Which modern (by that I mean KJV to the present) version of the bible do you feel is the “best” translation of the original scriptures? What are the fundamental theological differences between different versions. I ask this mainly because I don’t know. I was brought up on the KJV, but recent investagation has shown me that there may be some inaccuracies with it.
Thank you.
Well, the NIV claims to have been through a very rigorous translation process, but of course Jack Chick (et al) will tell you that it’s effeminate and based on the wrong texts etc; it’s also not hot on ‘dynamic equivalency’ - i.e. it renders the meaning of the words literally (or tries to), rather than trying to convey the same sense of meaning to a modern context* - the living translation has the dynamic equivalency, but lacks the pinpoint translation of specific words.
IMO, an completely accurate modern translation of an ancient document, from an ancient and pretty alien culture is an unattainable goal, particularly when there are some keys to the translation that have disappeared down the plughole of time. (Like the precise identities of some plants and animals, and the whole ‘Urim and Thummim’ thing)
*A good example of dynamic equivalency would probably be the translation of:
“Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be white as snow”
into
“White as coconut kernels”
What Mangetout said. I find the New Jerusalem Bible to be most useful, because it intentionally attempts to look at the original texts without reference to KJV or other “traditional” readings, annotates where a variety of renderings of the Hebrew or Greek are possible and why (including notes on wordplay that does not survive translation, like the names of Jacob’s sons), and explains in notes the implications of things like oaths where custom makes the original wording obscure to modern people.
Mangetout is correct that finding a “perfect” copy may be next to impossible.
However, the texts or codices that are used to create the translation are the most important step in translating.
Only the KJV uses the oldest and most “reliable” texts:
For the OT, it is the Masoretic text, which is the Hebrew text;
And for the NT, it is the “Textus Receptus”; which is a Greek compilation of all of the various Greek copies that were floating around at the time. (It is estimated that no more than 30 complete copies existed, but that around 100 partial copies were used in compiling the TR).
All other versions use one of several Latin codices that all contain variations from the TR. And is also considered to have been altered to comply with some non-Biblical traditions of a certain church group.
A good source is to utilize the Young’s or Strong’s numbering system to compare. I prefer Young’s.
Unless there is an original copie of the bible that can be accurately linked to within 100 years of jesus ,then I think all of the translations are wrong. As each “version” is written and the words are changed either to suit a particular agenda or in the intrest of " dynamic equivalency " the meaning is muddied and lost. I am almost willing to bet that a bible from even 50 years ago will say slightly diffrent things from a bible printed only days ago. They may all have the same general ideas, but the more the phraseing changes and the wording is altered , the less accurate the translations are.
The problem with your position, Roy, is that it regards all the copies as of equal value. Modern scholarship tends to regard the oldest as of higher value, since less time for error to creep in had elapsed.
One might compare this to basing one’s opinion on the content of the theory of relativity to running a google search on the Web and averaging out the views of the various sites, with little or no regard to whether the writer is a renowned scholarly physicist or a high school student quoting his textbook, as against forming one’s opinion by Einstein’s seminal papers and the work of competent physicists who knew and discussed his theories with him. The latter would be my preferred methodology, in both seeking to understand relativity and in selecting a Biblical text.
I’d like to know more about what you allege here. Care to amplify?
My Koine Greek is not what it was, but the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was always the closest to an exact translation that I could find.
Part of the problem with other translations was the level of English they were translating into. My experience is that NIV is trying to be too simple, and eliminating the poetic elements of much of the language.
A gentleman named, IIRC, Fox did a word-for-word translation of the Pentateuch. Fascinating stuff. He translated “altar” as “slaughter-site”. Gives you a whole different insight into what the Hebrews thought of when they used the term.
I love the KJV, but there are many more documents in Greek and Hebrew discovered in the last 400 years that shed light on what the words meant when the documents were formulated. Plus, I don’t speak Elizabethan English, and the meaning of many of the words have changed.
I am currently using my son’s New Revised Standard Version for my daily devotional. Also good, but I wish I was better at Greek so I could use a Greek text.
Regards,
Shodan
Polycarp,
Please understand that I wish to offend no one and their personal religious beliefs, that is why I did not state which church created the Latin codices.
The TR, however, utilized as many of the old manuscripts as could be located. The name Received Text, is used to annotate that is a compilation of the texts commonly received by the various peoples. You see, the churches that had copies not only cherished them for their sprititual value, but also had to protect them from a certain religious group that decreed that normal people were not allowed to read or interpret the Bible, and burned as many copies as they could get hold of. So, the old manuscripts that various different churches maintained were easily accepted as authentic.
Also, the TR is the oldest confirmed edition. The Latin codices can not be confirmed as to their authenticity or their age. One was quite literally found in the trash, which says quite a bit for it.
