PDA

View Full Version : Bible Translation


CAVEMAN
01-26-2010, 04:52 PM
I know this subject has probably been beat to death before on this forum, but I have really been researching this as of late. So far, my research has revealed that the KJV and NKJV are the best translations. Basically, the Bible we see today can only come from 2 types of manuscript, the Textus Receptus (Basis for the KJV and NKJV) & the Alexandria(basis for NIV, ESV,NWT).

Now depending on who you read, some say the Textus Receptus was a bad manuscript and some say the Alexandria was a bad manuscript. Was just curious if others have researched this and what their findings were?

I found this website and was reading a little from it.

http://www.dyeager.org/post/2008/03/why-kjv-best-bible-translation

cheachea
01-26-2010, 07:09 PM
Thanks for bringing this up. I trust the Textus Receptus . I'd like to see a comparison to the dead sea scrolls though. Good fiind Bro.

NateR
01-26-2010, 07:28 PM
My understanding is that the Textus Receptus was just the New Testament, but I could be wrong. I haven't spent too much time studying about Greek translations. However, if that's the case, there wouldn't be any Dead Sea Scroll equivalents.

Either way, I don't think it's a good idea to read just one English translation of the Bible as the "true Bible." Like I've mentioned before the Bible is perfect, translations are not. So the status of "Divinely Inspired" doesn't apply to any English translation of the Bible. It only applies to the original manuscripts in their original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, Greek and possibly some Hebrew for the New Testament).

Chris F
01-26-2010, 07:29 PM
The arguement is that by default since the Alexandrian is older it is better. Other say the opposite.

The fact is this. It is an English translation and nothing more. If you really want the best you need to learn Greek Hebrew and Aramaic and read those and learn the Grammar and do the work yourself. Most English translations today were done by non Christian scholars who interjected opinions in the text. The best way to study English text are to have multiple translation avaliable and compare them and a good lexicon to find original meanings to the words and a good manners and customs book to undertand the intended audience. To say one is better then the other is an excersise in futility. The only thing you can say for certain is avoid paraphrase bibles because that is mans opinion all the way and not anywhere near the original text.

Chris F
01-26-2010, 07:32 PM
My understanding is that the Textus Receptus was just the New Testament, but I could be wrong. I haven't spent too much time studying about Greek translations. However, if that's the case, there wouldn't be any Dead Sea Scroll equivalents.

Either way, I don't think it's a good idea to read just one English translation of the Bible as the "true Bible." Like I've mentioned before the Bible is perfect, translations are not. So the status of "Divinely Inspired" doesn't apply to any English translation of the Bible. It only applies to the original manuscripts in their original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, Greek and possibly some Hebrew for the New Testament).

Matthew was written in Hebrew at first. Few people know that good to see you have done your homework NateR I agree with what you have said here/ You beat me by a few seconds. :)

CAVEMAN
01-26-2010, 08:15 PM
The arguement is that by default since the Alexandrian is older it is better. Other say the opposite.

The fact is this. It is an English translation and nothing more. If you really want the best you need to learn Greek Hebrew and Aramaic and read those and learn the Grammar and do the work yourself. Most English translations today were done by non Christian scholars who interjected opinions in the text. The best way to study English text are to have multiple translation avaliable and compare them and a good lexicon to find original meanings to the words and a good manners and customs book to undertand the intended audience. To say one is better then the other is an excersise in futility. The only thing you can say for certain is avoid paraphrase bibles because that is mans opinion all the way and not anywhere near the original text.

I do own a Strongs Concordance and Vines Dictionary which I use alot. Now, I have read arguments from scholars that the Alexandrian Text was found in a trash can in the Vatican. Not sure if I believe that, but does anyone have any information to refute?

CAVEMAN
01-26-2010, 08:22 PM
My understanding is that the Textus Receptus was just the New Testament, but I could be wrong. I haven't spent too much time studying about Greek translations. However, if that's the case, there wouldn't be any Dead Sea Scroll equivalents.

Either way, I don't think it's a good idea to read just one English translation of the Bible as the "true Bible." Like I've mentioned before the Bible is perfect, translations are not. So the status of "Divinely Inspired" doesn't apply to any English translation of the Bible. It only applies to the original manuscripts in their original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, Greek and possibly some Hebrew for the New Testament).

Yes I should of clarified the New Testament. I believe the old testament of the KJV was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text.

I am curious to know what type of manuscript the translators of the NIV used for Old Testament?

Miss Foxy
01-26-2010, 11:15 PM
Matthew was written in Hebrew at first. Few people know that good to see you have done your homework NateR I agree with what you have said here/ You beat me by a few seconds. :)

Nate is never wrong :rolleyes:

Chris F
01-27-2010, 04:25 AM
I do own a Strongs Concordance and Vines Dictionary which I use alot. Now, I have read arguments from scholars that the Alexandrian Text was found in a trash can in the Vatican. Not sure if I believe that, but does anyone have any information to refute?

That is nothing more then a myth. Those tools are very good and will serve you well. The story behind the Alexandrian text is to long to go into here. There are many great books on the subject.

