# Trinity Bible project



## Nigel (Mar 27, 2008)

Hi Friends, 

I am very sorry for a misunderstanding that I caused a couple of months back, when something I wrote was taken by someone to impy that the Trinitarian Bible Society is supporting a translation project. I have never asked the Trinitarian Bible Society to back a translation project, and I have never claimed to be working on their behalf. I regret using the word 'mentoring' to describe the assistance and encouragement given occasionally and informally to this project in a purely private capacity by one of the Trinitarian Bible Society's editors. I continue to respect the fine work that the Trinitarian Bible Society does, and I have no wish to offend anyone.

Many thanks for your encouragement. The goal of this project is to render a word-for-word translation of the Received Text into 21st century US spoken English that our seven year old son can read out to our five year old son, and have our seven year old son understand with the occasional word that stretches his vocabulary.

We have accumulated a small team of people working on an ad-hoc basis.

Please feel free to look at the drafts which are available as pdf files, and make suggestions. Here is the link -

Trinity Bible - work in progress - Windows Live SkyDrive 

There is a folder called Trinity Bible- translation suggestions. If you download the word doc inside, you can use that as a template to respond with suggestions to -

[email protected]

So far, a preface has been written with a glossary of all words changed from the King James version, and the following books have been translated in draft -
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel up to chapter 19

All the Old Testament books are grouped into one pdf file called 'Trinity Bible'

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians

In Christ Jesus,

Nigel


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 27, 2008)

Nigel said:


> Hi Friends,
> 
> I am very sorry for a misunderstanding that I caused a couple of months back, when something I wrote was taken by someone to impy that the Trinitarian Bible Society is supporting a translation project. I have never asked the Trinitarian Bible Society to back a translation project, and I have never claimed to be working on their behalf. I regret using the word 'mentoring' to describe the assistance and encouragement given occasionally and informally to this project in a purely private capacity by one of the Trinitarian Bible Society's editors. I continue to respect the fine work that the Trinitarian Bible Society does, and I have no wish to offend anyone.
> 
> ...



Is this actually a real translation, or is it simply a re-wording of the King James? (which seems to be implied by your list of "replacements" above)


----------



## Nigel (Mar 27, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Nigel said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Friends,
> ...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 27, 2008)

Thank you Nigel for the update.



Nigel said:


> Trinity Bible - work in progress - Windows Live SkyDrive



Why are the pages inverted in the PDF file?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 27, 2008)

> 3.13 Then Ya-shua 1 came from Galilee 2 to
> Jordan 3 to John 4 to be *immersed *by him, 3.14 but John totally prohibited him,
> saying, “I need to be *immersed *by you* - and you* are coming to me?”,
> 3.15 and Ya-shua answered him, “Now permit it, because it is necessary to fulfill
> ...





> 3.1 In those days *John 13 the Immerser* came proclaiming in the Judaea 9
> Wilderness 3.2 and he said, “Turn and change your heart and thinking, because
> the Kingdom of Heaven is so close you can touch it”,



Interesting...


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> > 3.13 Then Ya-shua 1 came from Galilee 2 to
> > Jordan 3 to John 4 to be *immersed *by him, 3.14 but John totally prohibited him,
> > saying, “I need to be *immersed *by you* - and you* are coming to me?”,
> > 3.15 and Ya-shua answered him, “Now permit it, because it is necessary to fulfill
> ...



I'll say. Even this thread is going to degenerate into a paedo/credo debate! 

Nigel, surely you can't expect paedobaptists or anyone else with a modicum of knowledge to participate in this if you are going to leave these passages the way they are above. No doubt this is the result of someone imbibing the old Baptist line that the KJV translators refused to translate _baptizo_ because it would demonstrate that the Church of England's practice was unbiblical. However, the KJV translators (or was it Tyndale originally?) rightly transliterated _baptizo_. I refer you to Jay E. Adams _Meaning and Mode of Baptism_, Rowland Ward's _Baptism in Scripture and History_, Chaney's _William the Baptist_ etc. on the meaning of this Greek term.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2008)

In a recent issue of the Quarterly Record, the writer wrote that although the TBS receives many requests to work on an updated version of the AV in their opinion no update is necessary.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 27, 2008)

Nigel said:


> This project is not an update of the King James Bible, and it does not seek to obtain authority by coming under its mantle. However, the King James Bible is worthy of honor as a word-for-word translation of the Received Text into 17th century English.



So let me get the method correct. Are you going back from scratch from the Received Text in the Hebrew and Greek, and constructing a new translation? Or, are you taking the King James translation and exchanging words and wording for updated 21st century English? Which is it?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 27, 2008)

Nigel,

It would be a shame for the Project to run aground by _interpreting_ rather than merely transliterating baptizo! Paedos and Credos both could rally around the latter method. They could argue the merits of their cases. But you short-circuit the debate with an unequal balance, and lose half the church.

*John 1.25* and they asked him, “Then why do you* immerse if you* are not Anointed, or Elijah, or that prophet?”​
One of the things that made the NIV notorious was its _interpretation_ resulting in "the sinful nature" rather than "the flesh".

Why omit the definite article before "Anointed"? Tyndale omitted it, but when he translated "Christ" it made sense. (And Tyndale did transliterate baptizo.)

Steve


----------

