Faith discussions: improve your walk with the Lord, build up your prayer life, grow in your faith, love others in your church, and other general faith type discussions.

Translations

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Translations

    So the Bible was written a long time ago and has been re-written/translated between then and now (between a few different languages).
    With some of the suspected errors with some of the steps in translation, do you:
    * Research and follow the Bible from translations you've discovered
    * Follow you faith in your version of the Bible (King Johns etc....)
    * Discuss, think and work by a consensus with your congregation
    * Discuss it with your Pastor and take their advice
    * Another way....

    Sorry if I'm being obviously silly with my question and I don't mean to step on anyone's beliefs.
    Just investigating for my own mind :)

    Thanks

  • #2
    Originally posted by FruitNNut View Post
    So the Bible was written a long time ago and has been re-written/translated between then and now (between a few different languages).
    With some of the suspected errors with some of the steps in translation, do you:
    * Research and follow the Bible from translations you've discovered
    * Follow you faith in your version of the Bible (King Johns etc....)
    * Discuss, think and work by a consensus with your congregation
    * Discuss it with your Pastor and take their advice
    * Another way....

    Sorry if I'm being obviously silly with my question and I don't mean to step on anyone's beliefs.
    Just investigating for my own mind :)

    Thanks
    I am not really sure what you are saying or asking, but a few points of clarification are needed. All translations, unless otherwise noted, are from the Greek text for N.T. and the Hebrew text for the O.T. There are English translations of the Greek O.T. (i.e. LXX) which is a translation from the Hebrew text. There is also an English translation of the Vulgate (i.e. Latin text) which is a translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. However, these translations are noted by the publishers and translators as translations of translations. Modern English translations of the Bible use the Greek and Hebrew texts and hence are not translations of translations.
    Comment>

    • #3
      The "Errors" are way overstated. Most 'errors' are a paragraph or sentence that appears in some ancient copies and not others. I find they almost never say anything drastically different from the rest of scripture, they are usually a comment added to clarify some point by a later copyist.

      In the case of my particular NIV Bible, the parts in question appear in italics with a footnote explaining that the chapter ends at line 26 in most manuscripts, but some manuscripts add lines 27-29. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

      If you have a specific problem or text in mind, there are people here a LOT smarter than me about this stuff who will be happy to answer your questions.
      But you ask what do I do? ... I just read the footnote to see why the text is in italics. [shrug]
      Comment>

      • #4
        Thank you both for your responses :)

        Origen Thank you for teh clarification! I incorrectly assumed that because of how Latin was the language used in church in Britain and English text came later that it went Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> English.
        I didn't know that the NT was originally Greek and was used to go straight to English, it makes sense now reading it :)

        atpollard I didn't know versions came with footnotes on translation, perfect sense :)
        Comment>

        • #5
          What do you guys think as far as accuracy within each version of the Bible? I have a KJV and a NIV, and I was once told by a friend that goes to a Baptist church that the King James Version is the only accurate version to read in English. This kind of didn't settle well with me, because when I thought about it all versions are translations of prior translations. Anyway, just wondering what you guys think.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by LivingH2O View Post
            What do you guys think as far as accuracy within each version of the Bible?
            All translations have their good points and bad points. I don't not think anyone can definitively say this translation is the best. It helps to know what the translators have in mind. Translations come in two types, dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. However, the lines are often blurred when it comes to these translation techniques. My advice is to get a translation with good study notes concerning the text that explains why they have translated a certain verse one way or the other. I would also advise others to stay away from paraphrases and translations made by one individual rather than a committee.
            Last edited by Origen; 05-02-2016, 11:59 AM.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Some may find this interesting: The translations that use the Minority Text manuscripts (most recent new translations) have an error in 2Sam 21:19. Its suppose to say that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath but it says Elhanan killed Goliath. This contradicts the truth in 1Chron 20:5 which correctly reads that he killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. We all know that David killed Goliath.

              Only the Majority Text base translations do not have this errant reading. These translations also omit hundreds of passages in the Greek of the NT that are in the Majority text, i.e. Eph 3:9 is supposed to read "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." They omit the phrase "who created all things by Jesus Christ. There are many other highly significant readings they omit, change, interpolation and transpose that that the average believer does not know about.

              Let me know if you would like to know more.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                Some may find this interesting: The translations that use the Minority Text manuscripts (most recent new translations) have an error in 2Sam 21:19.
                There is no so-called minority text for the Hebrew.

                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                Its suppose to say that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath but it says Elhanan killed Goliath.
                The Hebrew text in 2 Sam 21:19 does not say that. In the KJV the phrase "the bother of" are in italics add hence added by the translators and are not part of the text.

                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                This contradicts the truth in 1Chron 20:5 which correctly reads that he killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. We all know that David killed Goliath.
                Hence the reason why the KJV translators added those words.

