Why are various Bible translations so....

[jangnim]

I know this is likely to open a can of worms here. Our KJV only bretheren will likely have some things to say, yet I am looking for an answer to this.

I recently posted a thread to this forum regarding the word "Dignities" in the KJV in Jude verse 8.

In one version of the Bible it is translated Angels, in another Celestial Beings, in another authorities, and in another government officials. With this wide a range of meanings for a passage, it is little wonder there are many many "brands" of Christian.

I understand the reasoning behind the translation issue, as it is we can't know the exact meaning of a word except from its context, and where it was used elsewhere. So I guess my question is, why can't we arrive at common ground on these translation issues? These very issues have given way to all sorts of error in the church, so just looking for comments on this.

[TwinCrier]

If your asking which we think is closer to true meaning, I think the verse in context is speaking of the world and thus would be a government athority, dignitary. It's not until the nest verse that Angels are brought up. Also, we are not told to respect angelic beings, but we are to obey just authority. Now I hope I didn't open a can of words for ya there....

However, I wonder why snide comments are made about KJVOs whenever a discussion of bible versions comes up as opposed to any other bible believer's version?

[jangnim]

If your asking which we think is closer to true meaning, I think the verse in context is speaking of the world and thus would be a government athority, dignitary. It's not until the nest verse that Angels are brought up. Also, we are not told to respect angelic beings, but we are to obey just authority. Now I hope I didn't open a can of words for ya there....
No problem thanks for the input.


However, I wonder why snide comments are made about KJVOs whenever a discussion of bible versions comes up as opposed to any other bible believer's version?

I think it might be because so many of them think that KJV is the divine, inspired word, but every other version is not. I don't have any issue with KJVOs but I really don't necessarily agree with them either.

[twistedsketch]

Well, there are Christians who are very passionate about certain issues and they will use the translation/interpretation issues to get the Bible to agree with them.

[JM]

and I quote: We believe that the original language Texts which have been Providentially preserved and are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Old Testament Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text that underlies the King James Bible, and the New Testament Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible (as found in The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611 as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976).

[johnnymapson]

It could be that there are just as many people with varying opinions as there are Bible translations.

[Theophorus]

I recently posted a thread to this forum regarding the word "Dignities" in the KJV in Jude verse 8.

In one version of the Bible it is translated Angels, in another Celestial Beings, in another authorities, and in another government officials.



A perfect example of one of the reasons I prefer the KJV. It is the most transparent translation, imo. Meaning, I am not locked into the translators interpretation or context with the KJV, as I am forced into with other translations.

[jangnim]

A perfect example of one of the reasons I prefer the KJV. It is the most transparent translation, imo. Meaning, I am not locked into the translators interpretation or context with the KJV, as I am forced into with other translations.My question from this would be, "Aren't you 'locked into' what the KJV translators thought?" I mean, I agree that the KJV1611 is very accrurate, but if you look at the times when they did this translation, many other translations had already come and gone. What makes KJV so much better than those that preceeded it? Simply put, I just can't understand why we think KJV is better than say, the Geneva Bible which was the version that prompted King James to decree that his version would be created. As I see it the Geneva was a threat to the monarchy, so King James had his version watered down a bit. At least this is what we were taught in my old church.

[stjeremiah]

I know this is likely to open a can of worms here. Our KJV only bretheren will likely have some things to say, yet I am looking for an answer to this.

I recently posted a thread to this forum regarding the word "Dignities" in the KJV in Jude verse 8.

In one version of the Bible it is translated Angels, in another Celestial Beings, in another authorities, and in another government officials. With this wide a range of meanings for a passage, it is little wonder there are many many "brands" of Christian.

I understand the reasoning behind the translation issue, as it is we can't know the exact meaning of a word except from its context, and where it was used elsewhere. So I guess my question is, why can't we arrive at common ground on these translation issues? These very issues have given way to all sorts of error in the church, so just looking for comments on this.

Having studied Greek....as the underlying language of the Bible, the answer is one English word does not always fit the nuances of the Greek word.

