10 Most Glaring Problems

[dwayner79]

Dynamic Equivalence is taking the 'thought' behind the speech used and translating that thought into another language. Let's take this to another example. Say we have a person who speaks primarily street slang or Ebonics, who wants to speak to a person who is British. Although these languages look alike, the British speaking individual is likely to have no idea what is being said. Suppose this person who speaks street slang says "Yo! Sup dawg? We gonna gear up and roll out to the mall and chill wit' my peeps."
So now we have to translate. Now, translating can be difficult. The British speaking individual already has the exact formal equivalent because he speaks English. What he needs is the dynamic equivalent. Which would be "Hello! How are you doing friend? I've made plans for us to get our things together and drive down to the shopping center where we can meet with some of my friends."

:nutty :nutty :rollover: :rollover:

Best post in a VERY LONG TIME

[chev1958]

That was a bit of a misrepresentation...

My post was in response and in context with Will's original statement: "The KJV uses dynamic equivalence in some places." As I was scanning the NKJV preface, it said dynamic equivalence was a recent translation tool. My first impression was that the time period from 1611 to now was not "recent."

In his subsequent post, Will showed me where dynamic equivalence was used in the KJV (You didn't have to beat me over the head with it, though :frog ). And his example was pretty funny. So, I stand corrected on that issue.

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not an expert in the nuances of translating. You guys are losing me by using those big words. And I'll admit to you that I once used the NKJV, trusting the preface that it was true to the original. I have since determined that the NKJV does not match the KJV in many places. By sticking strictly with the KJV, I don't have to worry about what any other translation says. I don't have to buy a new Bible every year to see what God has to say this time. I can trust what the KJV says, I firmly believe that it's God's Word for those who speak something semblance of English, and the more I study it, the easier it is to read.

I'm not here to change your minds. I've read enough of both of your posts to know where you stand on the issue. That's fine with me. I try to stay out of these debates, because it never goes anywhere. And today, I've learned another reason to stay out of these debates: I'm not as smart as you guys. I do well enough making myself look stupid without any help from y'all!

Mitch

BTW, dwayner, did you notice my "copyright" post? I don't deny that the NKJV translators truly wanted to update the KJV. My understanding (and I can't find proof of it right now) is that the first NKJV version was rejected for copyright because it was not different enough. Therefore, they had to change more of their version to make it that much more different than the KJV.

Therefore, according to the definition of derivative copyright law, the NKJV had to contain a "substantial amount of new material."

[Will]

My post was in response and in context with Will's original statement: "The KJV uses dynamic equivalence in some places." As I was scanning the NKJV preface, it said dynamic equivalence was a recent translation tool. My first impression was that the time period from 1611 to now was not "recent."

In his subsequent post, Will showed me where dynamic equivalence was used in the KJV (You didn't have to beat me over the head with it, though :frog ). And his example was pretty funny. So, I stand corrected on that issue.

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not an expert in the nuances of translating. You guys are losing me by using those big words. And I'll admit to you that I once used the NKJV, trusting the preface that it was true to the original. I have since determined that the NKJV does not match the KJV in many places. By sticking strictly with the KJV, I don't have to worry about what any other translation says. I don't have to buy a new Bible every year to see what God has to say this time. I can trust what the KJV says, I firmly believe that it's God's Word for those who speak something semblance of English, and the more I study it, the easier it is to read.

I'm not here to change your minds. I've read enough of both of your posts to know where you stand on the issue. That's fine with me. I try to stay out of these debates, because it never goes anywhere. And today, I've learned another reason to stay out of these debates: I'm not as smart as you guys. I do well enough making myself look stupid without any help from y'all!

Mitch

BTW, dwayner, did you notice my "copyright" post? I don't deny that the NKJV translators truly wanted to update the KJV. My understanding (and I can't find proof of it right now) is that the first NKJV version was rejected for copyright because it was not different enough. Therefore, they had to change more of their version to make it that much more different than the KJV.

Therefore, according to the definition of derivative copyright law, the NKJV had to contain a "substantial amount of new material."

:frog

Just as a sidenote, I believe that comparing version to version is a logical fallacy. Merely because the NKJV differs from the KJV, it doesn't mean that the NKJV is wrong. What it comes down to, is "Is the NKJV totally faithful to the original texts it was translated from?"

My answer is "no." Which is why I use the KJV as my version of choice. I occasionally use the NKJV(just because it's a study Bible with tons of cool notes), mainly for comparison or to check out the study notes. For me, it's a textual issue. The evidence I've seen points to the KJV as being an excellent translation of the underlying texts. Which is why I use the KJV as opposed to the NKJV.

[Alen]

My understanding of the NKJV was that it began as an updated edition of the KJV, using the TR and Masoretic texts. However, to obtain the copyright for the NKJV, the new edition had to have at least 10-15 percent difference in the KJV. Therefore, the publisher had to make changes in the KJV to obtain exclusive rights to the NKJV. So. it's not an updated edition - it's a new version.

Once again, money talks and truth suffers.

Mitch

That is my issue with MVs, the whole copyright thing kind of puts me off, yes I am aware that the KJV still has copyright in United Kingdom, and that it is perpetual. However that is not there to make money off the Bible, it was from the time the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom. Thus it is still in effect today.

I notice with MVs also that there is a limit on how much you can quote their translation (500 verses I think is the limit) which also I kind of dislike.

It really is a shame to see focus on money rather than God.

There is some modern translations that are without copyright, such as the WEB and NET translations. I have more respect for those that the translations that are copyrighted.

-Alen

[BroJesse]

It really is a shame to see focus on money rather than God.

