|
Post by Gary on Jun 10, 2019 10:45:18 GMT -6
I may have mentioned this a few months ago, but I've been working on a new Bible translation (with help) for well over a year now. There were many months of planning and the actual work began late summer last year. Hours a day and many late nights... and now it's to the point that I have faith this is really going to come to fruition. Anyway, if anyone has wondered why the sudden drop-off in frequency of Unsealed articles beginning early last year—this is it. It's looking like publication of the first edition will be late this summer. I'm in the final proofing stages now. Any and all prayers for discernment and motivation as I near the finish line are well appreciated! www.lsvbible.com
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 10, 2019 11:47:49 GMT -6
thats awesome Gary! I like to review the YLT from time to time while on-line. I will likely add this to my repertoire, however I do hope that it need not be published and the living Word will appear to us before that
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Jun 10, 2019 12:18:40 GMT -6
I would be very happy if we get taken before I finish this (: Either way, pressing on toward the goal.
The LSV is actually derived from the YLT.
Actually most translations are derived from older translations and then cross-referenced/compared with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in addition to recent manuscript research. The ESV, for instance, is derived from the Revised Standard Version, which in turn was derived from the American Standard Version, which was the product of a 19th century effort to update the King James.
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jun 29, 2019 23:00:58 GMT -6
Hey Gary, why do we need another version of the bible? Don't you think that the 1611 KJV is perfect? And if not, do we have any perfect versions? And if not, you are saying that we don't have the perfect WORD of God anymore? Be careful...
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Jun 30, 2019 13:07:47 GMT -6
Bob, I can assure you that The Word of God has been perfectly preserved until this very day, and it will remain so for all eternity. However, there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation of the bible and the 1611 KJV is no exception.
Are you saying the KJV 1611, is "inspired". Are you saying the KJV translators were inspired...as in the way the original autographs were inspired? I certainly hope not!
Were you aware that the preface to the KJV (included in the earlier printings but no longer included) was written by the translators and definitively states that even the worst of translations are still the word of God? In other words, the KJV translators themselves said we should not consider any translation of the bible to be greater than another.
Now, we all have our preferences. I certainly do believe some translations are better than others, but I stop well short of saying that a particular translation is the "only true word of God".
I know some folks that have elevated the KJV to idol status.
Indeed, be careful.
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jun 30, 2019 14:12:22 GMT -6
Yes, without a doubt I am saying that we believe that the KJV was inspired and is perfect. If you say that we do not have the PERFECT WORD of God today then you must disagree with this scripture. Psalm 12 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.If this is not true than that makes God a liar.
Is verse 7 true or not true? I have a perfect WORD of God. Do you? Have you ever looked at Luke 10:1 and compared the versions? WOW talk about scholarship!
And I find it incredible arrogant that anyone would even consider translated a new version of God's WORD. Along with all of the cults that started in the mid 1800's, Jehovah Witnesses, The Mormons, the Church of Christ, the Bahai, Seventh Day Adventist, Pauline Dispensationalist, and some others, came the Criticize the KJV movement. Don't you think that the Devil is going to do his best to get you to poo poo the authorized 1611 KJV?
OH and where is this perfect translation of the bible that you say is preserved somewhere? Where is it? And where dd you get this little morsel of info, " Were you aware that the preface to the KJV (included in the earlier printings but no longer included) was written by the translators and definitively states that even the worst of translations are still the word of God? In other words, the KJV translators themselves said we should not consider any translation of the bible to be greater than another. It's really like the Dreams and visions arguments. If you went to a dreams and visions encouraging church than you believe in dreams and visions. And you don't follow the bible "religiously. Pretty much anything goes in these churches. But, if you went to a Bible believing church than you put very little emphasis on anything other than the bible. Then the bible is your GOD. "Psalm 138:2 for you have exalted your Word above all your name." Don't ever ridicule the Bible by saying "some people have made the bible their idol." You should be ashamed of yourself and repent.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jun 30, 2019 15:15:57 GMT -6
What about Chinese, Spanish, Swahili, etc translations? Aren't they needed? What about people who have no translation yet? Shall we just make them learn Old English and read the KJV? Because that's how you are coming across.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jun 30, 2019 15:53:24 GMT -6
Here are some quotes from the introduction of the 1611 -- They set about to make a good translation from a variety of good translations... "But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke." The Hebrew and Greek texts are the ones that we say are perfect and perfectly inspired by God... "If you aske what they [the translators before those of the 1611] had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Jerome, fountaines. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles. " Multiple translations are beneficial in the study of Scripture... "Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded." From the good chunk of what I read, the translators never claimed to be inspired, never claimed the KJV was inspired or perfect. They set out to make a good translation that people could understand... "But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar." I can't find the quote fitz was speaking of, but the introduction is long, and I am out of practice with that type of language used. From what I can tell, they seem like very humble men seeking to set forth a translation that brought all the good from previous translations so that people can study the scripture themselves and to honor God with it. See full intro here: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jun 30, 2019 16:10:18 GMT -6
Found it! "Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it."
