|
|
I am trying so hard to embrace the Christian stuff. Including the bible with the old and new testaments. But, I find that when I ask people about which version of the bible I should read, I always get a different answer. This makes me feel nervous about even starting to read it. What if I've got the wrong version that slants all of the translation into something just twisted enough that it won't help me or anyone at all?
What are the differences between the versions and translations? I've been given a New King James version and I think New Revised Standard Version. What the heck is the difference?
Where does one start when they want to read the bible? The gospels?
Where are the helpful parts and the parts that answer the real questions and edify faiths and things?
What are you favorite parts of the bible?
What are the important parts?
Isn't maturity to embrace real history and widely accepted and well documented ideas?
This is actually a question I frequently ask... there are many different translations, revisions, interpretations and viewpoints on the bible. So how do you ascertain which bits are divine, absolute truth, and which translations/revisions/interpretations have strayed along the way?
There are many tens of common versions and then many more rare/collectors versions.
The basic versions are summarised here :
http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html
and here is a page which has useful links for further reference
http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html
Regards
Chris
Really, I would just use whatever you have handy. But I would strongly suggest you get a good set of commentaries on the books. I use "The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible", but there are many good ones (Asimov has straight-forward 2 book version). It adds to your reading, but you will get a background on the times, interpretation issues and the purpose of the particular books. Any library or religious book store will have a selection of good ones.
God luck
| WeAlreadyHaveACult wrote: | I am trying so hard to embrace the Christian stuff. Including the bible with the old and new testaments. But, I find that when I ask people about which version of the bible I should read, I always get a different answer. This makes me feel nervous about even starting to read it. What if I've got the wrong version that slants all of the translation into something just twisted enough that it won't help me or anyone at all?
|
Oh, and don't forget all the different canons of the Bible! i.e. which books are included in your Bible. Protestants have 66 books in their Bibles, but others have more or less, depending on which books their councils decided long ago were worthy of being included.
It's a little disconcerting to know that fallible humans decided what was God-inspired and what wasn't.
I've really enjoyed reading some of the books that weren't included in the Protestant version.
Don't sweat the small stuff. The language in each Bible may be different (for example, more/less archaic), but the message is loud and crystal clear. Basically, I am saying pick the first version you see - or close your eyes and randomly select one, it will be almost exactly the same. There aren't (to my knowledge, don't believe this as law) any descrepencies between Bible versions.
My favorite is the Book of Job.
I had to write a paper on it last year for a Bible class I took, I had a lot of fun with that, it's very thought-provoking.
Most of us worked with different versions of the bible and found no extreme differences.
If possible, read more than one. It may help you understand the bible to a greater extent. I personally use the NIV(though I occasionally cross-reference).
For something that is the monolithic word of God, it certainly has gone through the human wringer a lot.
Every time it was translated, things were changed... In addition, we say that in order to understand it correctly, we need to have other humans intereperet it for us.
It seems that in order to base my entire structure of belief on something that flies in the face of science I would need a little more reliability and consensus.
Favorite parts? Definitely Revelations. Important? Definitely not. I just like the apocallyptic stuff...
The different versions a just different translations on the same or in some cases different parchments we have from antiquity that were coppied by scribes in Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. People keep trying to do their bast to interpret the ancient and for the most part dead languages in light of what society was like then and what society is like today to try to communicate the message that is at the heart of it all--I think the key is discernign how that story and the story of your life fit together and how Christ is part of your human story and how you are part of God's Story. I find the Christ Hymns in Ephesians and Colossians to be particularly beautiful, portions of Romans to be the most baffling, and places in the gospels to be the most inspiring, connected to daily living. I think paying attention to how the Word is interacting with you as you read it is one of the critically important parts of reading at all.
King James
I think over time through translations...some of the real meaning has been lost. However, there is great beauty and depth that can still be found in the King James bible that is truly wonderful.
Ehh, this is the time I started to appreciate that there is only one Polish translation of Bible that is frequently used - the Millenium Bible.
The other ones are: one from XVI century [that I personally find very hard to read], one in progress [they've done so far only the New Testament and Psalms, but it's going to be the best work ever] and one used by Jehova Witnesses [I've read some passages from there and they're not that different anyway].
I think I should feel very lucky, as seeing hundreds of translations many people get often confused. I could easily understand this, the message of God should be clear and simple, and the variety of churches and interpretations don't make people rely on it. I think I'm lucky again that in my country the vast mayority of Christians belong to the same church.
However, I think that new translations are needed as the words of God are actual at any time, and they should be given in an actual way. The Bible is full of phrases, idioms and proverbs that were clear for people living in certain periods - but not for us. There's also a big difference at customs, menthality, traditions, that make us not fully understand the message of Bible [especially the books of Old Testament]. That's why they should be explained in details to an average person of the XXI century  . That's why I really like the new polish Bible that they are translating now. What is so special about it, it has really large comments about the customs, geographical details and meaning of idioms, and at the same time it has no theological comments, to make it available for Christians of all churches. If I were to choose one of English translations, I would take one that has exactly that kind of features.