                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                Only the Majority Text base translations do not have this errant reading.
                This has nothing to do with the majority or minority texts. Those terms refer to the Greek N.T. manuscript evidence and have nothing to do with the Hebrew text.

                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                These translations also omit hundreds of passages in the Greek of the NT
                None of them omit hundreds of passages.

                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                that are in the Majority text, i.e. Eph 3:9 is supposed to read "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." They omit the phrase "who created all things by Jesus Christ."
                They do not omit the whole clause. The reason part of the clause is left out is because of the manuscript evidence.

                Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                Let me know if you would like to know more.
                No need. Your beliefs that the Hebrew text has anything to do with majority or minority texts demonstrates your lack of knowledge on this topic.
                Last edited by Origen; 05-02-2016, 12:00 PM.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Origen View Post
                  There is no so-called minority text for the Hebrew.
                  Your correct, I knew this but neglected to make that distinction, and I appreciate your making this clear. My mentioning it the way I did ("passages in the Greek of the NT") was not clear that these two texts (Majority and Minority) from which all NT translations are derived relates only to the Greek NT.
                  Originally posted by Origen View Post
                  Hence the reason why the KJV translators added those words.
                  I'm also aware that the KJ translators italicizations are to let the reader know that it is not found in any Hebrew manuscript copies. It was served as an aid to correct a reading without being suspected of adding to Scripture. The textual critics agree that the copyist for that manuscript errantly made a mistake. The Hebrew manuscripts were closely watched by counting the letters and words, thus it was impossible for mistakes in a text to be accepted.

                  The reason why the Minority text (mostly Alexandrian text based) is considered the most reliable is because they are the oldest, and the reason why they are the oldest is because most Scribes would discard them due to being too inconsistent with the majority of extant copies when they were copying them and they did not wear out like most correct manuscripts did. The arid region where most of these manuscripts were found also aided in their longevity.

                  Originally posted by Origen View Post
                  They do not omit the whole clause. The reason part of the clause is left out is because of the manuscript evidence.
                  The Minority Text was written by those who were Gnostics, hence their inconsistency and unacceptability by the copyists.

                  It is falsely claimed that 1John 5:7 is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript copies and so omitted it, a problem in nearly all modern translations.

                  The more ancient the manuscript copy (there are no original autographs of the Biblical writers) the more corrupt the text and often the context, as the Gnostics intended. I know most will not agree with this information but there are enough scholars who do, which is where I learned the information.

                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    The textual critics agree that the copyist for that manuscript errantly made a mistake.
                    Then modern translations do not have an error but are simply following what the Hebrew text has. As for the reason for the problem, which Hebrew manuscripts do have the missing clause?

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    The Hebrew manuscripts were closely watched by counting the letters and words, thus it was impossible for mistakes in a text to be accepted.
                    Impossible? You just admitted the copyist for that manuscript errantly made a mistake. Moreover, the practice of counting letters began with the Masoretes in the 7th century A.D. They also offered corrections in the Masorah parva in regard to the Kethiv-Qere.

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    The reason why the Minority text (mostly Alexandrian text based) is considered the most reliable is because they are the oldest, and the reason why they are the oldest is because most Scribes would discard them due to being too inconsistent with the majority of extant copies
                    Simply not true. There is no evidence that scribes would discard them for being "too inconsistent with the majority of extant copies." Beside what you are claiming makes no sense and the evidence does not support it.

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    when they were copying them and they did not wear out like most correct manuscripts did.
                    This is a myth propagated by those who know nothing about the topic.

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    The Minority Text was written by those who were Gnostics, hence their inconsistency and unacceptability by the copyists.
                    There is no evidence for your claim.

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    It is falsely claimed that 1John 5:7 is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript copies and so omitted it, a problem in nearly all modern translations.
                    Sorry but there is nothing false about it. If you follow the majority text, the evidence proves it was not part of the text. Or do you now disavow the majority text?

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    The more ancient the manuscript copy (there are no original autographs of the Biblical writers) the more corrupt the text and often the context, as the Gnostics intended.
                    Again, lots of claims but no evidence.

                    Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                    I know most will not agree with this information but there are enough scholars who do, which is where I learned the information.
                    Which scholars? Define enough? Name these scholars who are expects in the fields of textual criticism, the Greek manuscripts, and papyrology. What are their credential?
                    Last edited by Origen; 05-02-2016, 12:01 PM.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      I'm glad we are communicating in a friendly manner so thanks. It's as important as any context of communication!

                      Originally posted by Origen View Post
                      Then modern translations do not have an error but are simply following what the Hebrew text has.
                      If the manuscript of the Hebrew text has an error and is followed, the translation will also contain the error, which in this case is that of the omission of the phrase "the brother of." It's obvious that this is an isolated error in all known Hebrew manuscripts but to render an inerrant translation it must read correctly. This issue became a nationally known conflict and in the winter of 1928 in Europe, "one of the prominent publications contained an article "Who Killed Goliath?" and in the spring of 1929 an article appeared titled "The Dispute About Goliath."

