Egoinos

When they feel the RSV doesn't appropriately reflect the original meaning, they supplement with Greek (or Hebrew, or whatever). Even those of us who do not study original languages are expected to take in those parts they just like to recommend one version to students, as having people bring in weirdy versions (like the New Living) has resulted in confusion before.

No translation is perfect personally I like to compare a number - which is also not discouraged so long as they are decent versions.

Vorkosigan

www.biblegateway.com has many translations. I have also found the NetBible www.netbible.com useful.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, "not a theist",

Here you seem to pick up quite correctly on the two separate issues that are involved in this debate.

1. Is KJV a good translation from the Greek?

On this, I have no special comments. One can argue ad infinitum about various translations, and about the translation theory -- it's a notoriously complicated subject. Yes, in some ways literal is good, and sometimes it isn't. Yes, usually KJV is a literal translation, but sometimes it isn't, etc.

2. Was the Greek text underlying the KJV a good text?

Now, this is a really important subject that is often misunderstood. Yes, it's been argued that some manuscripts used for preparing the Textus Receptus (the base of KJV) were of poor quality. But, myself, I see it as merely a distraction.

The main issue in all this is this, How does the Byzantine text rate vis-a-vis the Alexandrian? (For those who are new to this subject, the Textus Receptus is a variety of Byzantine text; essentially, KJV represents Byzantine text. And Alexandrian text is the base of RSV.)

As a supporter of the Western text, I say that both the Byzantine and the Alexandrian texts are poor texts, with lots of later additions and corruptions. But, at the same time, although both are poor texts, I see Byzantine text as superior to the Alexandrian. This is because, unquestionably, Byzantine text is a lot closer to the Western text than to the Alexandrian.

Quote:

Modern versions usually use better manuscripts and since textual criticism is much more advanced now probably represent an earlier version of the text than the KJV does.

So, in light of the above, I disagree that "Modern versions usually use better manuscripts". In my view, they use much worse manuscripts, in so far as the Alexandrian manuscripts seem to be far more corrupt than the Byzantine.

And as to "textual criticism is much more advanced now", I beg to disagree again. Today's textual scholars are mostly frauds and/or incompetents. As I said before, Griesbach was the truly great textual scholar, and it seems to have been downhill ever since...

Griesbach had it right! (NT Textual Criticism)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/griesb.htm

Cheers,

Yuri.

Baqqesh shalom veradphehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)

not a theist

Yuri:
Doubtless, your knowledge of textual criticism is far superior to mine. I know a bit of Greek, know what the various text types are, and can read a critical apparatus but have not put forth the painstaking effort which you have on the subject. So far be it from me to challenge your position on this issue. Granting your position for the sake of argument then, what is really needed is a modern version based on the Western text. Since the Western text is so different in places (like the book of Acts) from either the Alexandrian or the Byzantine text, both the KJV and modern versions are both woefully deficient in this regard.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, not a theist,

Yes, I've put in quite a lot of time looking at various textual controversies. At first, the whole thing seemed really mysterious and abstruse but, later, the light began to dawn... So now I believe that the whole thing is in fact much easier than it appears. The problem is with the Experts, who seem to be _trying_ to make it look mysterious and abstruse, so that they can hide their own incompetence and bias behind all those smoke-screens!

Basically, in rejecting the Byzantine/KJV text, the Experts mostly trot out the argument that the main Byzantine MSS are rather late. Since the main Alexandrian MSS are 4th or 5th century, they are way earlier than the Byzantine MSS. Thus -- so their logic goes -- Alexandrian text is supposed to be a big improvement over the Byzantine.

But now I think that this argument is entirely fallacious. Because one of the main rules of TC is that the age of the MS, itself, isn't necessarily directly related to the quality of its text. After all, any MS is only as good as its exemplar, i.e. the text from which it was originally copied. So a very old MS can also be very corrupt, if it was copied from a poor exemplar. And, conversely, a relatively young MS can also be very pure, if it had been copied from am excellent old exemplar. This stuff is really quite elementary -- it's the quality and antiquity of the text, itself, that really should matter, and not the antiquity of the MS.

Thus, it seems like the Alexandrian/eclectic crowd is really basing their whole project on a logical fallacy.

Quote:

So far be it from me to challenge your position on this issue. Granting your position for the sake of argument then, what is really needed is a modern version based on the Western text. Since the Western text is so different in places (like the book of Acts) from either the Alexandrian or the Byzantine text, both the KJV and modern versions are both woefully deficient in this regard.

Well, I've already uploaded to the Net the Aramaic Matthew in English. So this might be a good start. IMHO, this text is far superior to anything that's been available before. The language of the English translation is archaic, though, so this might create some problems for modern readers. But some might actually like it this way. In any case, the language can be easily updated, but this takes time.

All the best,

Yuri.

ProNihil

When I was in bible college, the two translations most highly esteemed were the King James Version and the New American Standard Version. In it's day, the kjv was the most accurate, in terms of following the syntax of the original languages, but as far as I know now, the New American Standard is the one to go for. It is pretty wooden in its reading, owing to the fact that it is a more literal translation.

Most students of theology where I went would use the NASB for academic papers and such, and the NIV for personal reading and devotionals. Aside from comparison of translation related subjects, the KJV is pretty outdated for today.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear ProNihil,

Please see my comments above. I've been arguing that this is much more than just the question of translation per se. The much bigger question involved in all this is the question of the _underlying Greek text_. It's my opinion that the KJV is often attacked unjustly. Its underlying Byzantine text is very valuable, and IMHO far superior to the Alexandrian text, which is the basis for the NASB, NIV, etc.

Regards,

Yuri.

ProNihil

I don't really know much about this. The only thing I was going on was the general consensus at my previous bible college.

Clara Listensprechen

Gany, all of the above comments seem to have elements of truth to 'em and in a fashion, you can get the bigger picture here that there's no definitive answer to your question; your question presupposes that there is a single fixed set of Greek documents for which there is a single fixed best translation.

As it happens, even the Greek texts have versions, and those, when compared to comparable texts provided by the Orthodox side of Christianity AND which pre-date the Greek texts on which the Western Bible depend, there are differences also.

The complete NIV has an intro/preface section that goes into the varying texts in detail, even providing references to the major versions of the Old Testament, as well as versions of the New Testament...but know ye that the different versions don't end there, those are just the MAJOR versions used to arrive at NIV's final translations. Oxford has an even more detailed Bible version that is designed to provide all texts required of both Eastern and Western Christians including Psalm 151.

Your question's answer lies in a major research project. Have fun.

Clara Listensprechen

About the KJV, it is accurate to criticize it for basing its "translation" on nothing more authoritative than Rennaisance-era documents; for that reason, its accuracy is equal to that of the Watchtower Version, based on these same documents.