What is more important, The manuscript sources, or the translation philosophy?
- Thread starter Dachaser
- Start date
- Status
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
David, in my opinion, the far more important question is the translation philosophy and concomitant possible biases of the translators. Far more harm can come from that than from even the widest differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. All you have to do is look at how a translation translates Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 7:14, and Romans 9:5 to see if there is a liberal bias.
U
Username3000
Guest
That makes sense to my unlearned mind.
If I may ask a follow up question, why is there such disagreement among Christians about the best translation philosophy? Is it simply because we have different value assigned to literalness and readability?
I have been surprised at how some, not here on the PB but on other boards, treat with contempt any modern translation, and yet would agree with you that far more important is not if they used the Critical, Majority, or TR, but on how they translated their version off which ever text.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, and there are also different awareness levels concerning the tradeoffs of the two. Most people recognize that there has to be a certain amount of give and take with translation, and that it is not an exact science. One word in the source language does not always equal one word in the target language. Communication, after all, comes from people, and people are complicated.
Also, there are differences in status among Christians that exhibit quite a lot of factors. Some people may value clarity more, others may value transparency to the original more. Pastors may value something differently than the parishioners.
A lot has to do with what we expect the Bible to be, and how we expect that Bible to communicate to us.
There is also the issue of which sources to be used themselves, as some would see God only giving to us to use one specific Greek text to be used for translation, while others like me would see that really good translations can be made from any of the main primary Greek texts.
And do think that sometimes also we can get literalness confused with accuracy, as even the Nas and KJV, both formal and literal versions, can and do take the more dynamic renderings in some passages.
U
Username3000
Guest
Back to Eph 1:9; in your opinion is "purpose" a legitimate translation of the word, or should there be mention of kindness or goodness as well?
I'm still searching for my preferred translation. I like parts of both the NASB77 and the ESV, but can't decide.
Both would be considered as formal translations, but the Nas would be more literal as to trying to get as much word for word equivalence as was possible.
U
Username3000
Guest
I understand that, but where I am having difficulty is deciding where to land. Hence wanting to mix the two together to have my favourite aspects of each. But that's not going to happen.
U
Username3000
Guest
I got my threads mixed up. This isn't the Eph 1:9 thread.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
As one who has read mainly ASV early and ESV in years past, I have found the KJV suits me better now a days. I have found many times when I do not understand proper English, as used in the KJV, I refer to the NIV or ESV now a days to clear things up. What tipped me over the edge to use the KJV was the belief that God preserved His word, and any changes offered by the CT in my opinion changes intent, because of a critical (small c) attitude toward God not preserving The Word.
Those likemyself who favor the Critical text would see God indeed had preserved His word to us in all of the manuscripts and documents, its just that need to make sure to attempt to reconstruct the originals as close as possible by deciding on which were the most likely renderings in the original books of the Bible.
Last edited:
My opinion would be that the 2 English versions closest to what was actually originally penned down to us would be the Nas and the NKJV..
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Oddly, Fee recommended:
Fee, Gordon D.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions
The NRSV is perhaps the most reliable of the formal equivalent versions and is well respected among biblical scholars. The NASB, NASU is the most consistently literal and so provides the most direct access to the form and structure of the Hebrew and Greek. The ESV is an improvement over the RSV, especially in light of its greater use of gender accurate language.
Fee, Gordon D.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions
U
Username3000
Guest
Interesting.
Patrick, when are you going to start your own custom Bible publisher so that I can make requests?
The Nsrv would also be guilty of going into Inclusive language renderings big time, in the same way that the 2011 Niv did.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is actually a tricky question and the answer is "it depends".
How one approaches the subject of textual criticism from the standpoint of one's epistemological and teleological considerations, has some rather dramatic ramifications down the road, regardless of the actual final product that is produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament).
The very same concerns come into play in regards to how one handles the approach to translation..though the product produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament) IS immediately relevant to the new reader.
Therefore, from a practical standpoint, I'd say for the beginning Bible reader, the approach to translation is far more important than the textual issue.
However, the textual issue IS going to eventually bite the one who continues to study the Bible. It is simply inevitable these days.
Personally, when giving a new believer or a searcher a Bible, I ask them how much they read. If they are a reader, I gift them a KJV (TBS Westminster with archaic words defined in the margins, or a Reformation Heritage KJV study bible...I'm more and more preferring the later). If they are not a reader, I gift them a NKJV (Nelson's new Deluxe Readers Bible).
How one approaches the subject of textual criticism from the standpoint of one's epistemological and teleological considerations, has some rather dramatic ramifications down the road, regardless of the actual final product that is produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament).
The very same concerns come into play in regards to how one handles the approach to translation..though the product produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament) IS immediately relevant to the new reader.
Therefore, from a practical standpoint, I'd say for the beginning Bible reader, the approach to translation is far more important than the textual issue.
However, the textual issue IS going to eventually bite the one who continues to study the Bible. It is simply inevitable these days.
