Bible Translation Suggestions

[Ozz]

Originally posted by obiwan18 BC, and ozz.
Why don't you try to help the man with an honest question?

Follow my method and all versions agree.

People just use the rest of the bible for justifying excuses for breaking one of the 10.

Okay, Okay, I recommend the Classic Comix version.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lincoln:

*ahem*

http://www.starwire.com/CC/article/0,,PTID43667%7CCHID149582%7CCIID448584,00.html

Just some of the problems with Riplinger.

The KJV is not a bad translation if you can stand the old language. However, the NIV has the advantage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, unavailable to the KJV.

ozz:
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
The KJV is not a bad translation if you can stand the old language. However, the NIV has the advantage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, unavailable to the KJV.

Highly unlikely, considering that this article of critique on the NIV version I have was written in 1989.

While I have no idea when the NIV was done, it has to be some time before 1989. AFAIK, none of the two main translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls was available - they came much later.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.csbr.net/dss.html

"The scrolls are also important because they have enabled scholars to gather an immense amount of information about how the Bible was written and how it was transmitted from generation to generation. In many cases the scrolls show a remarkable similarity to the text of the Hebrew Bible currently in use. In some cases differences between the scrolls and the traditional Hebrew text help explain difficulties in the present Hebrew Bible, and most modern translations of the Bible (such as the NIV) incorporate some of the new information from the scrolls. "

UR: the copy you use is from 1989, so a newer one would have these incorporations included.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Highly unlikely, considering that this article of critique on the NIV version I have was written in 1989.

While I have no idea when the NIV was done, it has to be some time before 1989. AFAIK, none of the two main translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls was available - they came much later.

Urban Ranger, so its an "Article" that you read, not actually that it is bad, just what someone has written. I have been using an NIV for persoanl Bible Studay for years as well as for instructional purposes.

I have used in Prison Ministries, Foreign Mission Fields as well as local Ministries. It is a translation of The Greek and Hebrew Text. I have nothing negative to say about the KJV, it is just a little harder to read . I can and have read the KJV through and yes it is understandable, just for me I enjoy the NIV.

Please, I would like to help you, what exactly is it about the NIV that YOu, Urban Ranger find Unauthentic?

I am not a scholar, but am a Deacon and have been studying for years.

Neither do i claim nor do I profess to have any "inside track" on God's Inspired Word, yet i have studied and have access to many sources to assist in any Theological concerns you personnaly have

Please, allow me to be of service to you and in turn to others.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Urban Ranger]

obi,

Possibly. The thing is, depending on how you look at the Scrolls, it either completely invalidates the bible, or is completely irrelevent. The latter is the view held by the official keepers of the Scrolls, while the former is held by a number of scholars such as Prof. Eisenman. Even a carbon dating done by the University of Arizona , which gave a 95 percent probability that the parchment from the Habakkuk commentary dates to between 150 B.C. and 5 B.C., has failed to settle the dispute.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Troll
Urban Ranger, so its an "Article" that you read, not actually that it is bad, just what someone has written. I have been using an NIV for persoanl Bible Studay for years as well as for instructional purposes.

If the translation expressedly stated the aim is to establish "infallibility of the Bible,"* will it not make you pause? Will the translators not twist the translation to fit their purposes when the actual textual meaning indicate otherwise? Will it not attempt to eliminate the contradictions** found therein?

I suppose it is a good translation if you want to spread certain messages, but you should look elsewhere if accuracy is what you want.

* Right in the preface
** You may not see them as such.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If the translation expressedly stated the aim is to establish "infallibility of the Bible,"* will it not make you pause? Will the translators not twist the translation to fit their purposes when the actual textual meaning indicate otherwise? Will it not attempt to eliminate the contradictions** found therein?

I suppose it is a good translation if you want to spread certain messages, but you should look elsewhere if accuracy is what you want.

* Right in the preface
** You may not see them as such.