Just as what a king says is still his words when it gets translated into another language. They go on to say that translations may have "blemishes" like freckles or scars on a man's face. And this introduction seems to say that the KJV itself will have imperfections that may in the future need to be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jun 30, 2019 16:20:42 GMT -6
bobthewebguy , I do appreciate you standing for what you believe is right. However, you are speaking with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. It is hard to distinguish tone sometimes in this written format, but please consider how you are speaking to other members. KJV translators did not consider it arrogant to create other translations. If you read through their introduction, they thought creating translations was a worthy thing. As I have also shown, they found it beneficial to study other translations. They also did not consider their translation to be perfect.
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jun 30, 2019 18:27:01 GMT -6
I'm sorry, I apologize. I start percolating when I hear the WORD of God not taken seriously. All one needs to know when it comes to the debate about translations is who is Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort? They are responsible for about 85 to 90% of the so called other translations. These are the folks who started higher criticism. These are the folks who translated most of the bibles that we carry with us. (except IPADS) These two men were devout Catholics who did not believe in any of the major doctrines of our bible. None.. and yet we read their translations. WHY? Again...we are deceived....
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Jun 30, 2019 19:06:59 GMT -6
I'm sorry, I apologize. I start percolating when I hear the WORD of God not taken seriously. All one needs to know when it comes to the debate about translations is who is Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort? They are responsible for about 85 to 90% of the so called other translations. These are the folks who started higher criticism. These are the folks who translated most of the bibles that we carry with us. (except IPADS) These two men were devout Catholics who did not believe in any of the major doctrines of our bible. None.. and yet we read their translations. WHY? Again...we are deceived....Who said anything about not taking the word of God seriously? I understand where you are coming from, Bob. My own dad is an IFB guy. He is the man who taught me all about Jesus before I was 7 years old. Unfortunately, he and I don't agree on some things. Like you, he too holds to the IFB line that the KJV was inspired. Well, I think that's heresy, and I've told him as much. However, we do agree on what is most important, that is the gospel of grace. I hope you and I can agree on this too. The first bible I owned was a KJV given to me as a child in Sunday school in the baptist church my parents attended. I still have it. When I study the bible, I use several versions to gain a broad perspective, and the KJV is always one of them. And of course, I use Strongs to get the real word meanings from the Hebrew and Greek. Most importantly, I do not rely on ANY translation or any man (translator) for my interpretation or understanding of scripture. Only the Holy Spirit can lead us into truth. The "word of God" is more than just words on a page. Jesus himself embodies 100% of God's message to man and His words will never pass away. I can read the worst of all translations ever written and the Holy Spirit can still lead me to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Jun 30, 2019 20:55:02 GMT -6
bobthewebguy , Since you asked direct questions, I’ll give direct answers (as best I can). To be clear, I’m not interested in quarrel, but am answering succinctly for clarity. Here’s my thinking: with the possible exception of Green’s Literal Translation, otherwise known as the LITV, there are no strictly word-for-word translations of the Bible into modern English. That means that virtually all English Bible readers are limited to highly interpretive translations. All translations fall somewhere on the formal equivalence to dynamic equivalence spectrum—usually toward the middle or end (dynamic equivalence). Personally, I find that to be a travesty. And I’ve had a burning conviction about this for a long time. No, definitely not. The KJV is a good translation, yes, but not perfect. It has its flaws. Even the KJV’s translators themselves would disagree with KJV-onlyism. We don’t have any perfect version for two reasons: first, because the inerrant, little ‘w’ word of God took the form of original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek autographs that are lost to us. Second, because by very definition, no translation can be “perfect” because no two languages are the same. There are idioms in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that have no English counterpart. Likewise, there are biblical words whose original meanings have no perfect English substitute. Furthermore, there are some biblical words whose meanings are completely lost to history. But the big ‘W’ Word of God is with us always and forever. Yes, that’s correct, if by “WORD” you’re referring to written Scripture on earth, right now. We do have the perfect Logos (“Word”) with us still to this day, and I also have little doubt that God is perfectly preserving a record of Scripture in Heaven that is perfect and complete. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if during the Millennial Kingdom a more perfect translation of the Bible is written, especially if Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are still around. Blessings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 3:49:38 GMT -6
Because bobthewebguy mentioned Westcott and Hort, here some additional information on these guys for the interested reader:
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jul 1, 2019 7:04:08 GMT -6
Looks like they are not responsible for most of the translations we have today.
|
|