanks BD. My question was precipitated by Sirus' majority vs. minority text comment. With the TR as the only Greek text at their disposal, I'm not so sure the KJV translators would have had it in their minds to aim for a MT translation.

Sirus
Apr 12th 2010, 11:22 PM
I have not accused your friend of anything at all, and I was not referring to either you or him in my post. That's not how this works. You quoted me stating my friend and my thoughts on the RSV, then made your statement while not stating that you were not refferring to us. You should be more clear and add a disclaimer.

Sirus
Apr 12th 2010, 11:59 PM
Are you under the impression that the various versions of the Textus Receptus, which are based on relatively few late date manuscripts, are the same as the Majority Text? They are not the same.Notice I did not capitalize them as you did here. I was referring to ALL text, which still holds true today, and also what Erasmus had to work with. They were not all late and he had hundreds not a few. What he used were the best of what agreed with 95% of what he had. The TR is the result.

Erasmus had five manuscripts along with notes made from analyzing and comparing hundreds of other manuscripts. Erasmus traveled throughout Europe finding all he could and had all of the important variable readings available to scholars today, and we know he divided them into two categories. Out of the several hundred manuscripts, 95% (majority) had mostly the same text as the five he used. The others agreed with the Latin Vulgate (minority). You don't think Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza attempted a Greek NT with five manuscripts do you? Talk about insulting!

Erasmus said “You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both. What will you do with the errors of the copyist?” Erasmus plainly admitted the existence of copyist errors. Big deal! Who doesn’t admit their existence? Erasmus’ point was that by gathering all available text, errors could be corrected, which is exactly what he set out to do and did.

Erasmus -“Granted that the Greek books are just as corrupt as the Latin ones, yet by collating manuscripts that are equally corrupt one can often discover the true reading, for it frequently happens that what has been corrupted by chance in one is found in tact in another”

Erasmus –“Now granted that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are as corrupt as ours, does it follow that we are deprived of any hope of ever emending what is found to be corrupted in our manuscripts? Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts, though not faulty in the same way, the true and genuine reading is found?”

Erasmus understood we get accurate translations from “majority text” and get inaccurate translations from “minority text”.


With the TR as the only Greek text at their disposal, I'm not so sure the KJV translators would have had it in their minds to aim for a MT translation.It was not the only.
We know what the KJV translators had it in their minds to do. What any good translator does. They did so using text that is the result of the majority. This is no different than modern translators preferring the ubs minority. Why was there a bias or conspiracy in everything concerning the KJV?

Sirus
Apr 13th 2010, 12:03 AM
Tyndale translated the entire NT, and about 1/2 of the OT before he was captured and executed by the Church of England.You are correct. You know, I am still trying to figure out who and what I was thinking about. I don't think it was that he didn't finish the OT. Did someone significantly not finish the NT? Maybe I was thinking about his OT. I honestly don't know. There's so much info on the subject.

I'll have to address other parts of this post later.

Nomad
Apr 13th 2010, 12:34 AM
Why was there a bias or conspiracy in everything concerning the KJV?

No one here has said any such thing. I have the utmost respect for Erasmus, the KJV translators, and the KJV. I grew up reading the KJV and it will always have a special place in my heart. However, today we have the priviledge and good fortune to have at our disposal over 5700 Greek manuscripts to work with. Compared with the poverty of manuscripts available to Erasmus and company, we have built into modern English translations a virtual cornucopia of manuscript evidence. This should not be overlooked. The problem I have with your arguments is that majority text readings do not necessarily indicate which reading is correct.

Sirus
Apr 13th 2010, 01:29 AM
No one here has said any such thing. I have the utmost respect for Erasmus, the KJV translators, and the KJV. I grew up reading the KJV and it will always have a special place in my heart. However, today we have the priviledge and good fortune to have at our disposal over 5700 Greek manuscripts to work with. Compared with the poverty of manuscripts available to Erasmus and company, we have built into modern English translations a virtual cornucopia of manuscript evidence. This should not be overlooked. The problem I have with your arguments is that majority text readings do not necessarily indicate which reading is correct.This is spilt. It is too completely different arguments.