Ok, but even the KJV had to pick English Words that "closely" mirrored Greek and Hebrew Text. Now I am not an expert, just trying to assist you sir

So, do you have a regular Bible Study Group?

As for any "Inaccuracies" I would have to know which events/accounts you are referring to?

I pray you do my friend

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Ben Kenobi]

it either completely invalidates the bible, or is completely irrelevent.

The truth is between the two extremes. Suppose the Dead Sea Scrolls precisely mirror one Biblical translation? Would this not confirm the authenticity of said Bible? In that case it is neither irrelevant or invalidating.

The only way the Dead Sea Scrolls could invalidate all of the Biblical translations is to be completely different from all of the rest, so different that it would hardly resemble any of our current translations.

This is not the case with the Scrolls. Yes, there are some differences, but the vast majority agrees with current translations. As my source above says, the Scrolls help with the interpretation of difficult passages.

Why don't you read both alongside each other, the NIV with the KJV, and see how they compare?

If the translation expressedly stated the aim is to establish "infallibility of the Bible,"*

Having the best translation helps to ensure textual fidelity. Textual fidelity helps to establish Biblical infalliability.

Will it not attempt to eliminate the contradictions** found therein?

Suppose that someone discovered the changes made by these translators? Could not someone turn around and compare this 'new' version with previous versions and question the changes? Truth will out and a shoddy version will be exposed.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
obi,

Possibly. The thing is, depending on how you look at the Scrolls, it either completely invalidates the bible, or is completely irrelevent. The latter is the view held by the official keepers of the Scrolls, while the former is held by a number of scholars such as Prof. Eisenman. Even a carbon dating done by the University of Arizona , which gave a 95 percent probability that the parchment from the Habakkuk commentary dates to between 150 B.C. and 5 B.C., has failed to settle the dispute.

UR:

How do you get to the conclusion that the Dead Sea Scrolls have any bearing on the validity of the Bible?

According to the Library of Congress the scrolls were:

A Phylactery, the Community Rule, Calendrical Document, Torah Precepts Scrolls, Enoch, Hosea, Prayer For King Jonathan, Leviticus, and Sabbath Sacrifice Scrolls.


LOC Dead Sea Scrolls

From what the LOC says, there is nothing that is earth-shattering in terms of biblical revelations. There are some points of interest in terms of the calender system and some of the apocryphic works from the Second Temple/Maccabean periods.

[Ben Kenobi]

Timexwatch:

"These scroll fragments were displayed in the exhibit at the Library of Congress, May - August 1993. They were provided courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The exhibit captions and translations (below) provide background on the fragments and their relationships with the other Dead Sea Scrolls, the Qumran Community, and its Library. "

These are the only ones on display. Other parts of the dead sea scrolls contain the canonical OT books.

[Timexwatch]

Ack. Shame on me (post spring break lazies). Anyone have a link to the "groundbreaking" books?

[Ben Kenobi]

http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/

For now, this seems the best website.

I don't know if any of the 'groundbreaking' sections will be on the web, but this link will provide books that do contain these sections.

So

[boann]

Translations Compared here

http://www.cob-net.org/compare_bibles.htm

ive read it several times
i think if your looking to just get the story and what happened.... the Living Bible version is very easy
to read and i enjoyed reading it straight through.
but its not a literal translation by any means
and if your more interested in study then another
version is advisable.

[cinch]

Lorizael:

But that's not really true either. What you have to understand is that a lot of early stories were written when Judaism was still making the transition to monotheism, before Jehovah was an all-powerful protector and creator. Because of this a lot of the backstabbing and powergaming and anthropomorphism that existed in polytheistic religions was still present in Judaism.

No kidding about the polytheistic part, eh? One of my favourite passages is in Job, where god tells of his miraculous wrestling match with a giant fish/hippo/crocodile sea monster. Oh, yes, Yawae was quite the ruffian back in his day.