:laugh: Thats pretty funny. You finally made me laugh hoopboy.

 

I question your sense of humor if you're just now laughing at one of hoopboy's comments...unless you haven't read many.

^ If the KJV was good enough for the apostles it's good enough for me.

 

:thumb:

After I posted in this thread, I said a little prayer that God help in this discussion because I knew I was very limited in my attempt to respond.

 

I'm very thankful he sent Hatz in 15 minutes later. Thanks for the insight Hatz. :thumb:

 

This is one topic I would love to study more of, Bible translation. Where would be a good general starting point for me?

After I posted in this thread, I said a little prayer that God help in this discussion because I knew I was very limited in my attempt to respond.

 

I'm very thankful he sent Hatz in 15 minutes later. Thanks for the insight Hatz. :thumb:

 

This is one topic I would love to study more of, Bible translation. Where would be a good general starting point for me?

 

Funny you said the last. I sent an email to our minister on this and some questions I had from some research on Mormonism as I was looking at what Mitt Romney believes. I recommended to him a one-night 2 hour workshop on how the Bible got to be the Bible we know and love.

After I posted in this thread, I said a little prayer that God help in this discussion because I knew I was very limited in my attempt to respond.

 

I'm very thankful he sent Hatz in 15 minutes later. Thanks for the insight Hatz. :thumb:

 

This is one topic I would love to study more of, Bible translation. Where would be a good general starting point for me?

 

 

15 years ago. :lol:

 

Actually your best bet would be search for some scholastic books (there are differences in books about the history of Bible Translations) online or through reputable Divinity schools. Look for PhD's who have spent their life studying language and writing about what they have learned.

 

Some excellent commentaries you might find to check out somewhere are:

 

The Interpreter's Bible (1st edition and 2nd editions are both good), The Anchor Bible Series, and a series called "Word Biblical Commentary." If you are glutton for punishment the old "International Critical Commentary" series is great with minute translation details but is very expensive and if you can find any of these in a library it is best.

 

Always search for authors that footnote and detail their sources so you can match them back if you want. Believe it or not there are a lot of authors out there who come up with some agenda and push it with little footnotes and some of them are miquotes or poor source material.

 

Good luck.

Funny you said the last. I sent an email to our minister on this and some questions I had from some research on Mormonism as I was looking at what Mitt Romney believes. I recommended to him a one-night 2 hour workshop on how the Bible got to be the Bible we know and love.

 

I highly recommend any good study that looks at the history of scripture. It makes you appreciate the price some people paid to translate it into English and common languages (see Tyndale and Wycliffe and John Hus).

 

There are some DVD studies and book studies out there. Like I said in an earlier post, see who the author is and what their studies have been in and you will find some great resources.

15 years ago. :lol:

 

Actually your best bet would be search for some scholastic books (there are differences in books about the history of Bible Translations) online or through reputable Divinity schools. Look for PhD's who have spent their life studying language and writing about what they have learned.

 

Some excellent commentaries you might find to check out somewhere are:

 

The Interpreter's Bible (1st edition and 2nd editions are both good), The Anchor Bible Series, and a series called "Word Biblical Commentary." If you are glutton for punishment the old "International Critical Commentary" series is great with minute translation details but is very expensive and if you can find any of these in a library it is best.

 

Always search for authors that footnote and detail their sources so you can match them back if you want. Believe it or not there are a lot of authors out there who come up with some agenda and push it with little footnotes and some of them are miquotes or poor source material.

 

Good luck.

 

I guess I should have stated myself a little better, as usual.

 

I don't want a working knowledge or a "how to" on Bible translation, that's way too deep for my feeble mind. I was just interested in more of a historical account of how the Bible got to be the Bible. Much like what lbbc suggested, I guess. I'm curious about how the fragments of the originals were used and what manuscripts existed and how they came to be translated into the various versions of the Bible we know now.

 

There is a lot of misconceptions about Bible translation and I think a lot of people really have no idea whatsoever about it. I wasn't even sure at first if hoopboy was joking when he suggested the appostles used the KJV because I think a lot of people see it like that.

Translations are always a trade-off to some degree. I'm no expert on the matter, but I have studied it to a small degree. Here's what a few things that stood out to me...

 

- Which manuscripts bear more weight? The ones that we have more copies of...or the oldest, and thus, the closest to the original copy. The general consensus is that when you're looking at two manuscripts, the oldest carries more weight because it was written closer to the original and consequently is more likely to be closer in accuracy to the original. However, when you have one or two early copies and hundreds of later ones that differ, which do you use? That's a decision that translators have to make.

 

-As someone already stated, there are no perfect translations. All languages are different, therefore you can't get a perfect word-for-word translation. For example, when translating from Greek to English...there are instances where there is no English word for the Greek word. Or, take the word "love" for example...I heard once that the greeks had something like 8 different words for love to differentiate whether you're talking about love for an animal, love for a human, God's love, etc...I know there are three primary words in the Bible they use...agape, phileo, (and the other escapes me). In english, we use love for all of them.