Nevertheless in like manner, these dreamers also corrupt the body, scorn and reject authority and government, and revile and libel and scoff at [heavenly] glories (the glorious ones).


Doxa

opinion, judgment, view
opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone
in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory

splendour, brightness
of the moon, sun, stars
magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace
majesty
a thing belonging to God
the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity

a thing belonging to Christ
the kingly majesty of the Messiah
the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty

of the angels
as apparent in their exterior brightness



a most glorious condition, most exalted state
of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth
the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven

KJV (168) - dignity, 2; glorious, 10; glory, 145; honour, 6; praise, 4; worship, 1;



NAS (167) - approval, 2; brightness, 1; glories, 1; glorious, 5; glory, 155; honor, 1; majesties, 2;

[Theophorus]

My question from this would be, "Aren't you 'locked into' what the KJV translators thought?" I mean, I agree that the KJV1611 is very accrurate, but if you look at the times when they did this translation, many other translations had already come and gone. What makes KJV so much better than those that preceeded it? Simply put, I just can't understand why we think KJV is better than say, the Geneva Bible which was the version that prompted King James to decree that his version would be created. As I see it the Geneva was a threat to the monarchy, so King James had his version watered down a bit. At least this is what we were taught in my old church.

If we look at the geneva as compared to the KJV, both could be said to be accurate, but also one could claim both had an agenda. For me, the KJV maintained a balnce that sometimes is lost in the Puritan geneva context. But both are preferable to modern translations.
The KJV was produced in a time before the 20,000 + denominations had proliferated, and before a bible copywrite could generate millions in sales.
The KJV was done outside of calvinism, so for that reason alone I consider it less tainted than the geneva bible, and before a lot of other denominational theological positions had become entrenched. As a matter of fact, most of these positions are based on a reading of the KJV. I believe this is why the KJV is so transparent, or imo, honest. Having not read the geneva bible but being very familiar with Tyndale's work, who was sympathetic to the puritan cause, (it is also my understanding that most of Tyndale's work comprises the geneva bible also), the only bias I can deduce in the KJV is the use of the word "church", and maybe a tendency to be less immediate in some of the verb usages in reguards to salvation.

In comparrison, most of the newer translations suffer (some in a relatively minor way) from some denominational perspective. The NIV is the worst offender, but it is apparent in other translations as well; Capitalization of the word "spirit" at the whim of the translator, substitution of different english words for the same greek word depending on the translators interpretation, subtle emphasis on a premillineal viewpoint, etc. Plus given the modern translators desires to tap new markets, we see politicaly correct absurdities as well as translations designed for certain denominational and theological outlooks.

The KJV commits some of these crimes as well, but to a lesser degree; it is unavoidable in a translation I concede. But due to the time, political and social circumstances in history surrounding the KJV, I believe it is the least biased english version. My #2 bible would be the 1901 ASV for some of the same reasons.

[jangnim]

If we look at the geneva as compared to the KJV, both could be said to be accurate, but also one could claim both had an agenda. For me, the KJV maintained a balnce that sometimes is lost in the Puritan geneva context. But both are preferable to modern translations.
Actually the KJV had a very clear agenda. That of keeping the kingship of James from threat of destruction. King James feared the dissolution of the empire of England. That sounds very much like a political agenda to me.

The KJV was produced in a time before the 20,000 + denominations had proliferated, and before a bible copywrite could generate millions in sales.
The KJV was done outside of calvinism, so for that reason alone I consider it less tainted than the geneva bible, and before a lot of other denominational theological positions had become entrenched.
By this logic we should all use the Vulgate, or better yet the Dead Sea scrolls. Of course we might have to deal with political motivations there too.
As a matter of fact, most of these positions are based on a reading of the KJV. I believe this is why the KJV is so transparent, or imo, honest.
In reality, honesty is in the eye of the beholder here. If in fact the KJV is nearly perfect, and I do not say it is not, we must also look at the motivations for the translation. Having not read the geneva bible but being very familiar with Tyndale's work, who was sympathetic to the puritan cause, (it is also my understanding that most of Tyndale's work comprises the geneva bible also), the only bias I can deduce in the KJV is the use of the word "church", and maybe a tendency to be less immediate in some of the verb usages in reguards to salvation.

