Bible Translation

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

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]

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).

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.

Originally Posted by NateR

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.

Originally Posted by Chris F

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?

Originally Posted by NateR

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?

Originally Posted by Chris F

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

Originally Posted by CAVEMAN

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.

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.