Personally, when giving a new believer or a searcher a Bible, I ask them how much they read. If they are a reader, I gift them a KJV (TBS Westminster with archaic words defined in the margins, or a Reformation Heritage KJV study bible...I'm more and more preferring the later). If they are not a reader, I gift them a NKJV (Nelson's new Deluxe Readers Bible).
U
Username3000
Guest
Care to expand upon the bolded statement, please?
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
On another note...a few corrections need to be made to this thread...
The KJV is in Early Modern English, not Old English. The proper term for a modern Bible is not "modern English" but "contemporary English".
Next, the assertion that the Bible was originally given in the contemporary language of the time of its writing and therefore we should always strive to promote versions in contemporary English is an overstatement.
I am very thankful that the Greek speaking church did not do that with the Greek New Testament. As Greek evolved into Medieval Greek, they maintained the use of the original Koine Greek in the Scriptures and in the language of the court.
Likewise we could speak of the Jews. For long after they spoke Aramaic as their common language, they maintained the Hebrew in their sacred text.
Had the Greeks and the Hebrews not maintained the original text in their usage but made it ever contemporary, we would have lost the infallible oracles of God.
This was done not through keeping the people locked away from the Scriptures by ignorance, but they taught the use of the language of the Scriptures to the people.
All this to say, the vast majority of Greek and Hebrew believers did not read the Bible in, what was for them, contemporary Greek or Hebrew. Those languages changed over time as do all languages, but they maintained the originals.
This is the great problem I see today. In the attempt to be ever more contemporary we are pandering to ignorance. Knowledge of the deep things of God does not come through reading even the most contemporary of translations, but from life long, spirit lead study while also sitting under a responsible, expository pulpit.
Today, our translators and publishers would be our ministers.
The KJV is in Early Modern English, not Old English. The proper term for a modern Bible is not "modern English" but "contemporary English".
Next, the assertion that the Bible was originally given in the contemporary language of the time of its writing and therefore we should always strive to promote versions in contemporary English is an overstatement.
I am very thankful that the Greek speaking church did not do that with the Greek New Testament. As Greek evolved into Medieval Greek, they maintained the use of the original Koine Greek in the Scriptures and in the language of the court.
Likewise we could speak of the Jews. For long after they spoke Aramaic as their common language, they maintained the Hebrew in their sacred text.
Had the Greeks and the Hebrews not maintained the original text in their usage but made it ever contemporary, we would have lost the infallible oracles of God.
This was done not through keeping the people locked away from the Scriptures by ignorance, but they taught the use of the language of the Scriptures to the people.
All this to say, the vast majority of Greek and Hebrew believers did not read the Bible in, what was for them, contemporary Greek or Hebrew. Those languages changed over time as do all languages, but they maintained the originals.
This is the great problem I see today. In the attempt to be ever more contemporary we are pandering to ignorance. Knowledge of the deep things of God does not come through reading even the most contemporary of translations, but from life long, spirit lead study while also sitting under a responsible, expository pulpit.
Today, our translators and publishers would be our ministers.
I think the clearest example of which is the dominant factor is that both the Nas and the Niv used the same source texts, but is there really any doubt that the Nas as the formal translation did a better job in getting the accurate translation for us into the English?
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
I mean the new reader will read any Bible oblivious to the issue of textual criticism but in the course of their study will have to address it.
Those who carefully think through the implications will realize the subject is a corollary to the veracity of the doctrines of inspiration and preservation...especially if they are engaged in the subject by their unbelieving college professors.
Personally, I find contemporary textual criticism to be an infinite regress, ever searching, but never quite finding the original readings. I don't see anything like this in the Bible's own self-witness.
For various reasons, I advocate the TR and find the sort of advocacy I promote is a strong defense against the polemics of unbelieving critics as well as reflects a Biblical paradigm on the subject and nature of the text of Scripture. Therefore I encourage translations of it.
Finally, and sadly, most people when addressing this subject today, are strongly biased towards accepting the position behind whatever translation they are already using. I wish that were not so, but alas it is. Therefore, I wish to nudge their bias in the direction of the correct text.
Some seem to feel that we need to have a perfect English translation though in order to have the real word of God to us, but only the Originals were complete without any errors or mistakes in them.
They would fall back into the TR being the perfect Greek text, and thus the perfect English version from it, as they see the Critical Greek text as never being in a completed/finished state, and thus no word of God to us.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
U
Username3000
Guest
Understood, thanks. We will agree to disagree.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Anyone who is interested in this topic would do well to check out D.A. Carson's 'The Inclusive Language Debate' , particularly chapter 3, ' Translation and Treason: An Inevitable and Impossible Task.' Used copies are cheap, and the read is well worth it. Personally I read multiple English translations, from the AV to the Net Bible. Checking one against the other.
Solid advise, as I use the Nlt to do the first time reading, and then go into using either the Esv/Nas for more serious studying of the scriptures.
What translation do you prefer to use?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