 

-Translators have to decide if they want to use dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence. Dynamic focuses more on getting the thought across, while formal focuses more on a literal, word-for-word. As stated earlier, you can't get a perfect word-for-word, but that's their priority...getting it as close as possible. To oversimplify, it's a thought-for-thought vs. word-for-word argument. However, it's not like formal translations aren't trying to convey the correct thoughts as well...

 

The NIV uses dynamic equivalence. The KJV uses formal equivalence.

 

For me personally, I prefer translations that use formal equivalence. That's not to say I have an argument against the NIV. I don't. It's just not my #1 pick...neither is the KJV, but I use both from time-to-time and have no problem with them. I typically use the ESV or the NKJV. Other than the obvious change of more modern and easier (for us) to read english, there is very little difference between the KJV vs. NKJV vs. ESV.

 

Just my two cents...

I guess I should have stated myself a little better, as usual.

 

I don't want a working knowledge or a "how to" on Bible translation, that's way too deep for my feeble mind. I was just interested in more of a historical account of how the Bible got to be the Bible. Much like what lbbc suggested, I guess. I'm curious about how the fragments of the originals were used and what manuscripts existed and how they came to be translated into the various versions of the Bible we know now.

 

There is a lot of misconceptions about Bible translation and I think a lot of people really have no idea whatsoever about it. I wasn't even sure at first if hoopboy was joking when he suggested the appostles used the KJV because I think a lot of people see it like that.

 

Hoopboy is almost always joking...if you're in doubt, remember that. The problem is, he doesn't generally use smilies to remove any doubt and people sometimes take it the wrong way, I've discovered...

Translations are always a trade-off to some degree. I'm no expert on the matter, but I have studied it to a small degree. Here's what a few things that stood out to me...

 

- Which manuscripts bear more weight? The ones that we have more copies of...or the oldest, and thus, the closest to the original copy. The general consensus is that when you're looking at two manuscripts, the oldest carries more weight because it was written closer to the original and consequently is more likely to be closer in accuracy to the original. However, when you have one or two early copies and hundreds of later ones that differ, which do you use? That's a decision that translators have to make.

 

-As someone already stated, there are no perfect translations. All languages are different, therefore you can't get a perfect word-for-word translation. For example, when translating from Greek to English...there are instances where there is no English word for the Greek word. Or, take the word "love" for example...I heard once that the greeks had something like 8 different words for love to differentiate whether you're talking about love for an animal, love for a human, God's love, etc...I know there are three primary words in the Bible they use...agape, phileo, (and the other escapes me). In english, we use love for all of them.

 

-Translators have to decide if they want to use dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence. Dynamic focuses more on getting the thought across, while formal focuses more on a literal, word-for-word. As stated earlier, you can't get a perfect word-for-word, but that's their priority...getting it as close as possible. To oversimplify, it's a thought-for-thought vs. word-for-word argument. However, it's not like formal translations aren't trying to convey the correct thoughts as well...

 

The NIV uses dynamic equivalence. The KJV uses formal equivalence.

 

For me personally, I prefer translations that use formal equivalence. That's not to say I have an argument against the NIV. I don't. It's just not my #1 pick...neither is the KJV, but I use both from time-to-time and have no problem with them. I typically use the ESV or the NKJV. Other than the obvious change of more modern and easier (for us) to read english, there is very little difference between the KJV vs. NKJV vs. ESV.

 

Just my two cents...

 

 

All of these are excellent points. To expound and respond on a couple:

 

Which texts do we use? There is a theory of "majority text" or "source critical" text. Many point to the younger manuscripts that have those verses that KJV used and they use a "Majority Text" attitude. If it appears in the most, it must be right.

 

Problem is that is poor scholarship and worse history. Sinaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandranus are the most often cited because they predate much of the others significantly. So when these don't include Mark 16:9-20 and yet those verses appear in many of the ones a couple of hundred years later, what do you do?

 

You examine if those verses fit the style of writing we have in Mark (they don't fit very well) and why did they not appear in the oldest ones. (They were never there until later or they were lost in those copies) It's not an easy "cut and dry" choice.

 

Another point you make is about the model of interpretation (hermeneutic) used by the translation. You give KJV the idea that they are after "literal translation." They were not looking at as that literal but also interpretive. (see my "mansions" illustration)

 

The best literal translation I have found and use is the New American Standard. A little tougher read but one of the more accurate in New Testament translation from Greek texts.

I guess I should have stated myself a little better, as usual.

