Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Christianity

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-06-2010, 12:24 AM
Rackin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
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/...le-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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-08-2010, 03:55 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-08-2010, 05:54 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-08-2010, 06:28 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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???
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-09-2010, 07:06 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
So they used the Alexandrian text only? I thought when they said manuscripts they were talking more than one???
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,
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-09-2010, 03:42 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:42 AM
Rackin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:48 AM
Rackin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.