No one here has said any such thing. I have the utmost respect for Erasmus, the KJV translators, and the KJV. I grew up reading the KJV and it will always have a special place in my heart. However, today we have the priviledge and good fortune to have at our disposal over 5700 Greek manuscripts to work with. Compared with the poverty of manuscripts available to Erasmus and company, we have built into modern English translations a virtual cornucopia of manuscript evidence. This should not be overlooked.


The problem I have with your arguments is that majority text readings do not necessarily indicate which reading is correct.

Now, for this
No one here has said any such thing. I have the utmost respect for Erasmus, the KJV translators, and the KJV. I grew up reading the KJV and it will always have a special place in my heart. However, today we have the priviledge and good fortune to have at our disposal over 5700 Greek manuscripts to work with. Compared with the poverty of manuscripts available to Erasmus and company, we have built into modern English translations a virtual cornucopia of manuscript evidence. This should not be overlooked. There was no 'poverty of manuscripts'. The majority is still the majority and the minority is still the minority. That's why I said "which still holds true today". So we have biult into nothing different than existed then. You can choose to go with the minority, but you cannot grow the minority beyond the majority. They are what they are.

Regarding this
The problem I have with your arguments is that majority text readings do not necessarily indicate which reading is correct.It speaks for itself. The majority method to get the original used by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the kjv translators, reformers, the following centuries of believers, the lasting reformed kingdom result of their sacrifice, and scripture concerning apostasy and the reality we live in, speaks for itself and answers the OP's question -why the majority for so long? I am not saying the modern translations based on the minority is the cause. They did not just drop out of the sky. Man using the minority and man desiring something else from the minority was and still is the problem.

Nomad
Apr 13th 2010, 01:59 AM
Man using the minority and man desiring something else from the minority was and still is the problem.

Ummm.... Sirus... wow! I wish I could quote the entirety of your last post. What an incoherent mess. Your last comment will have to suffice as an example. What can I possibly say?

Sirus
Apr 13th 2010, 02:51 AM
You don't have to say anything. It is clear. For some silly reason, you think it best to go with a few over the many. Enjoy!

BadDog
Apr 13th 2010, 11:34 AM
Yes, thanks BD. My question was precipitated by Sirus' majority vs. minority text comment. With the TR as the only Greek text at their disposal, I'm not so sure the KJV translators would have had it in their minds to aim for a MT translation.
Exactly. We don't really know what they would have done if they had all of the MSS available that say Westcott and Hort had.

BD

BadDog
Apr 13th 2010, 11:36 AM
You are correct. You know, I am still trying to figure out who and what I was thinking about. I don't think it was that he didn't finish the OT. Did someone significantly not finish the NT? Maybe I was thinking about his OT. I honestly don't know. There's so much info on the subject.

I'll have to address other parts of this post later.Don't know about who that might be. No one comes to mind. Tyndale get a great job in his translation. But we should also recognize that it is always best to have a committee. Though Tyndale did well, considering the circumstances, yet the KJV committee was able to improve his translation, even if only because they were more than a single person. More than one point of view on how to interpret things is always best. I am not trying to be critical of what they did. They did a good job at the time. I just am of the opinion that modern scholarship does a superior job. I know you disagree.

I also am convinced that modern scholars have superior Greek MSS. I know you disagree here as well. I should point out that I have delved into this deeply, not just on the surface. I helped (for about 2 1/2 yr.) in revising the ASV-1901 to the present WEB, which is a majority text revision. I went through each chapter in the NT more than two times, using the apparatus at the bottom of the Hodges/Farstad Greek NT, trying to change every CT phrase into a MT expression. So I am very familiar with just how many differences there are between the two families of Greek text. I prefer Sturr's approach (sp?), personally, of using all of the MSS regardless of which family, though I would prefer that age trump majority in most cases.

And I do wish that there were more MT translations available. Right now, about the only purely MT translation out there is the WEB. Robinson has done some work on one. Don't know the details. I was a MT guy when I did that work. I have become convinced since that the CT is better.


I will add that if you consider only MSS before the 9th century, and it could reasonably be asked why we should even consider any later than this, that the CT is in the majority. This is what convinced me to switch loyalties. The MT is only in the majority with recent MSS. The further you go back in time, the more that the CT becomes the overwhelming majority. So it appears that the MT is not really, in this respect, in the majority. :P

Take care,

BD

Sirus
Apr 13th 2010, 11:59 PM
Exactly. We don't really know what they would have done if they had all of the MSS available that say Westcott and Hort had.

BDWhat makes you think they didn't?

Sirus
Apr 14th 2010, 01:10 AM
Understood. But the NIV is only slightly more free than the RSV. And the ESV is a very mild revision of the RSV, so how can you like the ESV, and disdain the RSV? Compare them. They're extremely close.I don't think they are close at all. Neither does my translator friend. Close 'as in' same text used but that's pretty much it.


I have been a member of BTranslators - of which very many Wycliffe and other translators are members. I have interacted many times with translators there regarding this issue. Join it yourself, and you'll see: 90% hold to a meaning based translation philosophy. And almost all Wycliffe translators hold to a meaning based translation style. I know that the Summer Insitute for Linguistics (Wycliffe) holds to such, and teaches such.You didn't answer the question.
"Most? Interesting word. Are most Christians really Christians?"


Now, are you objecting to calling the KJV a revision of Tyndale's (and other Bibles - all revisions of Tyndale's work)?

The KJV translators were instructed to take the Bishops' Bible as their primary basis and not to make changes in that text unless they had good reason to: "as little altered as the truth of the original text will permit." (And the translators who worked on the Bishops Bible' had similar instructions about the Great Bible, so some wordings went back even further). The King James translators were instructed that whenever Tyndale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, or the Geneva Bible agreed better with the original text than the Bishops' Bible, they were to use the better wording. Actually, one of the instructions to the King James translators was that the "old ecclesiastical words" should be retained. Apparently at the time King James did not want the Bible to be "too Puritan," so-to-speak.

Here's the preface of the KJV:
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. Now, can there be any doubt that the KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible and Tyndale's Bible? (All of those listed were revision's of Tyndale's work.)Actually no. I object to you calling the kjv translators revisers. They were instructed to hold to the Bishop's unless.....
They did not end up 95% Tyndale because it sounded good. They translated ("good reason -original text") and agreed with Tyndale's. They were translators. To say anything else is an insult. You cannot say you respect revisers of the word of God. That's silly. So yes, there is no doubt the KJV is a translation not a revision. Your words. :P


I do not mean to be disrespectful of the KJV.As you have done above, it easy to not call translators revisors. :)


Now I know that Wycliffe uses the Nestle-Aland Greek text, not the TR or the Byzantine text, so I imagine your friend must be using it. The reason I say this is that any text "left out" or "added" would be based on the Greek texts used. hence all modern translations will look pretty much the same in that regard. (Except the NKJV, of course, and the WEB, which I worked on, and which is a majority text NT revision. yes, I used to hold strongly to the majority text.)

Again, the NIV is not one of my favorite translations, but that is because of what I perceive as a slight reformed bias, and how it handles certain Greek terms (SARX - "flesh" translated as "nature" and also translating ANTHROPOS - "person," "man" - as "nature").and my friend and I agree.


Sirus: Have we? News to me, and opposite of what scripture says. Apostasy. Scripture does not say we will improve anything.
[B]BD: Where does it say that translation will get worse?Man, lack of truth. Men translate. There ya go.