 

I don't want a working knowledge or a "how to" on Bible translation, that's way too deep for my feeble mind. I was just interested in more of a historical account of how the Bible got to be the Bible. Much like what lbbc suggested, I guess. I'm curious about how the fragments of the originals were used and what manuscripts existed and how they came to be translated into the various versions of the Bible we know now.

 

There is a lot of misconceptions about Bible translation and I think a lot of people really have no idea whatsoever about it. I wasn't even sure at first if hoopboy was joking when he suggested the appostles used the KJV because I think a lot of people see it like that.

 

 

Fragments are just that, fragments. Not whole copies of a letter or gospel. I think the oldest found so far is a piece of the Gospel of John dated around 120 or 150 AD. That doesn't mean John is the oldest gospel. In fact, it's the last one written. This kind of data comes as much from looking at the early church father's writings (First couple of centuries) and what they have to say. (Which isn't always first hand but a tradition they too have picked up on.)

 

There is a lot of good data out there to help you find the story of the writing, collecting and canonizing of the Bible.

The New American Standard Bible is probably the most literal translation today. Therefore, its harder to read because it doesn't restructure the text for readability. The English Standard Version is similar in format, but slightly less literal.

 

The differences in Bible translations is an amazing study, seeing the influence of the Byzantine text versus the Alexandrian text; the different translation philosophies; the historical backgrounds; orientation and styles.

All of these are excellent points. To expound and respond on a couple:

 

Which texts do we use? There is a theory of "majority text" or "source critical" text. Many point to the younger manuscripts that have those verses that KJV used and they use a "Majority Text" attitude. If it appears in the most, it must be right.

 

Problem is that is poor scholarship and worse history. Sinaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandranus are the most often cited because they predate much of the others significantly. So when these don't include Mark 16:9-20 and yet those verses appear in many of the ones a couple of hundred years later, what do you do?

 

You examine if those verses fit the style of writing we have in Mark (they don't fit very well) and why did they not appear in the oldest ones. (They were never there until later or they were lost in those copies) It's not an easy "cut and dry" choice.

 

Another point you make is about the model of interpretation (hermeneutic) used by the translation. You give KJV the idea that they are after "literal translation." They were not looking at as that literal but also interpretive. (see my "mansions" illustration)

 

The best literal translation I have found and use is the New American Standard. A little tougher read but one of the more accurate in New Testament translation from Greek texts.

 

All translations do that to some degree, which is why I said to oversimplify, it's a thought-for-thought vs. word-for-word...I mean, they're all trying to convey the idea/thought that is intended.

 

Translations, like the ESV, trying to stick to formal equivalence have to make some compromises...from what I gather, they try to stay as close as possible to the original words and structure, while making the text readable/understandable. Obviously, if you translated the greek texts literally as they are to english, they would be quite difficult for us to read. For example, here's what the passage John 3:16-21 might look like if the translators kept the same word order and just translated it to English...

 

For so loved God the world that His Son the only begotten He gave, that everyone who believes on Him may not perish, but may have life eternal. For sent not God His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that might be saved the world through Him. He that believes on Him is not judged; but he that believes not already has been judged, because he has not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and loved men rather the the darkness than the light; for were evil their works. For everyone that evil does hates the light, and comes not to the light, that may not be exposed his works; but he that practices the truth comes to the light, that may be manifested his works that in God they have been wrought.

 

That may not be 100% accurate, but I think it gets the point across. Every translation has some trade-off to make, IMO.

 

I enjoy the NASB as well...my wife has a couple and I read them sometimes. From most of what I've read it's highly regarded by most critics...

 

I think translations like the NASB try to stay as close to the original by rearranging the word structure as little as possible to get readability and stay true to the thought/idea. Whereas something like the NIV places a higher premium on conveying the though as clearly and as fluently as possible, so they may do a more significant rearranging of text/words.

 

My preferred translations would go like this...

 

1. ESV

2. NKJV

3. NASB/KJV

4. NIV

 

So, obviously, my personal preference is the more literal, word-for-word translations. I like reading the NIV sometimes in an attempt to get more clarity on a specific passage. I find it to be a very good and useful translation...it's just not one that I'd want as my primary reading.

The New American Standard Bible is probably the most literal translation today. Therefore, its harder to read because it doesn't restructure the text for readability. The English Standard Version is similar in format, but slightly less literal.

 

The differences in Bible translations is an amazing study, seeing the influence of the Byzantine text versus the Alexandrian text; the different translation philosophies; the historical backgrounds; orientation and styles.

 

I really don't find the NASB or ESV hard to read at all. Perhaps they're more difficult than translations that place readability at or near it's top priority, but I think those versions (ESV, NASB) have done a good job with it as well.

 

Of course, I grew up with the KJV and learned to read and understand it fairly well, so pretty much any new translation seems easy for me to read. :lol::thumb:

^ If the KJV was good enough for the apostles it's good enough for me.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh: