Posts Tagged ‘Bible’

The NASB Bible translation is a literal or word-for-word translation of the Bible’s authentic created languages Hebrew, Greek plus Aramaic. Because it’s publication inside 1971 it has gained a standing for it’s precision to the authentic texts. This can not appear like a extensive thing to the contemporary reader, however the Bible has a extended history of erroneous translations.

For decades the Catholic church’s Latin Vulgate was truly the only additional translation accessible that the church employed for it’s liturgy plus doctrinal guideline. Other than the truth which just learned scholars plus clergy might read the Latin Vulgate, it moreover had surprisingly inaccurate translations of the authentic Biblical texts.

Over the following centuries there were fantastic tries at translating the Bible precisely plus inside the contemporary, everyday code. The top was plus is the King James Version that was publish inside 1611 by the church of England. It was exact plus it was inside the modern 17th century English. The NASB Bible translation comes from which custom of precision plus employ of contemporary English.

The NASB Bible translation evolved within the American Standard Version (ASV) that was published inside 1901. And the ASV Bible was the American variation of the 1885 English Revised Version inside England. However between 1611 plus 1885, there were no brand-new popular, contemporary English translations of the Bible.

It had been a traditional evangelical reaction to the Revised Standard Version published inside 1952, that was really the authorized revision of the ASV. The controversy as well as the function found on the NASB Bible translation resulted straight within the RSV translation of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 7:14 had usually translated the term referring to the girl to provide birth to the messiah because “virgin”. The RSV translated it “young woman” that evangelicals saw because an attack found on the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. Evangelicals mentioned different regions where the RSV took a liberal slant and therefore started the function found on the NASB Bible translation, funded by the Lockman Foundation.

Word-for-Word vs. Thought-for-Thought

The NASB Bible translation is a word-for-word transliteration of the Bible. This really is alternatively to thought-for-thought translations like the common NIV Bible. Although the literal translation is excellent for precision plus doing word research, it may shortage occasionally inside the are of understandability.

Anyone whom is bilingual understands which often points doing translate perfectly whenever we try to convert from 1 code to another straight. Additionally, there are often idioms, expressions or figures of speech inside 1 code which has no meaning inside another code.

In an effort to quell this, thought-for-thought translations like the NIV Bible was published. Bible scholars take a phrase or perhaps a thought because it were, plus understand it for the reader, then translate what they think it signifies without being thus worried regarding utilizing specific words or requiring themselves to need to include all of the words.

1995 Updated Edition

The 1995 up-to-date edition of the NASB involves certain revisions to modernize the English vocabulary utilized. For instance, they changed the ‘thy’ plus ‘thee’. Overall, this revision improved this versions quality plus readability without violating the authentic meaning of the Greek plus Hebrew words.

As God has been granting me spiritual opportunities via the internet, I have been encountering brethren, in church settings, where The King James translation of the Bible is heralded as the Bible. All other translations originate from the pit – and descend to it. Those propagating this “faith” will be referred to as “KJV only” here. They are not my target audience. This Article is for those who have been told the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible … yet, are having some nagging questions about the truth of this position.

I do not know anyone who has ever read the Authorized 1611 King James Translation of the Bible. I do not even know anyone who has seen the Authorized 1611 King James Translation. In fact, if those of the “KJV only” group actually had this translation in their hands, they likely could not read it. With some coaching, they would learn that what looked like an “f” is actually an “s.” But, before long, they would encounter foreign words – with no idea of their meaning (holpen, knop, neesing, Osee, wot, wottech, wit … just to name a few). They would need to retranslate this into current English. Come to think of it, … that is exactly what has happened.

The 24th, … I Mean 26th, … Uh, Actually the Unknown Revision Number of my KJV Translations

When the “KJV only” translators retranslate the “Textus Receptus,” they call the new translation a new “revision.” They justify using the word, “revision” over, “translation” because these new translators (revisionists?) use the same manuscripts the original 1611 translators used (the Textus Receptus).