So far, if I need an English Bible i use the New International Version - it seems very clear and understandable to me. For the same reason I can't go through the King James. It sounds magnificent and ther is some kind of beauty in this kind of language, but a bit too overwhelming.... Ahh, and if you want to start reading the Bible, you'd better go for the New Testament [except for Relevations, it is too full of crazy symbols that are very hard to interpret at first]. At the same time I would advise Psalms, when I started reading the Bible I was caught by their simple beauty . Have a nice lecture 
| Subsonic Sound wrote: | | This is actually a question I frequently ask... there are many different translations, revisions, interpretations and viewpoints on the bible. So how do you ascertain which bits are divine, absolute truth, and which translations/revisions/interpretations have strayed along the way? |
i think everyone is missing the point; the bible cannot be the absolute truth because it was written by men many years after the events (in terms of the new testament) actually occured and it is probably an unrelible souce, as these men were unlikely to have been there.
there is also the problem of translation, transliteration and transcription. Versions of the story were written in greek, translated to latin, and then copied many thousands of times to make up bibles for the medieval world, before being translated to native languages.
remember that religion isn't just a faith system, it is often a political tool, and anyone who had the need to change the bible, probably had the means to do so too.
I agree with mgumn, and you must all know that the Bible, as it is now, is one of the most unreliable religions that exists.
A mgumn said, the Bible was written by PEOPLE in the first place, and after that it was translated againg and again and again.
Actually, even before it was "destroyed" by all the translations, it was already corrupted by the Catholic Church.
In the 4th century, Constantine the Great (literally translated from Dutch, don't know if that's correct  ) called together the First Council of Nicaea, in which was decided how they would present "the christian religion" to the people.
In this meeting, only the pieces of the bible that made jesus look divine and great and so on and so forth were selected, the rest was discarded (as in destroyed).
Of course they also twisted some facts, so that it would enhance their political power, and to make the people accept it somewhat more easy (the Roman Empire still existed (well, Constantine was the big boss of half of it ) and most people still believed in the roman gods).
For example, they changed the date of Jesus's birth, to december, to replace a Roman religious festival, and i quote from Wikipedia once again:
| Quote: | | Many scholars note that the account in Luke of the shepherds' activities suggest a spring or summer date for Jesus' birth.[8] Scholars speculate that the date of the celebration was moved in an attempt to replace the Roman festival of Saturnalia (or more specifically, the birthday of the God Sol Invictus).[7] |
So, Subsonic Sound,
| Quote: | Subsonic Sound
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject:
This is actually a question I frequently ask... there are many different translations, revisions, interpretations and viewpoints on the bible. So how do you ascertain which bits are divine, absolute truth, and which translations/revisions/interpretations have strayed along the way? |
There IS no true piece of bible left.
Everything that has stayed intact after all the things it has been through (as described above), is totally out of context of Jesus' REAL religion.
I don't know if his "real" religion was a good/non-corrupt one, as there are no sources left to study if it was.
But the current Bible and it's stories should ONLY be used as a sort of "lessons of life", and by NO MEANS should you take things as the celibate and other Catholic nonsense seriously.
Of course there will be very sharp critics on this post, but hey, it wouldn't be much fun if there weren't, so keep it coming peeps!
[EDIT:] Fixed some quote mess-upps
| McMuffin wrote: |
In this meeting, only the pieces of the bible that made jesus look divine and great and so on and so forth were selected, the rest was discarded (as in destroyed). |
You speak as if you know a lot about the history of the the church...but I'm not sure if what I read about the first council jibes with your claim. My understanding is that the main issue looked at there was the Arian Controvesry, which appears to be more of a technical dispute about the substance of Jesus, not whether he was divine. Take a look at the Wiki entry on this.
| Quote: |
The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. A third group (now known as homoiousians) tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance. |
If you are going to make claims about the essence of the Bible being completely changed, maybe you could provided some references.
| mgumn wrote: | | there is also the problem of translation, transliteration and transcription. Versions of the story were written in greek, translated to latin, and then copied many thousands of times to make up bibles for the medieval world, before being translated to native languages. |
You may be surprised, but all of the modern translations of the Bible [and after the Renovation they are actually in all of the languages] have been translated from the original hebrew and greek manuscripts from the first centuries of Christianity. Everybody had enough of these multiple translations and wanted to get back to the roots of Christianity. What I think they have achieved.
| McMuffin wrote: | Actually, even before it was "destroyed" by all the translations, it was already corrupted by the Catholic Church.