The KJV originally was not translated form the Greek and Hebrew at all. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. The KJV has been updated 98 times since 1611. The first english bible from the Greek and Hebrew itself was never finished because the Catholics burned him at the stake. The Geneva was the first accepted bible in America. The 1611 KJV was considered heresy up until the 1800's The Great Awakening has some string sermons preaching against it. If you read Edwards Wesley and the like you will see what I mean. The subject is fascinating and worth the study.

cheachea
01-27-2010, 11:44 AM
Sorry about that, I was really tired when I wrote my first comment. I mean I trust the translation they used for the King James bible and NKJB. No matter what translation you are reading there is no substitute for The Holy Spirit leading you into to all truth. Before I read or listen to the Word I ask the Lord to lead me too all truth by His Holy Spirit.:)

Rackin
02-05-2010, 11:24 PM
I know this subject has probably been beat to death before on this forum, but I have really been researching this as of late. So far, my research has revealed that the KJV and NKJV are the best translations. Basically, the Bible we see today can only come from 2 types of manuscript, the Textus Receptus (Basis for the KJV and NKJV) & the Alexandria(basis for NIV, ESV,NWT).

Now depending on who you read, some say the Textus Receptus was a bad manuscript and some say the Alexandria was a bad manuscript. Was just curious if others have researched this and what their findings were?

I found this website and was reading a little from it.

http://www.dyeager.org/post/2008/03/why-kjv-best-bible-translation

This is not exactly correct there are 3 major families of texts for the NT you have the Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian. That is actually an over simplification as there are several subtypes and minor types, but it is not between 2 types. The Texus receptus or revieved text is a small subset of mostly Byzantine types. As I recall the KJV was based on stephanus new testament that I believe was based of the TR although I always get those 2 backwards, so it may be the other way around. The KJV was a good translation for its time, but we have had several manuscripts found since then in all of the textual families. Newer translations such as the NASB or the NIV rely on all of the families and this is a good thing. Think about it this way. If I wrote a letter and 3 people took copies to 3 different states and then hand copied it all over that state. Later you want to figure out what I wrote, so you get copies from each state. By comparing the letters you can find the errors. If someone in Washington made a mistake it would likely get copied to other Washington manuscripts, but not the the ones in say Texas and Florida. So we can use them to check each other. That is a simple example of what translator go thought. The KJV people did the same thing, but they had fewer manuscripts without as much distribution, so newer translations with better info are usually better. The best thing you can do is read multiple translations and compare.

CAVEMAN
02-08-2010, 02:55 PM
When the translators of the NIV say The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. What manuscripts are they referring to?

Chris F
02-08-2010, 04:54 PM
When the translators of the NIV say The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. What manuscripts are they referring to?

NIV uses the Alexandrian text. Earliest? Maybe Most reliable? that is sheer opinion. It does have many omissions but any good bible will have manuscript ommission in the margin or the study notes. What make the NIV so bad in my opinion is in it Greek translation. It often uses English words that have no real comparison to Greek and changes the meaning of the text.

CAVEMAN
02-08-2010, 05:28 PM
NIV uses the Alexandrian text. Earliest? Maybe Most reliable? that is sheer opinion. It does have many omissions but any good bible will have manuscript ommission in the margin or the study notes. What make the NIV so bad in my opinion is in it Greek translation. It often uses English words that have no real comparison to Greek and changes the meaning of the text.


So they used the Alexandrian text only? I thought when they said manuscripts they were talking more than one???:huh::huh::blink::unsure:

Chris F
02-09-2010, 06:06 AM
So they used the Alexandrian text only? I thought when they said manuscripts they were talking more than one???:huh::huh::blink::unsure:

The Alexandrian is a group of text. The bible was not put into its current form till the Catholic did it many many years later. That is why it is refering to the plural,

CAVEMAN
02-09-2010, 02:42 PM
The Alexandrian is a group of text. The bible was not put into its current form till the Catholic did it many many years later. That is why it is refering to the plural,

Thanks for the info!

Rackin
02-10-2010, 01:42 AM
When the translators of the NIV say The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. What manuscripts are they referring to?
Here is a short but not bad article that discusses some of the issues.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html

Rackin
02-10-2010, 01:48 AM
NIV uses the Alexandrian text. Earliest? Maybe Most reliable? that is sheer opinion. It does have many omissions but any good bible will have manuscript ommission in the margin or the study notes. What make the NIV so bad in my opinion is in it Greek translation. It often uses English words that have no real comparison to Greek and changes the meaning of the text.

I'm not sure that is completely fair to the NIV. A translation can go be from very literal all the way to a paraphrase. The NIV is a dynamic equivalent meaning that it wants to give a thought for though translation. They would point out that at times a literal translation does not provide the reader with the correct meaning so it is best to translate the thought or meaning of the writer. This does give a greater chance of translator bias, but it also lets experts in the language and culture provide the true meaning. Let me give an example. In French there is a saying tete a tete that translates literally as head to head. If I was translating a letter to English, the meaning may be very unclear to an English reader. It means a close conversation, and that may be a better translation as it provides the meaning.