Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Are you Protestant? Or, are you sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. Register in less than a minute, it is simple, fast, and free! We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another forum.

Enjoy your fellowship

In order to understand the importance of Christian fellowship, we must first understand what Christian fellowship is and what it isn’t. The Greek words translated “fellowship” in the New Testament mean essentially a partnership to the mutual benefit of those involved. Christian fellowship, then, is the mutually beneficial relationship between Christians, who can’t have the identical relationship with those outside the faith. Those who believe the gospel are united in the Spirit through Christ to the Father, and that unity is the basis of fellowship. This relationship is described by Jesus in His high-priestly prayer for His followers in John 17:23. The importance of true Christian fellowship is that it reinforces Christ centeredness in our mind and helps us to focus on Christ and His desires and goals for us. As iron sharpens iron, in true Christian fellowship Christians sharpen one another's faith and stir one another to exercise that faith in love and good works, all to God’s glory.
Sign in to follow this  
FruitNNut

Translations

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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" is in italics.  They have been added by the translators and are not part of the text.

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
These translations also omit hundreds of passages in the Greek of the NT

None of them omit hundreds of passages.

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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? Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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?

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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.

 

NetChaplain said:
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
You don't think it is necessary to know what the evidence is for yourself??????? That will not prove helpful in finding the truth of the matter.

 

As I pointed out above, the KJV translators did NOT use any Greek manuscripts but simply followed printed editions of the Greek text. Therefore your claim that they thought it was valid is merely wishful thinking. Moreover, the majority text nor the Byzantine manuscripts support your claim about 1 John 5:7. I think if the evidence was there or if you knew it you would present it.

 

So I ask again, how many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source?

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I pointed out above, KJV translators did NOT use any Greek manuscripts

 

It sound like you're wanting to argue, but I don't do that. Concerning your comment, all Bible translators of the NT are required to use Greek manuscripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sound like you're wanting to argue, but I don't do that.
I am wanting to get to the truth of the matter. You made some claims that you cannot support and now want to remove yourself from scrutiny. Can you support your claims with evidence?

 

Concerning your comment, all Bible translators of the NT are required to use Greek manuscripts.
That is not correct. Scholars use printed editions with a critical apparatus but now a days scholars also use computer editions. For example: [ATTACH=CONFIG]n13348[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

 

If you know what you are looking at and how to use it these will all answer all your textual questions concerning any verse in the Greek N.T. The first column is the CNTTS which list every Greek manuscript. The second column is Bruce M Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. The third column is the UBS5 which list not only the most important Greek manuscripts but the Church Fathers and the early translations of the Greek N.T.

 

Furthermore, these manuscripts are found all over the world and no one scholar has access to them all. Beside, these manuscripts are much too valuable, important, and many too fragile to allow anyone to handle them. You really ought to have a working knowledge of this topic before you make claims that you cannot support.

 

However, with the advent digital age, scholars now have more access to this texts than they ever have in the past. The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is doing a great work. Digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts are being made so that so that images of these manuscripts can be preserved. http://csntm.org/

1353611974_Screenshot(7).thumb.png.77a238b9946318876e5958a40b6c68fd.png

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wanting to get to the truth of the matter. You made some claims that you cannot support and now want to remove yourself from scrutiny. Can you support your claims?

 

That is not correct. Scholars use printed editions with a critical apparatus but now a days scholars also use computer editions. For example: [ATTACH=CONFIG]n13348[/ATTACH]

 

 

If you know what you are looking at and how to use it these will all answer all your textual questions concerning any verse in the Greek N.T. The first column is the CNTTS which list every Greek manuscript. The second column is Bruce M Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. The third column is the UBS5 which list not only the most important Greek manuscripts but the Church Fathers and the early translations of the Greek N.T.

 

Furthermore, these manuscripts are found all over the world and no scholar has access to them all. Beside, these manuscripts are much too valuable, important, and fragile to allow anyone to handle them. You really ought to have a working knowledge of this topic before you make claims that you cannot support.

 

However, with the advent digital age, scholars now have more access to this texts than they ever have in the past. The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is doing a great work. Digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts are being made so that so that images of these manuscripts can be preserved. http://csntm.org/

Not to fuel your accusations, but however you view the information it is still manuscript information being used. The proof is in the translation declaring the truth, not in the antiquity of a codex is. The Word of God within a translation is what is perfect, if it's all there, not the translation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to fuel your accusations
No accusations. Simply one question which you cannot answer. How many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source?

 

but however you view the information it is still manuscript information being used.
That was not your point a moment ago. You said "all Bible translators of the NT are required to use Greek manuscripts." That is simply not true.

 

The proof is in the translation declaring the truth, not in the antiquity of a codex is.
I did not point to the age of the manuscripts. I was addressing the majority text and how it does not support your claim and that is why you will not answer my question. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No accusations. Simply one question which you cannot answer. How many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source?

 

That was not your point a moment ago. You said "all Bible translators of the NT are required to use Greek manuscripts." That's is simply not true.

 

I did not point to the age of the manuscripts. I was addressing the majority text and how it does not support you claim and that is why you will not answer my question.

I think the manner in how we are to communicate is of a more important issue, and concerning this one we do not agree enough to pursue the subject, regardless of who's accurate or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the manner in how we are to communicate is of a more important issue
I see no reason to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

and concerning this one we do not agree enough to pursue the subject
This is not a matter of agreeing but evidence, proof. I asked one question which you will not answer and proves your claim false.

 

regardless of who's accurate or not.
This has nothing to do with 1 John 5:7 or the majority text. If you are accurate in your claim, then provide the proof and answer my question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Fun fact: The bible never mentioned hell, people in Europe believed in a demon type of creature called "hel" as such, they added the word "hell" to the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fun fact: The bible never mentioned hell, people in Europe believed in a demon type of creature called "hel" as such, they added the word "hell" to the bible.

 

 

Oh ok, do when the a previous Pope delcared there wasn't a hell, he wasn't changing things, just correcting.

 

This thread is really interesting reading, just seeing the view of people who know way more than me is really making me think.

 

Thank you all for everything you've mulled over so far :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see no reason to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with the topic.

We can remain on the subject if we can conduct ourselves in kindness. Concerning your question, I would leave that to the scholars who disagree about its validity. It is not sensible to think you nor I are qualified for such an undertaking as to authenticate manuscript corrections by merely quoting what other scholars think. We can share with one another what and who we choose believe without making challenges. You don't see me challenging your incorrect statement that the KJ translators did not use Greek manuscripts for their translation!

 

I much appreciate your correspondence on this subject because your more informed in this area than the average Christian on the various Christian forums on the internet, so let us stay kind so we can continue to communicate, because I have much more to share on this subject if your interested.

 

Christ's Love To One Another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×