Erasmus did what no one dared to do, altering ‘the word of God’ Latin Vulgate in 'the language (Latin) of the church’, which was considered heretical and punishable by death, but no one could deny his ‘majority’ method and final textual improvements. Modern liberal scholars deny the ‘majority’ method today, but today evil is good and good is evil, so is this a surprise?
BD: Erasmus compiled about 7 Greek MSS into one MS of the Greek NT? Now it wasn't much of a majority, since very few of his Greek MS portions overlapped. Look it up. Now the MSS he used were of the majority text family - I'll grant you that.
You question then agree. Wha?


Now are you saying that today's translators are trying to distort the Bible? They are doing what they consider, and are convinced, is best.Ah, see, it always comes down to this, doesn't it? I thought you didn't want this to turn into a kjo debate? :D


Those translators did not have many texts available which were not of the majority text style.How do you know? What is your evidence?


There is no evidence that they preferred the handful of MSS they had to otehr much older MSS.handful? and what is your evidence they didn't have preference like translators today do? :D


Incidentally, almost all of the papyri are of the Alexandrian text family.most, and those that are not are.....???


Scholarship has improved in leaps and bounds.This has nothing to do with having the Spirit.


Good to hear that you like the ESV.I don't. Never said I did. Just that it is the best of the modern. I never just pick anything up for reading and study, only the KJV. I compare many for study. Unlike all others, the KJV is always 100% correct and consistent. If I was forced to choose anything else it would be the ESV. That's all.


Sirus, what you do not seem to understand is that the ESV, the RSV, the NASB, the NIV and the HCSB all used the critical text Greek NT.What in the world has made you think I didn't understand this?


You're going to have to explain yourself here. Do you think that considering semantic domains is wrong?! Sorry... I'm confused. Do you disagree with what I said there? I am absolutely positive your Wycliffe friend does not.No. I was stating in a simple few words what you took several paragraphs to say.


If you agree with your friend that the RSV is a horrible translation, then why do you like the ESV?I don't. See above.


Now, I would be interested in why your friend does not like the RSV-specifically. Can he list any verses where he feels the RSV messed up?I've never asked either, but I will.


Also, does your friend do actual translation work? ...from the original languages?Mostly. Yes. Of course.

Reynolds357
Apr 14th 2010, 01:46 AM
These are not accurate statements. The first English translation readily available to the masses was the Geneva Bible. It was first published in 1560 and proved to be so popular that was published in 160 editions and it continued to be published for more than 100 years. The Bishop’s Bible was first published in 1568, and although it never gained the widespread popularity of the Geneva Bible, it was the official basis of the King James Version. The Douay-Rheims Bible was first published in 1609 and continued to be published until 1749 when parts of it were revised. Further revisions were competed in 1750 and 1752.
I am well aware of the History of Bible publishing. As I said, The KJV was the first available to the masses. No translation you cited ever achieved widespread circulation.

Sirus
Apr 14th 2010, 02:26 AM
I will add that if you consider only MSS before the 9th century, and it could reasonably be asked why we should even consider any later than this, that the CT is in the majority. This is what convinced me to switch loyalties. The MT is only in the majority with recent MSS. The further you go back in time, the more that the CT becomes the overwhelming majority. So it appears that the MT is not really, in this respect, in the majority. :PIt cannot "reasonably be asked why we should even consider any later than this". If you have a 7th century text, you don't know the date of it's parent or if it had a parent etc....
Respectively, If you have a 14th century text, you don't know the date of it's parent or if it had a parent etc....

Also, of the older texts there are far more variations omissions additions -differences- in the minority than found in the the majority.
Older is not necessarily better.
Again. Only the majority of all can determine the true reading. :P
you should seriously reconsider your loyalties.

BadDog
Apr 14th 2010, 03:16 PM
What makes you think they didn't?Easy. We KNOW they didn't. They only had about 6 or 7 MSS available. Now the Eastern church had more MSS, but at this time, the Western church did not. We know what MSS Erasmus had to work with.