In the 4th century, Constantine the Great (literally translated from Dutch, don't know if that's correct ) called together the First Council of Nicaea, in which was decided how they would present "the christian religion" to the people.
In this meeting, only the pieces of the bible that made jesus look divine and great and so on and so forth were selected, the rest was discarded (as in destroyed). |
I guess you have read too much of Da Vinci Code. You may be shocked, but the authenticity of Bible is much more proved that the reliability of Da Vinci Code..
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea wrote: | The First Council began achieving a great deal of notoriety in 2003, after it was referred to in Dan Brown's controversial bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. The novel's claim, via a key conversation between characters Leigh Teabing and Sophie Neveu, was that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. [His] establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." The book went on to state that Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote at the Council, and "a relatively close vote at that." The novel claims that Emperor Constantine convened and influenced this vote in order to help consolidate his own power.
In reality, the novel's claims have little basis in fact[citation needed] and are not accepted by any serious historians, who point out multiple examples indicating that Jesus' divinity was asserted almost immediately after his death by the apostles.[27] Contemporary secular historian Pliny the Younger documented observations of Christians, who "sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god." [28] The commonly-accepted view by most historians is that Constantine did convene the Council to help bring about peace and, in order to achieve that political goal, to clarify some diverging views about Jesus (such as whether or not he was "made" or "begotten"), but that there were no "votes" at the Council -- it was more of a discussion, to produce a written "Creed of Nicaea", which was then signed by all but three of the hundreds of participants. [29] |
At the end of this article there are references to historical sources. Have a nice lecture.
| Quote: | Of course they also twisted some facts, so that it would enhance their political power, and to make the people accept it somewhat more easy (the Roman Empire still existed (well, Constantine was the big boss of half of it ) and most people still believed in the roman gods).
For example, they changed the date of Jesus's birth, to december, to replace a Roman religious festival, and i quote from Wikipedia once again: |
That's right, many Christian holidays were introduced at the same dates as former pagan celebrations to make people more familiar with them. There is something more, they took also some pagan symbols like christmas tree, easter eggs or other folk traditions. But it has nothing to do with the Bible, there is nowhere written what was the season or month of the year when Jesus was born, nor even what year was it exactly. The matter when Jesus was born was not as important for those people as the fact how and what for did it happen.
| Quote: | | But the current Bible and it's stories should ONLY be used as a sort of "lessons of life", and by NO MEANS should you take things as the celibate and other Catholic nonsense seriously. |
The Bible actually says nothing about the celibacy, it it is only stated in the 1 Corinthians that it is advised to stay single if you want to dedicate your life to God. The celibate is the internal regulation of Catholic Church introduced in medieval times to avoid overtaking the Church goods by children of the priests. Where is the problem?
My favorite book of the Bible is John's Gospell.
About its truth, even if there are mistakes or misunderstandings, the main part is to love one another and to love God with all your heart and mind, as Jesus taught us. Just do it.
I learned through experience, that even though I believe in God and Jesus, I think that the Bible has been altered a lot through time, and that we will never know the truth till our saviour comes again. Now for those non believers I would tell them to have peace between religions because all Religion have one thing in common, peace..
Except Anti Christ, Damn them to hell.
IRT to mariska (a bit too lazy to quote tight now ):
No, I don't like the Da Vincy code very much, read it once, and it was a great book, that's all.
A BOOK, maybe based on a few, very twisted facts.
Expecially after beginning in "Angels and Devils" form or old pall Mr. Brown, I saw that his books are NOT to be used as reference material for anything at all.
All the nonsense he declares in that book...
I never could get past page 28 or so, it was TOO much crap.
I think I saw how crappy Angels and Devils was, as I know quite a bit about scientific stuff (at least A LOT more then Mr. Brown).
So I also think that The Da Vinci Code is pure crap (in fact-sense), but i just can't see it, as I do not know as much about the subject as Mr Brown does.
Anyways, back on topic (still IRT mariska):
I just hope to keep WeAlreadyHaveACult from becoming a stupid, extremist christian, that blindly follows the Catholic Church, and takes all of the Bible passages literally, without ever thinking about them.
If I say these things (which are quite true), and WeAlreadyHaveACult still is interested in becoming a Christian, he/she will definately look all the things I said up, and think about them.
So he/she can become a "true" Christian, the way Jesus probably meant them to be.
Not that that changes MY mind, I will never ever believe in any godlike things.
| McMuffin wrote: | But if God always does the same, this god (or gods if you want), is completely irrelevant.
And an irrelevant god is the same as no god, as god may have created all matter and controlls every quantum mechical process, but there is practically no difference in god doing it all or things following the laws of physics. |
^from another topic.
Please keep correcting me, I'm just a sixteen year old emotionally and sexually troubled boy, in the middle of his puberty.
- McMuffin
In additon to there being different translations of the bible, aren't there differences in what books are in the bible and what they are named? Isn't there a different set of books with the Catholic Bible than the King James Bible? And then what about the book of Jublilee? (Is that book even relevant, I wonder?) Additionally not to long ago I was cleaning in a Presbyterian Church and I can't remember what it was called but they had a bible there that had a name of a book I didn't recognize, something from the Old Testament era...
I believe, and will always believe, that the meaning of the Bible remains uncorrupted although there are small variations in the meaning of some things the general meaning in the broad sense of the Bible remains the same. That is what is most important to me in that sense.
p.s. I'll look it up some time soon on the net; I'm sure I can find that odd named book up there. Maybe someone here knows what I'm talking about?
| largelyobscure wrote: | In additon to there being different translations of the bible, aren't there differences in what books are in the bible and what they are named? Isn't there a different set of books with the Catholic Bible than the King James Bible? And then what about the book of Jublilee? (Is that book even relevant, I wonder?) Additionally not to long ago I was cleaning in a Presbyterian Church and I can't remember what it was called but they had a bible there that had a name of a book I didn't recognize, something from the Old Testament era...
I believe, and will always believe, that the meaning of the Bible remains uncorrupted although there are small variations in the meaning of some things the general meaning in the broad sense of the Bible remains the same. That is what is most important to me in that sense.
p.s. I'll look it up some time soon on the net; I'm sure I can find that odd named book up there. Maybe someone here knows what I'm talking about? |
You've just skirted the edge of a huge disparity between the various Christian sects.
Yes, different sects have different books in the bible. The Catholic bible has Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus of Ben Sirach and Baruch - all of which most Protestant bibles don't include. The Greek Orthodox church also adds 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Odes. As for Jubilees, you have to look to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which also adds Enoch, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement and Acts of Paul.
Although most churches do not include all of the books I have mentioned here, you find that those books that are included reference them. For example, Jude references Enoch.
Confused yet? No? Well I'm just getting started.
In addition to these books there are literally dozens of other books, including other gospels by Thomas, Mary and Judas, acts of Peter, John and others, revelations to Mary, Paul, Peter and more. Not to mention "infancy" gospels about the childhood of Jesus by several people. Most of these, to my knowledge, are in no bibles.
However!
Chunks of these "apocrypha" are included in some versions of the bible. For example, the tale of Susanna is included in Daniel by the Catholics, but not the Protestants. The same goes for Bel and the dragon. Also, the Catholic version of Esther has something like 6 extra chapters.
As for the Presbyterians, you may be talking about the Book of Confessions. Technically, that's not part of the bible, as I understand it. It's a collection of teachings by modern day non-prophet writers that are meant to suppliment the bible.
For the most part, it really doesn't matter too much which version you choose. I've read a number of different translations, and there isn't a great number of difference between. If you sit down and analyze each part, you might find slight wording differences between certain passages. But in the end, the Bible was meant to be taken in a contextual, broader basis. You can't choose an individual verse at random and decide what it means. You have to read everything in the context of the situation (i.e. within the line of the story). So, you might find a slight wording difference, but as long as you keep a contextual view of things, it's kinda hard to go wrong.
On that note, you might look the history of how a certain version was translated. For instance, a lot of people like the King James version, but most people don't think about the fact that it was written before the finding of the dead sea scrolls. The dead sea scrolls are an important part of interpretation of some of the earlier books of the old testament.
In the end though, you should really lighten up about the situation. Christianity isn't about READING. Hey, the early Christians didn't even have a Bible to follow! It's a lifestyle stemming from the pure and perfect life and teachings of Jesus. It's more about making your life and mind more like His. In concept, it's quite a simple and noble. That's the beauty of Christianity. In practice, it's very difficult to achieve, but that doesn't mean you or I should give up trying.
| the1991 wrote: | For the most part, it really doesn't matter too much which version you choose. I've read a number of different translations, and there isn't a great number of difference between. If you sit down and analyze each part, you might find slight wording differences between certain passages. But in the end, the Bible was meant to be taken in a contextual, broader basis. You can't choose an individual verse at random and decide what it means. You have to read everything in the context of the situation (i.e. within the line of the story). So, you might find a slight wording difference, but as long as you keep a contextual view of things, it's kinda hard to go wrong.
On that note, you might look the history of how a certain version was translated. For instance, a lot of people like the King James version, but most people don't think about the fact that it was written before the finding of the dead sea scrolls. The dead sea scrolls are an important part of interpretation of some of the earlier books of the old testament.
In the end though, you should really lighten up about the situation. Christianity isn't about READING. Hey, the early Christians didn't even have a Bible to follow! It's a lifestyle stemming from the pure and perfect life and teachings of Jesus. It's more about making your life and mind more like His. In concept, it's quite a simple and noble. That's the beauty of Christianity. In practice, it's very difficult to achieve, but that doesn't mean you or I should give up trying. |
All nice and well in theory, but people are using that book to draft laws - laws that they intend even non-Christians to follow. In fact, people are killing based on what they believe that book says. If you honestly and truly believe that the precise details of what is written in the bible are irrrelevant, you're not really in touch with the reality of how the bible is being used.
