The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Modern Bibles

This is a link to the Trinitarian Bible Society for the benefit others.


*WARNING*- If you subscribe to modern version only-ism/anti-King James. Don't clicky on the thingy.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/



.

One doesn't have to subscribe to some form of "modern version only-ism/anti-King James" to find fault with the TBS arguments and their King James onlyism rhetoric. I personally use the KJV for most everything but serious study. Yet hardly would I ever insist that it is "inspired of God", which is basically what the TBS is trying to convince people of. The KJV is not faithful to the Textus Receptus either. As I read through my Greek Text (both TR and UBS Kurt Arland) the KJV wrongly translates words no less than other versions; some blatantly so, e.g., substituting "sons" for "children" which is inexcusable for the Greek word for son is uios and for children it is tekna. Hardly could one not see the difference, but the KJV translators chose to ignore the Greek word tekna in many places and replace it with son and in doing so changes the meaning of the passages where the substitution appears.

So, have YOU personally embraced and thus are now promoting KJV-onlyism?

In His grace,

NO

Dont worry I will include only one quote and the response..

I brought up the use of the word 'steel' in the KJV in this post;


The response is interesting:

Emphasis in original.

Thanks John, it just goes to show you that it is good to check things out from a few sources.

Tom

My understanding was that the New KJV was (substantially) translated from the same texts as the old KJV and that was the ground of its claim to be a "New" KJV.

As other correspondents have pointed out most of the other modern versions are done (substantially) from a different family of texts.

However this is not exclusively so. Translation committees consult all of the texts available in the process of translation - as well as other textual sources such as writings of ancient church leaders and so on.

In actual fact the differences between the families are slight and the study of textual criticism shows where the differences emerged in a convincing way.

I have, on occasion, ended up in discussions on the net with people criticising modern translations and holding up the KJV as the ideal. While I greatly respect the KJV, in every case I have debated the modern translations were actually a far more literal translation than the KJV - especially the NIV and the New American Standard. What I would do is go back to the KJV and use my Youngs concordance (based on the KJV). Young gives a literal translation of the Greek or Hebrew word as well as the way it is translated in the KJV. Often words are translated several different ways in the KJV, most of them not the actual literal translation. As I say, in every case I have debated the modern translations were far more literal than the KJV.

One cannot hold up as an ideal something that is not an accurate translation in itself.


John B

John said:
Are you sure you meant to include the NIV as being more literal than the KJV? How can a dynamic equivalent Bible be more literal than a formal equivalent Bible?

Tom

Hi Tom,
I was just going from the literal word definitions as given by Youngs. In every case that the NIV was questioned by the particular writer the literal meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words was better reflected, actually usually exactly literally used, in the NIV. In the KJV often an secondary meaning of a word was used. Actually the NIV tended to use the literal meaning most of the time (As does NASB). In most cases I have found this to be true: The Newer translations are more literal to the actual meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words.

As for dynamic equivalence: this does not necessarily mean that the translation is non literal, rather that the idea in Greek or Hebrew is brought into the English translation as an idea, not as a word for word translation necessarily but as idea for idea. It is just a fact of life that it is impossible to translate from any one language to another word for word. Sentence structures differ from one language to another and words have differing meanings from language to language. There may not be a word in English that has the specific meaning of a particular Greek or Hebrew word, or vice versa. It follows from this that all translation is, to some degree, dynamic equivalent, including the KJV.

Actually the translation of the Bible to English is particularly difficult for the following reason:
Hebrew is what is known as a picture language. A word does not have a single meaning, rather a word is meant to call up a picture, a set of ideas.
English is a linear language: A word has a meaning, sometimes a few meanings, but never really a picture as Hebrew does.
It is simply impossible to translate the OT into English bringing out the set of ideas every time. The Amplified Bible tries but even it falls short. If the translators did give us the full set of ideas every time the Bible would be a set of books filling a shelf and not a single volume. So the translators, KJV translators included, select from the range of possible meanings what they think is the most suitable meaning in the context.

The Problem is that different sets of translators, governed by their own theological bias, may decide differently.

When we get to the NT the problem is just as complex. What we have is so called Koine Greek or common Greek, the Greek of the first century. This is not classical Greek - the difference is quite marked. But to this is added the fact that the writers, except Luke, are all Jews and so are Jewish thinkers writing in Greek, thus they are using Greek as a picture language, as they would Hebrew. This makes the NT quite unique in the world as to its use of the Greek language.

Thus it cannot be formally translated either as such. Words conjure up pictures and the translators have to choose which aspect of the picture is the right one for any given context. Again it is a value judgement based on the translators own theological biases. The KJV is not exempt from this. It is just a fact of life in translating the Bible.

My point is this: There really is no such thing as a formal equivalent Bible. The translators are all doing dynamic equivalence to one degree or another. The nature of Hebrew demands it if we are going to translate it into English. judgement decisions are being made by any group of translators as to the right shade of meaning of any word for any context. They may be right, they may be wrong. But each group of translators will have a good justification for choosing the exact rendering they have chosen. It doesn't pay to criticise them until you have found out the reason why they have given a particular rendering.

And it doesn't pay to make too much of a song and dance about which version is best because they may all be right in their variations, the variations simply showing us different shades of meaning in the original Greek or Hebrew words.
John B

John,

I have to confess that I am really perplexed by what you wrote, e.g.,

Why am I perplexed? Because when I read my Greek text (either TR or WH) and compare it to the NIV I see myriad deviations, omissions, additions, and even outright misinterpretations of the text. In short, it is antithetical to what you say you see.

It cannot be denied that translating any language into that of another is a daunting task. And it is also true that there are times when the target language has no equivalent word that is found in the source language. This is a particularly difficult situation. However, it is wrong to diminish the vast difference between the Dynamic Equivalence method vs the Formal Equivalence method by using such illustrations as you have. The underlying philosophy of the Dynamic Equivalence method is simply but I think accurately summarized by, "the meaning of the text is far more important than the individual words themselves". Whereas, in the Formal Equivalence method, its philosophy would be likewise summarized by, "the individual words are far more important than the translator's attempt to grasp the meaning of them since it is the individual words that give the meaning."

Let me throw out a few tidbits which I think are relevant to this discussion.

1. Proposal: "To the degree one embraces Dynamic Equivalence, to the same and proportional degree one denies verbal plenary inspiration."

2. The translator's task is to be faithful in preserving the original words as it is translated in another language and not to interpret the text itself. It is the responsibility of the Church to teach its members the meaning of the text and apply it through the ministration of the Holy Spirit Who is the actual Author of it.

In His grace,

Hi,
I concede your points. I do not want to get into a deep debate on it - I am not really qualified to do so anyway. However I am not convinced the differences are as great as the opponents of modern translations make out.
Blessings on you.
John B.