I would tend to agree with this.

In comparrison, most of the newer translations suffer (some in a relatively minor way) from some denominational perspective. The NIV is the worst offender, but it is apparent in other translations as well; Capitalization of the word "spirit" at the whim of the translator, substitution of different english words for the same greek word depending on the translators interpretation, subtle emphasis on a premillineal viewpoint, etc. Plus given the modern translators desires to tap new markets, we see politicaly correct absurdities as well as translations designed for certain denominational and theological outlooks.
Admittedly, the Word of God should not be for sale. However, I would have to take exception to some of your other points,especially in this section. Have you ever looked at a facsimile of a really Greek text? Not a printed testament but an original bit of the work? Capitalization is absent. Sentence structure is often absent. A word for word translation is impossible, because of the difficulties in word meaning. A word in Greek or Hebrew has a subtle meaning that is implied by particles that surround it, English makes absolutely NO such claims. That being said I can't say the King James' translators could do a better job than others today. Regarding the need to support denominational views, I would agree. But now we need to ask who is really right? The centuries have robbed us of any verifiable proof, so it all goes back to faith. The political environment of which you speak is really a big issue with me. I wonder if we all operated in LOVE if such absurdities would even need to be present. We can love the sinner without embracing the sin, if we Christians could understand that simple fact, we could change the world, with or without a Bible.


The KJV commits some of these crimes as well, but to a lesser degree; it is unavoidable in a translation I concede. But due to the time, political and social circumstances in history surrounding the KJV, I believe it is the least biased english version. My #2 bible would be the 1901 ASV for some of the same reasons.

I guess my original post has taught me something of what you are also saying. A word bias is very often present in versions of scripture. But unlike you, I think every translation, either modern or ancient, has a built in bias. Truly, the only way to know the truth is faith in the God who reveals Himself in the pages of these books.

Friend, your opinions count. I see many of your points. But really, if we are honest, there is much to be discerned in the Word with or without a modern translation, and none of us can live up to its standard. Grace and Peace to you.

[Theophorus]

Actually the KJV had a very clear agenda. That of keeping the kingship of James from threat of destruction. King James feared the dissolution of the empire of England. That sounds very much like a political agenda to me.

Yes, though how much fear he placed with the Scottish puritans could be debated. From what I have read, it seems as though he was acting in the same manner a newly elected official might to honor a campaign promise, he being the former king of Scotland, some had high expectations in the area of church reform. His actions here seem more of a type of appeasement than fear.

That being said, the reason for the KJV was political rather than theological. One could then state that the translators were less bound than if the king had a definite theological agenda. A was mentioned earlier, his protectionary measures mainly consisted of using the word "church", and having no commentary.


By this logic we should all use the Vulgate, or better yet the Dead Sea scrolls. Of course we might have to deal with political motivations there too.

Thou hast said it. :D . I would say the old vulgate, or the byzantine texts, and the septuagint, but they are not in english. I do use Brenton's translation of the LXX quite a bit.



Admittedly, the Word of God should not be for sale. However, I would have to take exception to some of your other points,especially in this section. Have you ever looked at a facsimile of a really Greek text? Not a printed testament but an original bit of the work? Capitalization is absent. Sentence structure is often absent. A word for word translation is impossible, because of the difficulties in word meaning. A word in Greek or Hebrew has a subtle meaning that is implied by particles that surround it, English makes absolutely NO such claims.

Yes I agree also, I know what you are speaking of. However, it seems to me that in many modern versions, the translators have attempted to pick up this nuance to the extreme, which necessitates an unnecessary reliance on context as percieved by the translator. The word "perfect" in the KJV comes to mind. Others insert there own context, changing the word from passage to passage, destroying the context that was already there in the original language, determined by the scriptures themselves. Consistency does have a place in determining context.


Peace to you