And, sadly, the vast majority of all of the Judaistic religions, including Christianity, do NOT interpret biblical based on a contextual analysis, except when it suits them to do so.
| the1991 wrote: | | It's a lifestyle stemming from the pure and perfect life and teachings of Jesus. |
Too bad, as we don't know what Jesus' teachings were, they were discarded, remember?
And as Indi says, most people only read "in context" when it suits them.
| Quote: | | i think everyone is missing the point; the bible cannot be the absolute truth because it was written by men many years after the events (in terms of the new testament) actually occured and it is probably an unrelible souce, as these men were unlikely to have been there. |
Actually, I think you missed my point, given as you went on to state exactly what I was trying to insinuate. 
The statement that the bible is god's word, and absolute truth is one that I challenge frequently in theological debates, using the fact that different denominations use different bibles, and different translations carry different overtones.
Since many early cultures used oral tradition to pass down stories and beliefs, it's quite possible it was never accurate, but I can't be sure of that. But it's certainly not accurate anymore.
| the_mariska wrote: |
You may be surprised, but all of the modern translations of the Bible [and after the Renovation they are actually in all of the languages] have been translated from the original hebrew and greek manuscripts from the first centuries of Christianity. Everybody had enough of these multiple translations and wanted to get back to the roots of Christianity. What I think they have achieved. |
I don't agree with that. The modern translations are all based upon same text, the "new" version edited by Wescott & Hort (two 19th century professors). They did not like the KJV and wanted to make it obsolete, I think. Mostly they wiped away many importand verses or words, here are some examples: http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Here is a "funny" comparison from Matt. 5:22:
KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."
NIV: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."
So was Jesus subject to judgement when he drove out the people who were buying and selling there?!
The translation is not only a matter of archaic or modernized language, it is a a matter of content. The modern translations are mere interpretaions while the KJV is more a word for word translation. Example:
Luke 21:26
NIV "Men will faint from terror..."
KJV "Men's hearts failing them for fear..."
The KJV gives room for own interpretaion or divine revelation. Somebody had said that this passage is about heart attacks.
| guznrd wrote: | | The translation is not only a matter of archaic or modernized language, it is a a matter of content. The modern translations are mere interpretaions while the KJV is more a word for word translation. |
Oh good grief, that's entirely untrue.
There are already literal translations of the bible - Young's springs to mind - and the KJV doesn't count among them. The KJV translators adjusted and interpreted the original text while translating it to English the exact same way as modern translators do.
There are only two fundamental differences between modern translations and the KJV:
- Modern translators have access to more and better source documents, and have a better understanding of the source languages than the KJV translators did.
- The form of English used by the KJV translators was current then but dead now. The form of English that modern translators use is current.
We already know that the KJV translators made dozens and dozens of translation errors. And we know the source documents they did their translations from were not accurate. And worst of all... the "KJV" you're holding in your hand right now probably isn't even really the real KJV.
| guznrd wrote: | | The modern translations are all based upon same text, the "new" version edited by Wescott & Hort (two 19th century professors). They did not like the KJV and wanted to make it obsolete, I think. |
Patent nonsense, and paranoid nonsense at that. Even if it were true, that would still mean that since Westcott and Hort used more and better source documents than the KJV translators, translations that source Westcott and Hort are more likely to be better translations.
But it's just not true. Modern translations use (relatively) newly found source documents, and most offer footnotes that show the differences between source documents.
And Westcott and Hort didn't like the KJV? Don't be absurd. -_- They simply had access to more and better information than the KJV translators did. They didn't even intend to make a useable bible translation. They only translated the New Testament, and the purpose was to aid scholarly analysis with textual criticism - not to write a bible to be used in church.
Do some research, man. -_-
| guznrd wrote: | Here is a "funny" comparison from Matt. 5:22:
KJV: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."
NIV: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."
So was Jesus subject to judgement when he drove out the people who were buying and selling there?! |
What's really funny is how you manage to so neatly harpoon your own argument. -_-;
I direct your attention to the NIV quote as you made it: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."
Once again, with highlighting: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."
Now, what is that [b], pray tell? Hm?
For those of you who don't have access to an NIV, or are just too lazy to check, I'll tell you. It's a footnote marker. And what is the content of that footnote? I'll tell you. It's: "Some manuscripts insert 'without cause'".
So first of all: your argument that the translation simply omitted the "without cause" because... the translators missed it/Wescott and Hort didn't like it/insert your own paranoid delusion here... your argument is complete bunk. Not only did the NIV translators note that that phrase may be there, they point out that it doesn't exist in all manuscripts.
