Just wondering...

[JM]

what is it that "you" like about modern translations of Scripture, why do "you" prefer them over the AV/KJV?

Do you find you still use the KJV as much when comparing translations?

Many translations differ, how do you decide which one best translates the passage?

Do you find the footnotes to cause doubt? (end of Mark, John 8, etc.)

[SumTinWong]

what is it that "you" like about modern translations of Scripture, why do "you" prefer them over the AV/KJV?
Ease of reading mostly, and accuracy second.

Do you find you still use the KJV as much when comparing translations?
Don't use it all.

Many translations differ, how do you decide which one best translates the passage?
By looking at the Greek Interliner. NASB by far comes the closest.

Do you find the footnotes to cause doubt? (end of Mark, John 8, etc.)
Nope they answer my questions. I like that they include these things but let us know that they may have been added as a scribal addition or whatever.

[Gold Dragon]

what is it that "you" like about modern translations of Scripture, why do "you" prefer them over the AV/KJV?
The following are my beliefs. Not all modern translations are equal but I prefer the NASB in particular to the KJV because:

1) It is more faithful to the original languages
2) It is more faithful to the original manuscripts (more manuscript evidence)
3) It is more faithful to the language we use today

Do you find you still use the KJV as much when comparing translations?
Definitely. I grew up using the NIV so I use the KJV more now than when I was younger.

Many translations differ, how do you decide which one best translates the passage?
Going to the greek/hebrew is usually the best way if we knew Greek or Hebrew. But usually, comparing several quality literal translations will give you a good feel for the range of possible meanings. I prefer comparing the KJV, NASB and the NRSV when I'm looking at a confusing passage.

Do you find the footnotes to cause doubt? (end of Mark, John 8, etc.)
Definitely. Doubt about those passages being in the original manuscripts or in those locations in the originals, not doubt about the entire bible. Those passages may still be inspired, inerrant and infallible.

That is the whole point of the brackets being there, because manuscript evidence has given us valid reason to doubt that they were in the originals and that is something we should keep in mind when teaching from those passages. Not that we shouldn't teach from those passages.

[JM]

When you use Greek Interliner texts, which mss are they based?

[ZiSunka]

I rarely use the KJV except when I am using my computer concordance because that is the only version I have.

I usually use the NKJV and GWT side-by-side when I study. Often suppliment this with an interlinear.

I love the footnotes. My GWT is full of them and explains things I never even questioned before. It discusses the concept of Hell vs the Biblical word Sheol, what wisdom is, all sorts of good info! :)

[Gold Dragon]

I love the footnotes. My GWT is full of them and explains things I never even questioned before. It discusses the concept of Hell vs the Biblical word Sheol, what wisdom is, all sorts of good info! :)

I like to call those "cheat notes" ;)

But I think Street Preacher was specifically talking about footnotes that say:

"Not found in some older manuscripts"

or something like that to show some of the major Byzantine/Alexandrian manuscript differences.

[JM]

Do you accept the footenotes, do they carry authority, or influence you to reject passages and words?

How do you decide which reading is the best reading? Is the matter squarly on your shoulders to decide?

[Gold Dragon]

When you use Greek Interliner texts, which mss are they based?

The standard for most modern translations from the United Bible Society is based on the entire collection of greek manuscripts currently available to biblical scholars with notes showing the major variations.

I believe the last edition (27th) was published in 1993. The interlinear used at www.studylight.org (http://www.studylight.org/) is the 26th edition.

Correction to the first paragraph:
The UBS texts are based on the entire collection of manuscripts, not just Greek ones. Manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other languages are also included in their comparisons.

[JM]

The standard for most modern translations from the United Bible Society is based on the entire collection of greek manuscripts currently available to biblical scholars with notes showing the major variations.

I believe the last edition (27th) was published in 1993. The interlinear used at www.studylight.org (http://www.studylight.org/) is the 26th edition.

Who then, from the UBS, decides which Greek passage to use when they differ?

[Gold Dragon]

Do you accept the footenotes, do they carry authority, or influence you to reject passages and words?

The footnotes are just comments from the publisher. When talking about variants, they help you understand their translation decisions.

How do you decide which reading is the best reading? Is the matter squarly on your shoulders to decide?

When comparing literal translations, they are usually pretty similar in meaning with very slight differences in nuance and emphasis. So usually you don't have to actually decide anything but each of them may help you understand what the original greek meaning was by capturing slight nuances that one english word or phrase is not capable of capturing.

[Gold Dragon]

Who then, from the UBS, decides which Greek passage to use when they differ?

I haven't read the actual UBS texts but I've read that the editors (Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Meztger, Allen Wikgren) include many of the common variants in their texts with commentary of why one or two particular readings were preferred over the others. Knowledge of the evolution of the Greek language over time is probably is a requirement for understanding many of their decisions.

[JM]

I haven't read the actual UBS texts but I've read that the editors (Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Meztger, Allen Wikgren) include many of the common variants in their texts with commentary of why one or two particular readings were preferred over the others. Knowledge of the evolution of the Greek language over time is probably is a requirement for understanding many of their decisions.

Is it safe to say we don't decide but leave it up to modern scholarship? Do you trust modern scholarship at large?

SP

PS: Thanks for helping me to answer these quesitons Dragon, I'm not trying to start a KJV only debate, rather find out why the other camp prefers the modern translations.

[Gold Dragon]

Is it safe to say we leave the decide in the hands of modern scholarship? Do you trust modern scholarship at large?

I trust some of them to do their job well, which is to understand Greek, how the language changed over time, know the manuscripts inside and out, and be able to comment intelligently on which readings may have been closer to the originals than the others.

They are still human and their decisions are not perfect. But I trust them to do their work as objectively as possible for them to the best of their ability and not try to sway to any particular theological position. Otherwise, nobody would take their work seriously and noone would use their text to translate the bible.

There are others in modern biblical scholarship who have an obvious agenda and I would not trust them.

PS: Thanks for helping me to answer these quesitons Dragon, I'm not trying to start a KJV only debate, rather find out why the other camp prefers the modern translations.

No problem. I think it is great that you are investigating what others who disagree with you believe so that your discussions and disagreements will be based on truth and not falsehoods.

[ZiSunka]

I like to call those "cheat notes" ;)

But I think Street Preacher was specifically talking about footnotes that say:

"Not found in some older manuscripts"

or something like that to show some of the major Byzantine/Alexandrian manuscript differences.

Yes, I especially appreciate those. The GWT not only has those notations, but it will tell you why one manuscript has it one way and others another way. My cheap little NKJV, one of those "award Bibles" that you can get at the dollar stores now (but cost me $12 when I bought it) doesn't have those notations.

[Unnamed Servant]

Who then, from the UBS, decides which Greek passage to use when they differ?

I believe that the editors refer to the oldest of the Greek texts to use for the simple fact that later versions that have something extra could be added by the author for different reasons (commentary, notes, etc.).

But i'm still looking into it.

Love-through-Christ,

Unnamed Servant