# Nigel's attempt to translate the TR into U.S. English



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2008)

Interesting...

Nigel has been working on a U.S. English version of the Bible based on the same texts as the KJV. If you're interested in helping him then there's a draft of the text posted.

He used to post here but sent this via the Contact Form:


> I would like to thank you for all your input into the early stages of the first draft of the Trinity Bible.
> 
> The draft is now available to view online or download without charge at -
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 22, 2008)

So somebody explain this, then: if "Readability is so important that "sin" needs to be replaced by "missing the mark," then how do "violation" "reckoned" "verdict" and "acquittal" all get to be used? My guess is that none of my boys (11, 10 and 7) would know those words, although they could be explained. But then again, so can "sin."

From just a quick read of Romans 5:12-21 (a key translated text), I find this wanting and wonder why we need this.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

Something that is interesting is that Romans 3:23 says that all have missed the mark, but 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. I wonder why the inconsistency of translation?


----------



## CDM (Nov 22, 2008)

Romans 14:23 has "missing the mark" too.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 22, 2008)

Who is Nigel and what are his qualifications? 

Is he translating the Scripture privitely or is he using a committee?

Is he commissioned by a church or denomination to do this translation?

Will he get a cut of the payments or is this a free service


Will the translation be checked by a Bible Society or another group?

Who will publish it?



Why is the TR and the Masoretic the "Reformation Text"?


----------



## KMK (Nov 22, 2008)

I thought the Reina-Valera was a TR translation...


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 22, 2008)

KMK said:


> I thought the Reina-Valera was a TR translation...



Partly.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Why is the TR and the Masoretic the "Reformation Text"?



Because they were the texts used in the Reformation Era Bibles like the KJV, Geneva and their predecessors.


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 22, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> So somebody explain this, then: if "Readability is so important that "sin" needs to be replaced by "missing the mark," then how do "violation" "reckoned" "verdict" and "acquittal" all get to be used? My guess is that none of my boys (11, 10 and 7) would know those words, although they could be explained. But then again, so can "sin."
> 
> From just a quick read of Romans 5:12-21 (a key translated text), I find this wanting and wonder why we need this.



Is he going to make his sons school text book more readable for his kids as well. For example, is he going to replace words like photosynthesis (biology), quadratic equation (math), predicate/conjunction (english), etc., as well? 

I wish I had that excused when I was in school, but of course teachers don't buy that nonsense, then and now.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 22, 2008)

OK, and I just looked at my text for tomorrow (2 Kings 3), and that is annoying too. I guess "gusher" is somehow easier to understand than "prophet."


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 22, 2008)

At first I was excited about a modern translation based on the same texts as the KJV... but this was uhh...lame


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Who is Nigel and what are his qualifications?


Nigel is a member here. I don't know what his qualifications are.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

It is an interesting goal and a valiant effort. I would love to hear from Nigel to hear his goals, qualifications, his teammates, methods and plan for this translation.


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 23, 2008)

> This is an attempt to translate the Reformation Text (Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text) word-for-word, literally, into current US spoken English.



This is a linguistic impossibility. You cannot have a literal word for word translation of any language into the vernacular of another. I wish Christians would learn this. Especially those who should know better.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 23, 2008)

Nigel,

I posted this to you in March 08, when you translated baptizo as "immerse":

--------

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.)​
--------

But now you have translated that passage (1:25), "why are you plunging"; and in John 1:33, you have John saying of Christ, he is "the one who plunges with the Holy Spirit".

I repeat what I said to you earlier, if you want to make this the "Baptist revision" continue on; but if you want paedos to even consider it, *don't interpret*, simply transliterate: baptizo. And let us fight it out.

I do commend you for your labors.

Steve


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2008)

Isn't baptizo a greek word? If this is a translation into English shouldn't some english word be used?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 23, 2008)




----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 23, 2008)

Perg,

_Baptize_ is now an English word, having made its way into the language through its being transliterated into that form from the Greek. I believe it was transliterated as that to leave the various nuances of meaning intact, while translating _one_ meaning to the exclusion of others would have resulted in inaccuracy.

Some words are carried intact over from the source language to preserve their richness, which translation would spoil. Baptize is now a recognized English word, though its meaning in specific passages is understood differently in the paedo and credo camps.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 23, 2008)

Yes, Steve. Much like _Presbyter_ is now an English word, or even _Christ_ is an English word. We do this intentionally when precise (corollary) meaning cannot be obtained.


----------