What this means in reality is that it's very likely that some scribe that was copying the manuscript somewhere between the 2nd and the 17th century had the same "brainstorm" that you did - that without the "without cause" in there, it made Jesus look bad - so they inserted the phrase. The KJV translators translated from that received manuscript. Then later, older manuscripts were discovered that did not include the phrase. So the NIV translators, assuming the older manuscripts are more likely to be correct since they haven't been copied and passed down by amazingly non-impartial monks for over a thousand years, chose the older version as the default, but offered the version from the manuscript the KJV used as an alternative in the footnote.
In other words, what you have managed to do with your "funny" comparison is highlight one of the most problematic aspects of the KJV - the fact that it is based on only a single, unreliable manuscript, and does not take into account information that has come up in the last 400 years - and show that the NIV does not suffer from the same problem. In effect, you've shown that the NIV is a better translation.
Actually, maybe it was kind of a funny comparison. I'm laughing.
| guznrd wrote: | Example:
Luke 21:26
NIV "Men will faint from terror..."
KJV "Men's hearts failing them for fear..."
The KJV gives room for own interpretaion or divine revelation. Somebody had said that this passage is about heart attacks |
Do you really think the modern translators are that stupid? -_- Or that they're that afraid of being politically incorrect or something?
The actual literal koine greek text reads "fainting at heart from fear". The NIV translation is closer.
Furthermore, let's look at the part of the verse that you carefully omitted.
The KJV says: "... and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."
The NIV says: "... apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken."
The NIV is pretty much dead on literal while the KJV is not. In fact, the KJV has mistranslated. The literal Greek speaks of "the powers of the heavens", a phrase which refers to the stars (and other celestial bodies) - not the "powers of Heaven".
So once again, the NIV is the superior translation.
Dude, you're fighting a losing battle. -_- The KJV is 400 years old. Stop and think for just one second. There have been 400 years of biblical, archeological and linguistic research since the KJV. And... you think that not only have we learned nothing in all that time beyond what the KJV translators knew... that we've somehow gotten dumber in 400 years, and don't think of things like the logical dilemma of omitting the "without cause"?
Riiiiight.
If you are reading the Bible for reasons of culture (you know like reading Shakespeare), follow these rules:
1. get a version that you understand (the KJV has Shakespearean expressions that you may not be able to understand immediately)
2. get one that reflects the state of current scholarship: the following may be of help:
NRSV (a lot of people are recommending it because of the inclusive language)
NIV (among non-Catholics this is the best; very up to date and the language is easy to understand)
JB (among Catholics, it is an excellent translation because of the notes; the language is not at all that good. Better still if you can read the original French)
If you are reading the Bible because you think it is the Word of God and you find it necessary for salvation, then no version will help you. What you need to find is the Church whose life will help illumine what you read in the Bible.
| philandjorge wrote: | Its like what Karl Barth said when a lady questioned him about whether a serpent did actually speak to eve in the Garden of Eden. Karl Barth said: "its not important whether the serpent spoke, but what he said thats important"
the Bible, regardless of its historicity, or its various translations, or its interpretation by people, still manages to convey a powerful message. making it pretty special, whatever translation you use. |
That argument is really getting tired. If the bible were being read as a story book, then yes, certainly, don't sweat the small stuff. It wouldn't matter whether the translations were different or not. Or hell, if all you were interested in was being inspired, that's fine too, because mistakes in wording really wouldn't make a great deal of difference to Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul.
But that's not what the bible is being used for.
It is hypocritical for a Christian to say that laws should be based on the bible because it is a divine message, then to turn around and say that it doesn't matter that there is a great deal of uncertainty about what the precise message is. If you want to base laws on the "ten commandments", explain to me how you intend to do so given that different manuscripts have different commandments. Obviously, the variations matter a great deal in that case.
Taking your quote - "its not important whether the serpent spoke, but what he said thats important" - it effectively cuts to the heart of the issue. Ok. Fine. So it's what the serpent said that's important, right? Then isn't it important to know exactly what it is that the serpent said?
Thanks 'Indi' for a tough answer! I still disagree with almost everything you write.
Why is it a great importance for you to leave the KJV alone and accept the modern translations as the highest authority?
From where do you get all your information about the newly found manuscripts? Could you please find some web sites (or documents) so I can read, because otherwise your sentences remains as opinions. If you believe what the NIV translators say, we could stop discussing at once. Their aim is quite clear, to have a "bible" that has no power any longer and unsharp a good old sword.
You know the italics in the KJV? They are words added in order to make the language understandable. That shows the humilty of the translators. They wanted to mark the words they added.
