Languages other than English

[hayesy]

Hi everyone, I've been wondering over the last couple days about this:
Missionaries crack a new language, and begin translating the Bible into their language. From what do they translate? A Greek text? The KJV? Does the nation need to learn English?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Bakershalfdozen]

Haha, expect a myriad of replies.


They should get their accurate translation the same way we got ours - from the Textus Receptus. If I were to write a book and then have it translated into French, I wouldn't use the French version to translate it into Russian. And no, the nation does not need to learn English. They should be able to get an accurate TR translation in their language.

[pneu-engine]

:amen:

[hayesy]

Ah ok. Thats what I was expecting, I suppose.
The question remains: How come we can't translate from the Textus Receptus into English to make a modern version? (For today's english is almost another language...)

[Guest Guest]

The question remains: How come we can't translate from the Textus Receptus into English to make a modern version? (For today's english is almost another language...)

I theory it could be done, but in practice it hasn't been. Before a new translation could be accepted it would have to go through a very carefull review and be found blameless. That hasn't happend. All attempts have been riddled with errors. Further, I disagree that it is a different language than what we now speak. Texans and New Yorkers speak quite differently too but that doesn't mean the bible needs to be translated on a state by state basis. :lol:

[matie-k]

Ah ok. Thats what I was expecting, I suppose.
The question remains: How come we can't translate from the Textus Receptus into English to make a modern version? (For today's english is almost another language...)

Because we're too divided and busy fighting about it. :Bleh

[hayesy]

I theory it could be done, but in practice it hasn't been. Before a new translation could be accepted it would have to go through a very carefull review and be found blameless. That hasn't happend. All attempts have been riddled with errors. Further, I disagree that it is a different language than what we now speak. Texans and New Yorkers speak quite differently too but that doesn't mean the bible needs to be translated on a state by state basis.

What was the KJV compared to for it to be found blameless?

[Guest Guest]

What was the KJV compared to for it to be found blameless?

I am tempted to reply but for some reason I get the impression that you don't like the KJV and if that's the case I would be wasting my time. :cool If I am wrong about you there is plenty of info already online about that subject. :Green

[manofconviction]

Much has been written about how we have been given our Bible (much on this site). I encourage you to seek the information after praying to be shown.

[Kubel]

Hi everyone, I've been wondering over the last couple days about this:
Missionaries crack a new language, and begin translating the Bible into their language. From what do they translate? A Greek text? The KJV? Does the nation need to learn English?

Thanks,
Andrew

Everyone has their own answer because the Bible gives no specific guidelines to how it is to be translated, copied, printed, etc- and everyone has their own opinion about how and from what source it should be made from... I don't think you could truly satisfy your wonder from any of our posts here. It takes a lot of research and prayer to come to the various conclusions we that we do on the issue.

Some feel no translations should be made, that everyone must learn English, and must read the KJV. Some feel all translations should be based on the KJV. Some feel all translations should be based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts, as they feel those are the most accurate texts available. Some feel all translations should be based on the oldest texts, since they feel they are closer to the originals. Some follow whatever their church follows. Some don't have an opinion whatsoever. Some just don't care.

I would recommend you go to the bookstore and order the book, "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White, ISBN: 1-55661-575-2. He accurately represents a majority of positions out there, and then goes on to evaluate them in a fair and honest way. Others here might suggest other readings, and it would probably be good to read those books as well, even if you totally disagree with their conclusions. It's always good to understand not just what other people believe, but also why they believe it. It will help you develop a more complete opinion on the issue. This is something White explains at the end of his book as well. Understanding the why is just as important as understanding the what when it comes to the translation issue.

[hayesy]

I am tempted to reply but for some reason I get the impression that you don't like the KJV and if that's the case I would be wasting my time. :cool If I am wrong about you there is plenty of info already online about that subject. :Green

Seth, I'm sorry if I come across like that. I have very little opinion on this either way: I live in Australia and until this week had no idea that there even was a KJV-only movement. Having discovered that it does, I'm certainly not going to write it off without investigating it. I love God's word and want to make sure I'm reading it properly.
All my life I've read what you call MV's, and found them very satisfying. These are just some questions that are raised in my head as I consider this.
If my questions are answered already elsewhere, please direct me to a good starting point. Thanks,
Hayesy

[hayesy]

Everyone has their own answer because the Bible gives no specific guidelines to how it is to be translated, copied, printed, etc- and everyone has their own opinion about how and from what source it should be made from... I don't think you could truly satisfy your wonder from any of our posts here. It takes a lot of research and prayer to come to the various conclusions we that we do on the issue.

Some feel no translations should be made, that everyone must learn English, and must read the KJV. Some feel all translations should be based on the KJV. Some feel all translations should be based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts, as they feel those are the most accurate texts available. Some feel all translations should be based on the oldest texts, since they feel they are closer to the originals. Some follow whatever their church follows. Some don't have an opinion whatsoever. Some just don't care.

I would recommend you go to the bookstore and order the book, "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White, ISBN: 1-55661-575-2. He accurately represents a majority of positions out there, and then goes on to evaluate them in a fair and honest way. Others here might suggest other readings, and it would probably be good to read those books as well, even if you totally disagree with their conclusions. It's always good to understand not just what other people believe, but also why they believe it. It will help you develop a more complete opinion on the issue. This is something White explains at the end of his book as well. Understanding the why is just as important as understanding the what when it comes to the translation issue.

Very helpful, thanks!

[anime4christ]

A little something for the discussion (just don't understand me wrong plz): If the KJV is 100% perfect in the sense that there is absolutely no need for a translation with the language a bit updated, then I'd like to ask about the RST (best Russian Bible, like the KJV being the best English) having a few minor apparent disagreements with the KJV. Wouldn't a perfect translation be the same in all languages?

OK, now I am a KJV fan, but I think extreme KJVOism is wrong, that's why I'm raising this question. I'm also not saying the KJV or the RST isn't perfect, but I'm just asking it that way to kind of make the issue a bit bolder. I like the KJV a lot, but a lot of the people I know have a hard time understanding it (can't really educate all of them myself). Why can't we have a good modern translation true to the original text just for them and why do arguments about this issue always turn out so bad?

Or maybe I shouldn't be posting at almost 1 o'clock in the morning, hehe. ;;

[Guest Guest]

until this week had no idea that there even was a KJV-only movement. Having discovered that it does, I'm certainly not going to write it off without investigating it. I love God's word and want to make sure I'm reading it properly.
All my life I've read what you call MV's, and found them very satisfying. These are just some questions that are raised in my head as I consider this.
If my questions are answered already elsewhere, please direct me to a good starting point.

Ok I will take what you say at face value. :Green This link is a place to start pointing out some of the serious, meaning altering differences between the KJV and many of the MV's. I do not agree with everything on the site but this part is ok. I will warn you that there are two quite different "groups" of KJV only people. The first thinks that the KJV and the TR are both Gods Word and the latter believes that the original languages have been totally corrupted and all translations to any language should be from the KJV. The first view is what I and the majority of this forum believes, the latter view is frequently know as "ruckmanism" after one of its most widely known supporters. The views and the conclusions reached from them are light years apart...

http://av1611.com/KJBp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Go to some place like biblegatway.com and compare them youself... See how much stuff is altered or just left out. :wink

[Guest Guest]

For Bible translations in other languages besides English, I feel it is best that they have a Bible translated from the Textus Receptus that is translated in the same way that the KJV was translated. A literal translation namely. And also it would have words that cannot be completely translated or whatever in italics just as the KJV does.