                      The book with this information ("Which Bible?" by David Otis Fuller, D.D.) goes on to say a special cablegram from "the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England said, in substance, that the Revised version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath. The book gets real involved from that point on concerning this problem.

                      In the case of 1Jhn 5:7 it can be noticed that translators had enough manuscript evidence somewhere along in the manuscript tradition because the KJ does not italicize them.
                      Originally posted by Origen View Post
                      Simply not true. There is no evidence that a Scribes would discard them for being "too inconsistent with the majority of extant copies."
                      Discard but not dispose, i.e. the two primary codexs used for the Minority are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus was found abandoned on a shelf in the Vatican library, and the Sinaiticus was found at the foot of Mount Sinai by Tishendorf, who interrupted a monk when burning parchments and discovered this codex before he burned them The monk told him that he had burned other parchments previously which were similar to them (all this information is also from the above book).

                      Some of the scholars who were suspected of the Gnostic heresy were 1) Justin Martyr, 2) Tatian, 3) Clement of Alexandria, 4) Origen. The book documents the bio's on these men that reveals their beliefs of heretical doctrines, some of which they started.




                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                        If the manuscript of the Hebrew text has an error and is followed, the translation will also contain the error, which in this case is that of the omission of the phrase "the brother of." It's obvious that this is an isolated error in all known Hebrew manuscripts but to render an inerrant translation it must read correctly.
                        There are three problems with your claim. First, there is no such thing as an inerrant translation. No translation can be inerrant because of the differences in syntax, grammar, and the use of idioms. Second, inerrancy is something only God can bring about and there simply is not a translation that meet that ideal. Third, you fail to take into account other possible explanations for 2 Sam 21:19 and other issues.

                        Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                        This issue became a nationally known conflict and in the winter of 1928 in Europe, "one of the prominent publications contained an article "Who Killed Goliath?" and in the spring of 1929 an article appeared titled "The Dispute About Goliath."
                        The problem was known long before 1928.


                        Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                        he book with this information ("Which Bible?" by David Otis Fuller, D.D.) goes on to say a special cablegram from "the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England said, in substance, that the Revised version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath. The book gets real involved from that point on concerning this problem.
                        Based on what manuscript evidence? What is the proof?

                        Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                        In the case of 1Jhn 5:7 it can be noticed that translators had enough manuscript evidence somewhere along in the manuscript tradition because the KJ does not italicize them.
                        This simply is not true. Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7 in the 1st or 2nd editions of his Greek text. It was included in the following editions. However, Erasmus did not believe that it was part of the Greek text. He added it because of pressure. At the time it was only to be found in one manuscript, Codex Montfortianus which dates to 1520.

                        As for the KJV translator, they simply followed the Greek editions of the N.T. they had and did not consult any Greek manuscript.

                        Let's follow the evidence in regard to the majority text. There are, give or take, ca. 5700 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. Now of those 5700 only ca. 480 contain 1 John 5. The Comma Johanneum is found in 8 and 4 of those are in the margin not the text itself. Thus if we follow the majority text only 8 (at best) of the 480 have the Comma Johanneum. Therefore the majority of manuscripts do not have it (472 vs. 8). Also, given the fact that most of these manuscripts are Byzantine, it follows that Comma Johanneum is not part of the Byzantine text. If you accept the majority text and\or the Byzantine text, it is clear that neither support the 1 John 5:7 reading.

                        Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                        Discard but not dispose, i.e. the two primary codexs used for the Minority are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus
                        Not true. Modern scholars use reasoned eclecticism. Read the actual scholars who do the work and not what others claim about them and their work.

                        Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                        Some of the scholars who were suspected of the Gnostic heresy were 1) Justin Martyr, 2) Tatian, 3) Clement of Alexandria, 4) Origen. The book documents the bio's on these men that reveals their beliefs of heretical doctrines, some of which they started.
                        First, what book, Fuller? Second, your claim in post 9 was "The Minority Text was written by those who were Gnostics." What evidence from primarily sources is there that the so-called minority text was written by those who were Gnostics?
                        Last edited by Origen; 09-04-2016, 07:19 PM.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Origen - Our sources vary too much from one another to continue on this subject. We can correspond on other subjects as they come up though and see how it goes.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NetChaplain View Post
                            Origen - Our sources vary too much from one another to continue on this subject.
                            Well, let's see.

                            How many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source?
                            Last edited by Origen; 04-21-2016, 03:17 PM.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Origen View Post
                              Well, let's see.

                              How many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source?
                              I don't think that is necessary to know because the KJ translators evidently though it valid, and judging from their bio's were of highest caliber, esp. by modern standards.

                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap