| Author | Message | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 217 Registered: 7-2005  |
Does anyone know of a good resource that shows translation errors or doctrinal errors in the various versions of the Bible? I know some people are against all modern translations of the Bible and use only the KJV. And then, there are others who are just the opposite. I'm not asking about The Clear Word, because I already know where to get material about that. Thanks in advance. Honestwitness | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 501 Registered: 4-2006  |
I would be interested in a website like that as well. Man we should just all learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and get some copies of the many manuscripts . In Him, Martin | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 721 Registered: 7-2004  |
People who think the KJV is more accurate than modern translations apparently don't realize that older more reliable manuscripts were found after the KJV was written (Dead Sea Scrolls, I think). The modern translations (not paraphrases) use these older (more recently found) manuscripts instead of what the KJV used. Does anyone here have more accurate information about the history on what the KJV used versus what the modern translations used? | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 218 Registered: 7-2005 |
Raven, it would appear that you are correct. In my searching just now, I came across this site, which deals with the same idea you brought out in your post above: http://www.bibletexts.com/kjvtexts.htm There's a voluminous amount of material here by a Robert Nguyen Cramer. It would take anyone a long while to read the entire web site, but I thought I'd share this with you all, in case you want to get started. <smile> Honestwitness | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 219 Registered: 7-2005 |
I just found a notation at the above-mentioned website that would have a very huge impact on SDA doctrine, as long as one would accept the possibility that the KJV has some errors in it. This is the exact link: http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-rev.htm#rev2219 Reading Rev 22:14 it says, "Blessed are they THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of live, and may enter in through the gates into the city." KJV wording: "that do his commandments" Corrected wording: "who wash their robes" My jaw dropped all the way to the floor when I read this. How many times have we heard Adventists refer to this verse as an indication we must be keeping the ten commandments, in order to deserve salvation? However, with the corrected wording, it is obvious we obtain salvation by washing our robes and making them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7:14) This is PROFOUND, is it not? Honestwitness | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 120 Registered: 7-2000 |
http://preceptaustin.org/the_key_inductive_bible_study.htm#BIBLE%20VERSIONS:%20CHART I don't know if this is helpful to you in any way. I find it pertinent and informative. | ||
| Jwd Registered user Username: Jwd Post Number: 261 Registered: 4-2005  |
In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself was a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568 (Old Testament). The English Revised Version appeared in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV is a product of both British and American scholarship and has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. Incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English, in 1959 the result was the New American Standard Bible. In preparation for this work begun in 1959, numerous other translations were consulted along with the linguistic tools and literature of biblical scholarship. Decisions about English rendeerings were made by consensus of a team composed of educators and pastors. Subsequently, review and evaluation by other Hebrew and Greek scholars outside the Editorial Board were sought and carefully considered. The edition of the NASB is said to represent revisions and refinements recommended over the last serveral years as well as thorough research based on modern English usage. New Testament textural scholars have generally concluded that 1) 99.99 percent of the original writings have been reclaimed, and 2) of the remaining one hundredth of one percent, there are no variants substantially affecting any Christian doctrine. The history of a full, English translation Bible essentially began with John Wycliffe (1330-1384), who made the first English translation of the whole Bible. Later William Tyndale was associated with the first complete, printed N.T. in English, A.D. 1526. Myles Coverdale followed in A.D. 1535, by delivering the first complete Bible printed in English. By A.D. 1611, the King James Version (KJV) had been completed. Since then, hundreds of translations have been made - some better, some worse (such as the Clear Word) in my estimation. Today the better English translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures presents a concensus who list as the better ones: 1) New American Standard Bible (NASB); 2) English Standard Version (ESV); and 3) New King James Version (NKJV). I am currently enjoying the MacArthur Study Bible in the New American Standard Bible updated version. It includes fantastic Bible study aids; including a harmony of the Gospels, all kinds of charts and maps, dates with authors showing the progress of revelation in both O.T. and N.T., Chronology of the O.T. Patriarchs and Judges; harmony of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles; introduction to the prophets with dates and direction of their ministry; prophets organized by writing date and captivity, etc. and the notes are in harmony with basic Reformation theology with no personal bias indicated. Published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. The Reformation Study Bible with R.C. Sproul as general editor in the ESV is also an excellent study Bible in my estimation, but I keep my standard NIV beside me all the time. | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 219 Registered: 3-2005 |