There is some modern translations that are without copyright, such as the WEB and NET translations. I have more respect for those that the translations that are copyrighted.

-Alen

I did some Google work a couple of years back and found a British Publishing Industry journal article that dealt with bible publishing and the business aspect of it. It was an eye opener.

The article basically gave the whole game away as it talked about how each translation generally has a 5 year demand cycle and as attention and demand tapers off, these companies need to inject something new to keep sales up. Many of the bible publishers are now also public companies and need to keep shareholders happy (not God) as it's not a ministry anymore.

I thank God that there are local church ministries that are printing and publishing their own bibles and some of these are very good quality indeed.

[Randy]

Getting back to the original question...

The most glaring problem with other versions are the source manuscripts used.

If you are looking for English-English comparisons, how about these four.

The distinction between singular and plural you in the KJV - singular (Thee, Thy); plural (Ye, Your)

The difference between words such as Shall (implying promise) and Will (implying desire) for the future tense.

As for verses...
Luke 2:33 is incorrect in most modern versions.

And Compare 1 Corinthians 1:21 in KJV and most modern versions - you should smell sulphur. You may need to diagram the sentence to properly understand what is being said.

[Kubel]

[quote="Hanna"]
Could you tell me what might be the 10 most glaring scripture problems with the NIV?
[/quote]

All of the 'problems' with the NIV that I have seen do not concentrate on how faithful the translators were to their source texts, but rather, how faithful the translators were to the KJV (the NIV is not a revision of the KJV, so those arguments are irrelevant to determining how accurate of a translation it is). So I think most of us will have to get back to you on that one.

[quote="Hanna"]
Also, why doesn't someone publish a modern translation from the TR, if that would eliminate the simplicity issue?
[/quote]

There are a few. The NKJV (uses TR, but has footnote variant readings based on Critical/majority texts). There's also the 21st Century KJV- and there are probably more.

[quote="Hanna"]
I use KJV, I love it. I love the poetic nature of it...it is like music and makes it easier to remember. It is also beautiful, which translated into our English it would lose those qualities.
[/quote]

I agree, it is very beautiful, and the way it is, for me at least, makes it very easy to memorize. That's because the KJV was translated in a style of English back then made for public reciting. The KJV was made to be read out loud.

[quote="Hanna"]
Hey why doesn't someone translate Shakesphere into modern day English? Now THAT would have helped me a lot in school:)) Oh well, part of the torture we must all endure I guess;/
[/quote]

Actually they do have it in modern English. Check with your local bookstore or library, I'm sure they carry it. If not, go to a Barnes and Noble and ask them to special order it for you for free. :D

[kevinmiller]

[quote]
All of the 'problems' with the NIV that I have seen do not concentrate on how faithful the translators were to their source texts, but rather, how faithful the translators were to the KJV (the NIV is not a revision of the KJV, so those arguments are irrelevant to determining how accurate of a translation it is). So I think most of us will have to get back to you on that one.
[/quote]

This is very true. And even I tend to do this at times when comparing versions. I think the biggest problem facing the NIV(that I know) would be that it is based on corrupt texts and that it is influenced by man's opinions. For example, their was a professing lesbian on the translation staff and the references referring to sodomites were changed to "shrine prostitutes" making it something completely different than what it was. Prostitutes are not necessarily practicing sodomy at all.

This was also a problem in the NKJV(some of the same staff as the NIV) where they changed sodomites to "perverted ones" which could mean promiscuous homo or heterosexuals.

[JerryNumbers]

25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.

Matt. 13:25

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Matt 13:25 (KJV)

Study Matthew 13:25-30

In the KJV the word tare is used, in the NVI the word weed is used, there is a big difference between a weed and a tare. This changes the whole doctrine of these verses.

Its corrupt, why use it?

[PunkJohnnyCash]

[quote="kevinmiller"]
[quote]It's called the NKJV
[/quote]

Not sure exactly how accurate that version is, but I know there was a professing homosexual on staff and that doesn't make me excited to try it out. :roll:[/quote]

I have a feeling the men the translated the KJV were not without sin.

[dwayner79]

Kevin, that is twice you have used "professing" when describing the individual in question.

The first time it was to the NKJ, which is simply inaccurate. The second, the person was not professing, but "came out" well after the translation was complete.

You should really check your facts.

[kevinmiller]

I don't think I said that there was a homosexual on the NKJV staff...if I did then that was my bad. Some of the translators from the NIV were also on staff for the NKJV. In the NIV, they weakened the terms for homosexuality making them "shrine prostitutes" instead and so it is assumed that they would also take a weak stance on homosexuality in the NKJV which they did by changing it to "perverted ones." As far as being on the NIV staff, whether they "came out" before or after, they were still in the sin of homosexuality and would have had a bias that way in the translation.

[dwayner79]

[quote="kevinmiller"]
I don't think I said that there was a homosexual on the NKJV staff...if I did then that was my bad.

...

As far as being on the NIV staff, whether they "came out" before or after, they were still in the sin of homosexuality and would have had a bias that way in the translation.
[/quote]

http://onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/ ... 359#221359

On the second part, that may be the case. It sure is a good thing all major translations are done by committee, (like the KJV) so no one person can introduce doctrinal error.

[kevinmiller]

Okay, the first was my bad then. lol I only re-read up on it recently, as in last week.

So...are you saying that the homosexual being on staff wouldn't have affected the translation?

[Will]

[quote="kevinmiller"]
Okay, the first was my bad then. lol I only re-read up on it recently, as in last week.

So...are you saying that the homosexual being on staff wouldn't have affected the translation?
[/quote]

Not necessarily. I mean, think about it, the KJV translators were mostly baby-sprinklers.