I like several of the translations for different reasons. I like the Amplified for its, well, amplification of meaning. I like the Good News for its simplicity of vocabulary. I like the New Living for its faithfulness to context.
I have in my library, the Masoretic text with word for word literal translation, and the same for the TR and Westley and Hort. And I enjoy reading through them on failry regular intervals. Unfortunately, I could not bring them with me to East Timor. But upon my eventual return to the Great Republic of Texas, I shall resume my studies.
I find that using these really help, but it has also shown just how accurate the KJV really is. However, I will concur that the somewhat archaic language may be difficult to read for some, to include me sometimes. I really do enjoy reading it, though.
That portions of the Codex Sinaiticus were found in the trash speaks to the ignoirance of the monks at the monastery of St. Catherine. It has no bearing on whether the text is legitimate.
What you persist in calling the “Latin codices” are, in fact, Greek works that can be dated authoritatively to the fourth century, while no extant copy of the TR has been found that old. (This does not mean that the TR is in error, but it does mean that any charges of editorial changes lodged against the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and others can be equally lodged against the TR. We have no first or second century copy of the TR to prove that it was not also modified.
As to your charge that anyone “burned as many copies as they could get hold of” for any other texts: can you document that? (As opposed to anecdotes about sporadic burnings of individual texts in disparate times and locations?) Additionally, can you find an actual reference to an order prohibiting anyone from reading Scripture–much less a general rule from any group?
The TR is the basis for all Orthodox lectionaries and translations, and they have a interest in presenting it as the “real” text. I do not have a problem with their usage, but from the perspective of an outside observer, I do not find their claims persuasive. Certainly, no one ever attempted to take awy all their copies.
The church who ordered that Bible reading is wrong and ordered the stealing and burning of other copies still has it in their official records of their ecumenical councils, plus, their own historians, have recorded, it as well. What more is necessary?
I wish not to argue with anyone over their personal beliefs in whatever church, but history speaks for itself.
I was actualy rasied in that church, it was only after I started reading my own copy (after I joined the military) that I started to understand that church traditions contradicted the Bible.
I know what I believe, but I will always respect other people’s rights to their own personal beliefs, and I always try not to argue over religion with anyone.
Then it should not be difficult to provide a citation, rather than simply making unsupported accusations, true?
I am not discussing beliefs, here. I am interested in presenting factual history, after which we can wrangle over its meaning.
I swear, the church on the corner had this ad for a workshop on it’s sign.
Pardon the double post, but what are thoughts on the Llamsa translation?
But a good study bible of any translation should have all of that in it - in addition to the translated text. (My KJV definitely does).
Is it just that the New Jerusalem considers that part of the translation rather than an addition written by the publisher of the translation?
Anyway, I tend to use the KJV, the NRSV, and the NASB.
Tom,
I do not believe the Catholic church has placed the transcripts from their ecumenical councils or their church histories (especially during the Reformation) on the web…but I will do a search, because I do not keep this stuff with me in my office.
By the way, in reference to commentary on the translations (Virgowith and Amarinth), I really enjoy the “Three Wise Men” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, for commentary on the words themselves.
But it is not exactly something you would want to sit down and read, or carry with you, though.
I do have a first year printing of the Revised Version (1885) that I keep sealed from the bugs and humidity, but still enjoy reading through periodically.
The Reformation is irrelevant to this discussion, as it occurred at least 1,000 years after the TR and the Greek texts were written. We have several hundred texts dating between the second and 11th century and the Vatican is the largest repository for those texts, which seems to indicate that if they were interested in destroying copies, they certainly were not very fervent in their desire.
Well, now that we’ve pinned down the RCC as the culprit – FWIW, and I think with some reason given all the examples of people saying “The Bible clearly says…” to justify their particular perspective throughout evangelical Protestantism, the Catholic Church restricted teaching on the Bible to those who had had some experience at the critical reading of its content, and a bit of theology with which to interpret it. The logic here is that if you’re going to preserve a document which records the historical evolution of human understanding about God, then you need to be cautious not to take something from step 3 out of a possible 20 in that evolution as authoritative without reference to later and presumably better comprehension. Heck, as an extreme example, the Shema, taken by itself, rules out Jesus’s divinity, since it clearly states that God is One, implying not Three-in-One.
But it was the Catholic (and Orthodox, after the split) Church which put together and affirmed the TR. Part of the Catholic argument against the KJV was that it strayed in some places from the TR, judging the manuscripts available differently.
Amarinth, the NJB usually uses the “most commonly accepted” rendering of the text – that phrase referring to a consensus among professional Bible scholars as to which of a number of choices best renders the probable original Hebrew (or Greek; it’s usually OT where problems lie) – but annotates the verse with alternate readings and the justification in manuscripts for them. I hope that makes my comment a bit clearer, and answers the question I think you asked.