I have recently (last couple of years) been enjoying a fairly new translation called the NET Bible. You can see it at bible.org. I love all the notes that are included. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 220 Registered: 7-2005 |
Thanks for your input, JWD. You might find this interesting. It's from Ligionier Ministries, by R. C. Sproul: http://www.reformationstudybible.com/ "In 1995, The New Geneva Study Bible was published in the New King James Version, an excellent modern English translation of the Bible. The New Geneva Bible was later renamed The Reformation Study Bible. In February 2005, Ligonier Ministries published the Reformation Study Bible in the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV was chosen as the text of the study bible because of the combination of its accuracy and its literary qualities. The ESV stands in the tradition of translation begun by William Tyndale in 1526 and continued by the King James Version (1611), the Revised Version (1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971), and the New King James Version (1983). The goal of translations in this tradition has been faithfulness to the language of the original texts as well as dignified beauty in the English translation. "The translators of the ESV followed an essentially literal philosophy of translation. Translators who adhere to this philosophy of translation aim to translate the precise words of the original text while also taking into consideration differences between the language of the text being translated and the language into which the text is being translated. Such a philosophy of translation seeks to maintain as much as possible the structure of the original text, allowing the reader to discern the distinct styles of the different biblical authors while also retaining maximum clarity. The goal of such a method is to provide a translation that is "transparent" to the original text - a translation that allows a modern reader to read what the original author wrote. "In the middle of the twentieth century another philosophy of translation rose to prominence, a philosophy commonly referred to as "dynamic equivalence." Translators who follow the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation emphasize the reader rather than the words of the original text. If something in the original text is deemed by the translators to be too difficult or obscure for the modern reader, the original text is translated with a "dynamic equivalent" that is believed to communicate the same general concept. Sometimes this theory of translation is described as "thought for thought" translation as opposed to an essentially literal "word for word" type of translation. Most recent English Bible translations adhere to the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation. A list of popular dynamic equivalence translations would include the Good News Bible (1976), the New International Version (1978), the Revised English Bible (1989), the New Living Translation (1996), and Today's New International Version (2005). "One of the fundamental problems with dynamic equivalence translation is that it blurs the line between translation and commentary. Because the books of the Bible are ancient texts there are obscure idioms, customs, and words found in them. The same is true of any ancient text. Essentially literal translations attempt to translate what the author actually wrote and either explain a difficult word or phrase in a footnote or leave such explanations to commentators. Dynamic equivalence translations generally attempt to remove any such difficulties from the text by offering what the translators believe to be a more understandable modern English "equivalent." The problem with such a method of translation, however, is that it often involves more subjective interpretation than translation. It also tends to remove any objective controls on the translators. If faithfulness to the words of the original text is rejected as the primary goal of translation, there are no reliable controls. Each translation committee determines for itself the degree to which a translation may depart from the words of the original text. The result is predictably confusing. "In his book The Word of God in English (pp. 81ñ82), Leland Ryken provides a helpful illustration of this problem by listing various translations of the middle part of 1 Thessalonians 1:3. First, he provides four translations that follow an essentially literal philosophy of translation: - "... your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ..." (KJV). - "...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (RSV). - "...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (NASB). - "...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (ESV). "Because these translations follow an essentially literal philosophy of translations, their translations of the original text are almost identical, and the reader knows what the original author actually wrote. By way of contrast, we may compare the way in which dynamic equivalent translations translate the same text: - "...your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (NIV, TNIV). - "...how you put your faith into practice, how your love made you work so hard, and how your hope in our Lord Jesus Christ is firm" (GNB). - "...your faithful work, your loving deeds, and your continual anticipation of the return of our Lord Jesus Christ" (NLT). - "...your faith and loving work and...your firm hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (CEV). "Not only are these translations strikingly different from the essentially literal translations, they are also strikingly different from each other. All of these translations insert explanatory words or phrases that are not found in the original text. Some completely replace the original phrases with their subjective interpretations. The line between translation and interpretation becomes hopelessly blurred, and the reader is left uncertain of what the original author wrote. "Understanding the problems caused by dynamic equivalence, the translators of the ESV chose to provide an essentially literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Also, just as the translators who worked on the King James Version worked from existing English translations, the translators of the ESV used an existing translation (the Revised Standard Version) as a stylistic starting point as they translated the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Revised Standard Version (1971) is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901), which itself is a revision of the King James Version of 1611. The ESV, with its faithfulness to the original texts and high literary quality, is one of the best available contemporary English translations of the Bible. It is for this reason that Ligonier Ministries encourages its use." Honestwitness | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 969 Registered: 4-2000  |
While doing some research in preparation for a radio interview, I discovered that the SDA Clear Word Bible (CWB) is now available in about twenty formats--including The Clear Word for Kids, The Easy English Clear Word, The Clear Word Psalms and Proverbs, the Clear Word New Testament Audio CD, The Clear Word Gospel of John in pocket-size, black or burgundy bonded leather, hard cover, paperback, etc. Interestingly, the Clear Word Bible, in many formats, has become a major seller in Adventist Book Centers. In case this isn't enough, you can still buy a regular KJV Bible at the ABC with Ellen White's commentary on the bottom of every page. Additionally, the Pacific Press publishes an International Children's Bible. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3390 Registered: 3-2004  |
And the adventists say they do not have a special Bible. One wonders???? Diana | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 416 Registered: 6-2006  |
I wonder where they get the name "Clear Word"? Honestwitness, I was about to suggest RC Sproul earlier, but now I see you found him, haha. A few years ago I read his book "Knowing Scripture" and he did a chapter (I'm pretty sure it was that book) about translations. As I recall he wrote that a few of the passages in the KJV were changed from the original manuscripts for cultural reasons. Evidently certain words were considered blasphemous to say, so when the translators did their copies they had to alter the texts. I'll have to find that book to double check. Great thread!  Leigh Anne | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 22 Registered: 1-2007 |
Great thread Honestwitness. I had wondered about this recently. I have always gravitated towards the NIV, which is my current study bible, but I had heard or read somewhere it wasn't the best for study? That post on translation comparison may explain why. My current study bible though is favored more for the commentary now though instead of translation. I remember as a kid my brother, at the time a sdarm member, told me the KJV bible was the ONLY bible that was accurate. I remember being so bummed because I couldn't understand the darn thing. Tami | ||
| Thomas1 Registered user Username: Thomas1 Post Number: 207 Registered: 4-2002  |
Just my two cents worth....I too was concerned about getting a "bad" bible, due to SDA upbringing and their devotion to the KJV. Problem was, I couldn't UNDERSTAND the KJV. So I made it my goal to read as many of the translations, completely from front to back, as possible. To date, I have read 15 versions of the bible, some several times. My advice, find one that you clearly understand. Stay away from paraphrases. Stick to legitimate translations, done by a team of scholars from several backgrounds. This keeps it "honest and free from denominational bias. Then READ IT! Trust that the Holy Spirit is going to protect the word and through it, lead you into all truth I have developed definate favorites in my reading, but I will testify that the gospel is clearly written in ALL legitimate translatioins. I don't suggest you read them all. Just take the time to find one you can understand, then trust the Holy Spirit to speak to you through it. Too often folks take so much time finding "problems" in various translations that they forget to findk the Jesus that is in them all. Good luck on your search. It can be fascinating! In His Service. <>< Thomas | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 970 Registered: 4-2000 |
While I read other translations regularly, my personal Bible is a New American Standard Bible (NASB). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 333 Registered: 6-2001  |
The Bible I am reading now is the New Living Translation, which I know is probably as "dynamic" as they come. I like it because even the more recent translations seem to stick with the same sentence structures of the KJV, and the NLT is a "new" way of looking at the Bible. It also seems to have an overall better flow. Interestingly enough, the KJV is more "dynamically equivalent" then some people will admit to! Here is a quote I found: "The KJV exclamation "God forbid" of Romans 6.2, and numerous other verses in the KJV, is dynamic equivalence translation. It is not a literal translation of the original Greek, me: genoito "not may it be" ("may it not be" in more natural English word order). Instead, it is a strong English exclamation using God's name, a translation which the KJV translators felt was more natural in English and which has an impact which is, presumably, closer to what the impact of the original had upon its hearers than the literal "May it not be" would have on English hearers. With this dynamic equivalence rendering, the KJV translators place a higher priority upon how the original meaning will come across to the English hearers (that is, "reader response") than they do holding to the literal form of the original. They were translating total meaning of the Greek phrase here instead of simply (literal) meaning at the word level of language." And here is the most egregious example; I'm surprised it hasn't come up yet: "I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine." That being said, sometimes I like to read the KJV, just because of the history that is has, and I like to imagine the (literally) millions of other people who have read it before me. Dynamically, Hannah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5347 Registered: 12-2003  |
What an interesting thread! I really relate to Thomas's post: find a translation (not a paraphrase) that is sound, and READ IT. I used the NIV exclusively for 15 years, and it was in the NIV that I discovered the gospel, that I have grown in understanding doctrinal issues, etc. God is fiathful; He teaches us with His Spirit when we submit ourselves to Him and His word and desire to know Him. He is truly not limited by the version we use! That being said, I have begun using the NASB for memorizing..and that that has been extremely good. I still use the NIV for doing our Friday night Bible studies. God is faithfulójust think of all the people He led to Himself even before Bibles were so plentiful! Colleen | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 504 Registered: 4-2006 |
"Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine." Hannah Oh my! unscriptural trinity doctrine!!! | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3398 Registered: 3-2004 |
When I was at La Sierra I had a modern english version of the Bible with the Gospels side by side. I think I gave that one to my son as I no longer have it. I forget what its name was. The Bible I have from which I started reading the NT 3 years ago is the Berkely translation. It is a modern english version. I now have an NIV. I also have a KJV. Some one said above that all the translations tell the same story of Jesus and that is what I found also. The story of salvation is very clear in all the Bibles I have. God is so awesome in making all of them consistent. Diana | ||
| Stevendi Registered user Username: Stevendi Post Number: 72 Registered: 10-2006 |
My current is New Living Translation. Whatever we read, Jesus is still Jesus, except of course, in the Clear Word diversion. Steve | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 464 Registered: 9-2006  |
I have grown quite comfortable with the NKJV but still depend heavily on the KJV for lookup and research, I think the reason for that is that I spent so many of my formative years with KJV and I have it on computer and so when I dimly recall a scripture ìsomewhereî I can type some of what I think the scripture said and do a quick find, I actually have several of the versions on computer but the KJV comes natural to me. I think it is just what fits us best for the most of us. Last time I checked, which was this morning, the Holy Spirit was still in power, still able to speak to hearts. Like Steve said ìAll accept the Clear Word sub-version, er, I mean diversion. River | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 334 Registered: 6-2001 |
MWH: "Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine." Hannah Oh my! unscriptural trinity doctrine!!! Interesting, the first time I read that, I read that to mean "the doctrine that isn't clearly supported by Scripture," which it isn't. I don't mean to sabatage the thread or even say I don't agree with the Trinity, but there is no verse in Scripture that says "God is three in one." Theologians infer it from a bunch of different texts. That is one reason why the "fake text" was added, because a succinct explanation of the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist in Scripture. I have read pages and pages of material on how the extra material was created, and the coverups, etc. and I was just glad to find something that was short and explained it all. I guess I didn't read it carefully enough. I thought of something else as it relates to this topic. When I was little, a visiting preacher at my (KJV-only) church was preaching on Romans 8, and mentioned during his sermon that Romans 8:1 was translated from an inferior copy and was incorrect and actually contradicted the point it was trying to make. My mom was actually upset that he had said that, because she said us kids woudl remember that point more than the rest of his sermon, even though the rest of his sermon was more important (I guess in retrospect that is true, LOL) This is the same mom who had us memorizing Scripture at a very young age, and I remember telling her when I grew up I was going to write a Bible that people could actually understand, and she neglected to tell me that some people had already done that. (She reads the NIV Bible now btw). Nostalgicly, Hannah | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 388 Registered: 8-2006 |
Billy Graham was asked which bible translation was the best. He replied "The one you READ". I do agree with that statement. I have about a dozen different translations and bible editions. My favorite is the NASB study bible. Susan |