BD

BadDog
Apr 14th 2010, 04:56 PM
I don't think they are close at all. Neither does my translator friend. Close 'as in' same text used but that's pretty much it.

Uh, OK. Well then, let's just set the RSV and the ESV side-by-side with some texts. I randomly picked Matthew 24: 1-8 -->

Matthew 24:1-8

RSV:

1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." 3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" 4 And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: 8 all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.

ESV:

1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

4 words different out of 185 words. That's 2%. A couple of punctuation changes. There are 3 places where a word was changed... out of 184/5 words. "This" changed to "these things." "Take heed" changed to "see," (no one says "take heed" today) and "birth pangs" changed to "birth pains."


You can take any passage. Check it out. They're almost identical. Now I gotta say that anyone, including your Wycliffe friend, who says that they're not close at all simply has not really sat down and compared them. Be real, please. How can anyone say they are radically different? Are you just being swayed by what you've heard people say about the RSV? Sorry, but I just do not understand. You see, the translators of the RSV into the ESV really believed in the RSV... there were just a handful of texts that they wished could be changed. The RSV is technically a revision of the KJV-based upon the critical text Greek texts for the NT. That's one reason why so few words were changed from the RSV to the ESV. They also had an issue with the Universal Council of Churches, or whatever the ecumenical organization behind it was named.

Now, gotta go. I'll address your other points later. School calls.


Now, I have to add that the focus of this thread was supposed to be the NIV vs. the KJV. Let me share what I think: certain people have become jealous about the growing popularity of the NIV, and the decline of the KJV. Taking a few facts, they've blown them out of proportion, and gained a large following. Just my opinion, but I believe that anyone who rationally sat down and compared how the two texts read, compared how well people understood them when they read them, compared the differences in words and actual meaning, and they'd have to find some good things to say about the NIV. Too many people have been drawn into this. It's sad. I can understand many of the issues that people have with the NIV. But it has been blown so out of proportion, that it just doesn't make any sense.

The NIV is a good translation. It is the English-speaking translation which God has chosen to reach hundreds of millions of people in this age.

BD

Stan777
Apr 14th 2010, 10:40 PM
Not trying to start a version war but this is why I dont use the NIV and use the KJV. http://gloryriders.com/KJV.html Also search Gail Riplinger on youtube, take a look at her videos comparing the KJV to the modern versions.


(http://gloryriders.com/KJV.html)

amazzin
Apr 14th 2010, 10:45 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.

I am not a fan of either. The KJV is antiquated and today's generation doesn't understand its language. The NIV is the "Nearly Inspired Version and by that it is not as literal translation.

Try the NASB or ESV. I use a NKJV for most teaching purposes because I was trained using the KJV and the memorized verses often come back to me in KJV but I use the ESV to communicate the message.

Nomad
Apr 14th 2010, 11:41 PM
The NIV is the "Nearly Inspired Version...

That's funny. I know a guy who refers to the ESV as the "English Sanctified Version" because of its growing popularity.

Sirus
Apr 15th 2010, 04:57 AM
Easy. We KNOW they didn't. They only had about 6 or 7 MSS available. Now the Eastern church had more MSS, but at this time, the Western church did not. We know what MSS Erasmus had to work with.

BDNo you do not. You have chosen to believe what you have read just as I have. I know from notes and writing that Erasmus chose 7 out of hundreds that agreed and that the others had more later on. I asked earlier.....how can you really insult anyone with the nonsense of trying a nt greek with only a handful of mss? I am sorry to say that says a lot....and was it says is not good at all.

Sirus
Apr 15th 2010, 05:02 AM
Now, I have to add that the focus of this thread was supposed to be the NIV vs. the KJV. Let me share what I think: certain people have become jealous about the growing popularity of the NIV, and the decline of the KJV.So misinformed. I know no one that is jealous of the NIV. Absurd. Also, there has been no decline of the KJV.