NIV uses a method called dynamic equivalence:
"The aim in dynamic equivalence translation is not word-for-word accuracy, but thought-for-thought equivalence. Although the NIV translators would avoid using the term dynamic equivalence in reference to their work, their aim was for "more than a word-for-word translation;" their goal, instead, was for "fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers". They sought by "frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words" to produce a translation that would speak to people in that people's own culture."
source: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.asp
As we see, the NIV is already interpreted for you. No revelation is needed, just read and recieve.
The most important thing is that the NIV is entirely another bible. Use it if you are satisfied with it, but be honest.
I dont't know much about the major and minor manuscripts, but one thing is clear. The majority texts agree with each other, they have no contradictions while the ("newly found" minority texts has a lots of them (over 3000).
And not to forget, Wescott and Hort were not believers. It could be hard to handle the Word of God not believing in it and the author of it.
Here is some interesting discussion: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm
Do you see some similarities in the deleted passages and words btw?
| guznrd wrote: | | Why is it a great importance for you to leave the KJV alone and accept the modern translations as the highest authority? |
It is of absolutely no relevance to me at all.
I merely ask questions: the source documents used to translate the KJV are now known to have been altered from the original forms. How can it be claimed that the KJV is thus accurate to the original message? One of two things happened. Either the old manuscripts we now have are all wrong, and the Textus Receptus used for the KJV, despite centuries of copying after the original manuscripts have long faded into history, somehow started out wrong and magically became right. Or, the old manuscripts are closer to the original, correct form, and the Textus Receptus deviated in the 10 centuries since.
Aside from the fact that the documents given to Erasmus are now known to be different from older manuscripts, and aside from the fact that given two or three competing manuscripts Erasmus simply picked one rather than trying to explore the causes of differences between the two versions and thus ferret out the original text, we have evidence that the Greek text was altered by the scribes copying it between the time Erasmus transcribed it and the KJV translators got their hands on it. But on top of all that, Erasumus made literally dozens of typographical errors because he was rushing, and he didn't even have all of the text at hand! For some parts of it, he actually had to find other, less authoritative documents and retranslate them back to Greek.
Want to try to tell me again that the KJV is authoritative and accurate?
But wait, there's more! Because as I said, you're not even holding the KJV in your hand right now. The KJV was published in 1611. What you're holding is (chances are better than 99%) a copy that is based on a version that was published in 1769 (despite the fact that it says it was based on the 1611 version).
So, given all of this, my question is how on earth anyone can claim the KJV is more accurate than modern translations?
| guznrd wrote: | | From where do you get all your information about the newly found manuscripts? Could you please find some web sites (or documents) so I can read, because otherwise your sentences remains as opinions. |
If you really care enough about which version is more accurate, shouldn't you have done the research yourself already? Surely you don't mean you have formed your opinion based on sheer ignorance of the basis for the KJV and other translations? Surely you don't expect anyone to respect an opinion that you literally pulled out of your ass - or had someone hand to you and you swallowed it whole - when you have no evidence to back it up?
The information is freely available online. Google is your friend.
| guznrd wrote: | | If you believe what the NIV translators say, we could stop discussing at once. Their aim is quite clear, to have a "bible" that has no power any longer and unsharp a good old sword. |
Now that is an opinion.
I don't "believe" what the NIV translators say. I also don't "believe" what the KJV-only advocates say. I did research and found my own answers.
| guznrd wrote: | | You know the italics in the KJV? They are words added in order to make the language understandable. That shows the humilty of the translators. They wanted to mark the words they added. |
O rly? And do you know that most of those italics weren't even in the original version? That they were added over a hundred and fifty years later? Post-hoc humility, then?
| guznrd wrote: | NIV uses a method called dynamic equivalence:
"The aim in dynamic equivalence translation is not word-for-word accuracy, but thought-for-thought equivalence. Although the NIV translators would avoid using the term dynamic equivalence in reference to their work, their aim was for "more than a word-for-word translation;" their goal, instead, was for "fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers". They sought by "frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words" to produce a translation that would speak to people in that people's own culture."
source: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.asp |
I speak 8 languages myself, although only a couple with any degree of current fluency, but you can take or leave my authority on the subject of translations as you like. Nevertheless, it is a fact that you cannot simply directly translate any language into any other language, and still maintain the same message for anything but the most trivial text. It is impossible. Can't be done.
Here's a real world example. If I were to say: "I went out to have a drink with my friends", how would you translate that to Japanese? For the word "drinking", would you use "飲む" or "引っ掛ける"? The first means "to drink" and is generally applied to non-alcoholic drinks. The second means to drink alcoholic drinks specifically.
You see? The moment you translate that - even when you're trying to be literal - you introduce your own interpretation. I didn't say whether I was going to have a coffee with them, or going to get plastered. And that's two current, modern languages where we should understand the gist of the original text clearly. For text that is thousands of years old in a dead language, the situation becomes much more complex.