Nomad
Apr 15th 2010, 10:37 AM
I know from notes and writing that Erasmus chose 7 out of hundreds that agreed and that the others had more later on.

Please provide documentation that this is the case. Erasmus certainly had notes on manuscripts he did not possess, but hundreds? I think you are horribly misinformed.

BadDog
Apr 15th 2010, 10:52 AM
Don't have much time today, but here's a quick hit on a portion of your post:


Actually no. I object to you calling the kjv translators revisers. They were instructed to hold to the Bishop's unless.....
They did not end up 95% Tyndale because it sounded good. They translated ("good reason -original text") and agreed with Tyndale's. They were translators. To say anything else is an insult. You cannot say you respect revisers of the word of God. That's silly. So yes, there is no doubt the KJV is a translation not a revision. Your words. :P
Sirus, just FYI, I did not call them "revisers" instead of translators. I said that what they did was "revise" the Tyndale, Bishop's Bible, etc.. It takes translators to revise a translation! (Or, it should. :P ) I am not trying to insult the KJV translators. How many different ways and times do I have to say this?

By definition, what they did was revision. Look it up. They referred to it as revision in the preface. The point is not to diminish what they did, but that if they revised an earlier work(s), why do people have an issue now with other people revising that work? You see, the RSV was a revision of the KJV... I know, significant revision, but still it was a revision. It is one of the translations referred to as being in the King James tradition. That was the intent when it was produced. In every verse, they considered what the KJV did. The idea was to free up the language, since the KJV contained much archaic language, and bring it up to speed for the 20th century. The ASV-1901 was also in the KJV tradition - it was an American version of the British Revised Version of the KJV in 1885. Here's the title page of that one:


TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES

BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH A.D. 1611

COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED

A.D. 1881-1885

Newly Edited by the American Revisory Committee

A.D. 1901

The NASB, of course, was a revision of the ASV-1901, and the RSV-1951 (or there about) was a revision of the 1885 Revised Version of the KJV, so they're all in the King James tradition. The NIV was perhaps the first major translation to not be set in the King James tradition... but I gotta imagine that they did consider how the KJV expressed certain verses. :D


So people have no issue with what King George and the translation team he assembled did, yet they have a problem with the RSV... ??!! People have no problem with the ESV, yet they do with the nearly identical ESV. ???!!! Do you see the inconsistencies?


Now, I've got a thought: since the focus of this thread is on the NIV-KJV, what do you think about skipping the stuff regarding the RSV-ESV-etc., and getting back to that?

Catch you later,

BD

BadDog
Apr 15th 2010, 11:05 AM
Please provide documentation that this is the case. Erasmus certainly had notes on manuscripts he did not possess, but hundreds? I think you are horribly misinformed.
Definitely!

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Apr 15th 2010, 11:07 AM
So misinformed. I know no one that is jealous of the NIV. Absurd. Also, there has been no decline of the KJV.
Uh, what you been drinking lately? Percentage-wise, you think the KJV still is used by 95% of Americans? I am not trying to put the KJV down. I am just trying to understand why there has been such s ridiculous over-reaction.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Apr 15th 2010, 11:13 AM
No you do not. You have chosen to believe what you have read just as I have. I know from notes and writing that Erasmus chose 7 out of hundreds that agreed and that the others had more later on. I asked earlier.....how can you really insult anyone with the nonsense of trying a nt greek with only a handful of mss? I am sorry to say that says a lot....and was it says is not good at all.
Sirus,

Can you document this rash statement? There is much evidence that in the first edition of the TR that Erasmus had 6, perhaps 7 partial MSS to work with. The point was that there were no complete Greek MSS of the NT laying around for people to use. Erasmus wanted to develop one that could be used. All of his MSS were just portions of the NT. He did the best he could with what he had. He did not have any MS which contained the last portion of Revelation. It is believed that he back-translated from the Latin to create the Greek there since there is not a single Greek MS that contains what he has in the TR there. (Daniel Wallace, head of the DTS Greek dept., and others, have expressed this idea.) But what he has there is found in some Latin MSS.

When I get some time at home, I'll list the specific MSS that he had available. Can you give us any idea what other MSS he had available from which to choose?

BD

svfox
Apr 17th 2010, 09:07 PM
kjv was translated very well.
Some mistakes made, but not many

Radagast
Apr 19th 2010, 11:46 AM
I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

It won't do any harm -- it's always good to compare translations -- but (speaking as someone who reads New Testament Greek) the NIV is a more accurate translation than the KJV.

Radagast
Apr 19th 2010, 03:47 PM
There is much evidence that in the first edition of the TR that Erasmus had 6, perhaps 7 partial MSS to work with.

Erasmus was aware of the Codex Vaticanus, but never saw it.
He was not aware of the Codex Washingtonianus, purchased by Charles Lang Freer in Egypt in 1906
He was not aware of the Codex Zacynthius, found in 1821
He was not aware of the Codex Sinaiticus, found in the 1800s
Nor was he aware of a host of other ancient manuscripts and papyri discovered in the 1800s and 1900s

Today we have hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts that Erasmus never knew about

Gentile
Jul 5th 2010, 02:35 AM
I read the NKJV, which I love. I recently found out the King James 2000 Version.

Here is a link: http://life-equals-jesus.org/Couric/KJ2Khome.html

I own the NIV, and I don't like it at all. Way to many changes in the texts and it feels like I am reading a 1st grade book.

BadDog
Jul 6th 2010, 08:58 PM
Hi all.

I have always been a christian but had been backsliding for a long time. Eight months ago or so I re-dedicated my life to Christ. I am currently reading a NIV bible and found the translation easy to comprehend but am wondering if I should purchase a KJV as well for comparison on some scriptures.

Keep in mind I am reading from the very beginning but occasionaly jump around when I need encouragement, hope, etc. I am 30 years old and I have been taught from the KJV as a kid and young adult.

I would just like opinions from folks who not only read the bible but study it.

Thanks all in advance.
Eagle's Eye,

I say choose a Bible that stirs you up, that you can understand, and that you have confidence in its accuracy. The NIV works. No reason to switch. The KJV is fine in the area of accuracy, but understanding is not so straightforward. I'd say leave it to those who were raised with it. You were, but if your church doesn't use it in the service, why not consider the NKJV, which reads very close to the KJV, once you eliminate the archaic language?

Now it is good to have other Bibles for comparison. The NLT is pretty good (a bit more free than the NIV), and the NASB is good for one that focuses on accuracy, though it is more difficult to read. My favorite is the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible). It's very accurate and readable. The NET (New English Translation) is the most accurate Bible both Old Testament and New Testament, bar none, and it reads well. But you won't be able to pick one up at Christian bookstores, in general. But you can order them online at www.bible.org for a very reasonable cost. Get the one that has fewer notes.

take care,

BD

chad
Jul 7th 2010, 03:41 AM
When the JKV came out, they stopped printing the other versions of the the bible in English. Therefore by default (due to availability), the KJV eventually became the most used version of the english bible.

The differences between the KJV and the NIV, is that the KJV is a word for word translation of the bible from the hebrew and greek manualscripts, where as the NIV aimed for more than a word for word translation.

The NIV tries to take into account the thought patterns and syntax differences what occur when translating from language to language and tries to incorporate the contextual meaning of words. The aim of the NIV translators was to produce an accurate version of the bible.

This part of the preface of my NIV study bible published in 1985.

‘The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation.

Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

I use both the NIV and KJV. Usually I have them sitting side by side and read both versions together.



I still can't believe how big of a thread this has become from my little ole' question.