Real formal equivalence is impossible. It is a myth, fine in theory, but it cannot be achieved in reality. Translations that actually try to do real literal translations are all but unreadable, and have to have extensive notes to explain the vagaries and dual meanings of phrases. Translations like that do exist, but they are not in wide public use.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the KJV translators had to use formal equivalence. It was simply not recognized as such at the time. Apart from the fact that they simply couldn't literally port each ancient phrase to English, there was the fact that they were ordered not to include translation notes. They weren't even allowed to admit when they were fudging it.
| guznrd wrote: | | As we see, the NIV is already interpreted for you. No revelation is needed, just read and recieve. |
The KJV is also interpreted, and several words were fudged to make the text consistent. Did you know that King James specifically ordered the translators to translate the text in such a way that it maintained the authority of the church? In his own words: "[w]hen any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith". In plain English, if you come across a word with possible multiple interpretations, pick the interpretation the church has preferred in the past, or the one that suits best the current idea of Christianity. Essentially, a 17th century version of Protestant Christianity was used to interpret the text when there was any controversy in the translation. And anytime the translation was vague, fudge it to make it agree with church doctrine.
| guznrd wrote: | | The most important thing is that the NIV is entirely another bible. Use it if you are satisfied with it, but be honest. |
I am honest, and I don't use it.
| guznrd wrote: | | I dont't know much about the major and minor manuscripts, but one thing is clear. The majority texts agree with each other, they have no contradictions while the ("newly found" minority texts has a lots of them (over 3000). |
I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never heard of "major" or "minor" manuscripts. The KJV is translated using the Masoretic Text - the Jewish bible - for the old testament, and the Textus Receptus for the new testament. The Masoretic Text was compiled by Jewish scribes in the 7th-10th century. The Textus Receptus was handed down in monasteries for a thousand years, and was not an original source, or even complete.
By comparison, most modern translations use the Septuagint as the source for the old testament, and one or more of the codices (such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaiticus) for the new testament. The Septuagint is from the 3rd to the 1st century BCE - at least 800 years before the Masoretes. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are both from the 4th century.
More recent discoveries have shown that ancient fragments tend to agree far more with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text. When you say "minority texts", do you mean those fragments? Because I know of no translation based on those fragments.
| guznrd wrote: | | And not to forget, Wescott and Hort were not believers. It could be hard to handle the Word of God not believing in it and the author of it. |
Not believers? You mean Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham, and Fenton John Anthony Hort, professor of divinity at Emmanuel College, were not believers?
Keep trying.
That is not "interesting discussion". That is a silly attempt to smear Westcott and Hort by people who don't really have good comprehension skills. Far from showing they were non-believers, most of the quotes show they were passionate believers who felt strongly about people corrupting Christianity for personal glory.
| guznrd wrote: | | Do you see some similarities in the deleted passages and words btw? |
No. Did you see that most of them weren't deleted? They were merely relegated to notes because they weren't in older manuscripts?
| WeAlreadyHaveACult wrote: | I am trying so hard to embrace the Christian stuff. Including the bible with the old and new testaments. But, I find that when I ask people about which version of the bible I should read, I always get a different answer. This makes me feel nervous about even starting to read it. What if I've got the wrong version that slants all of the translation into something just twisted enough that it won't help me or anyone at all?
What are the differences between the versions and translations? I've been given a New King James version and I think New Revised Standard Version. What the heck is the difference?
Where does one start when they want to read the bible? The gospels?
Where are the helpful parts and the parts that answer the real questions and edify faiths and things?? |
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm
you are lucky you supposed to select a bible from 4.
if you have lived in old times there were 100s of them
Quran, Torah and Bible are the word of God except that Torah and bible were changed by human hands and especially Bible lost its original language therfore its original meaning.
One of the biggest mistakes that was made by the first christians was to translate it without too much precaution. The translation caused a problem very shortly, right about aorun 3rd century as you may know there was a council held in Nicea (Iznik in Today's Turkey) and here all the priests and scholar of Bible gathered and tried to bring a unitary solution for the many translations and different books of Bible. firts they denounced the trinity and Jesus being God's son and in a couple of days they went back to saying that he was God's son.(this council went on over a week and in the end they came with the 4 dufferent Bibles that are used today. Mark,Luke, Yohanna and cant remeber the 4th one now).
There are many verses in the Quran about this trinity issue and Jesus. You will find that there is a verse in which God questions Jesus at the judgement day if he really claimed to be God's son; Jesus answers in the meaning of saying that he never claimed such a thing and its the people after him spoiled hiw words and teachings.
As a footnote you should research the word "son" in old Greek language which means "slave" and that was the form which it was used in the Original Bible but as it wastranslated later it was understood as the son, because this word could mean both.Historically the same word meaning slave is used in the Quran and Torah while talking about the prophets/messengers and all people. It reminds us we were created by God and we are owned by Him.Thats all.
|