For this Article, I rounded up my KJV Bibles, and turned to each one’s “Preface” to see what revisions of the original 1611 translation I possess. While each Editor acknowledges I do have a revision, the number of the revision … is not stated. This is rather curious. One time (in the early 1980′s), I told a “KJV only” man he probably had the 24th (or 26th? – I can’t remember now) revision of the 1611 translation. He proceeded to almost run off the road, frantically flipping through the Preface of the Bible on his dashboard. After finding my assertion was correct, I was quite relieved when his wild-eyed eyes refocused on the road.

So, why would the Editors withhold the revision number on my newer copies of the KJV? Has the revision number become so high that they feel it would be better … to hide it? Surely not! These people are publishing … the Bible! So, why this deliberate omission? There maybe a very base motive. But, first …

If anyone wants to read the 26th revision of the KJV (or whatever is the current revision number) … do it. And if a church wants to use some preferred revision number as their pulpit Bible, that is absolutely fine. But if a person, or church, or denomination insists this translation, or any of its dozens of revisions, is the only true Word of God – that is an issue that must be taken on … and taken down. The Word of God is an exceedingly important theological matter. God uses His Word in the salvation event (Mt 13:1-23, 1Pet 1:23,24, Ja 1:18, etc.) and in a Christian’s subsequent growth (1Pet 2:2, Eph 5:26, etc.). To place some doctrine on The Word of God itself is a subject of the highest order. Ignorance, or error, on a subject this important must be exposed.

The Rejection of Knowledge

Those holding “KJV only” demonstrate a lack of knowledge in three major fields of study – Textual Criticism (Lower Criticism), Biblical Languages and the History of Translations. They do not understand the goals, history, evidences or current status of these disciplines. Whether this is willful darkness, or just a lack of interest, is ultimately irrelevant. The journey of the Biblical documents from the original author’s pen, to the copy in one’s hand – may indeed be as much of a miracle as any miracle recorded in its pages. While knowledge of the Bible’s contents is of first importance, knowledge about the Bible runs a close second. Knowledge of Biblical languages, and the copying and transmission history of these documents, enhances one’s ability to accurately handle – and present – its contents. Knowledge, accurate knowledge, is always … a good thing. “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2Pet 3:18).

An Exception: The New King James Translators

The Preface to The New King James Translation, fifth revision, 1994, is a noteworthy exception to the charges just levied. The publisher addresses these fields of study – and accurately represents them – yet, still defers to the Textus Receptus. The publisher even includes these “contrary materials” in that translation’s textual apparatus. This integrity commends the publisher – and serves the readers of this translation, and its revisions, well. But, I have the feeling the “KJV only” adherents deem the New King James publisher a wayward brother – or disown him outright.

I have always found it interesting to listen to anyone who teaches the Bible (whether “KJV only” adherents … or others). When expounding a verse, the preacher/teacher often rephrases that verse – using synonyms or illustrations, etc. – so as to make its meaning more understandable. This activity is in itself … re-translating. It just happens to be verbal and not written down. Presenters of the Bible are almost continuously in a re-translation mode when expounding the Scriptures.

“The Faith”

As one reads various prefaces of KJV Bibles, it is not just the omission of the revision number that stands out. For example, these publishers know that red lettering Jesus’ words is a modern day fabrication – and that many in their audience will errantly exalt these particular words over the rest of the God-breathed materials. As one reads the justifications for this (and several other subjects) – it becomes increasingly clear these publishers are pandering to a niche market – and if they do not produce a Bible for this group … someone else will. I am indeed assigning a very base motive here – but my Christian experience has shown that when money becomes part of the equation … very strange things happen. “A root of all the evils is the cherishing of silver” (1Tim 6:10 – this is not KJV, as they really botched that verse). Error, of any kind, in any arena, is destined for a short life-span.

Those who insist the KJV is the only Word of God, are calling on others to adopt this “faith:” “We believe the 26th revision (or whatever it is now) of the original 1611 translation, authorized by King James of England is inspired by God. Its translators were borne along by the Holy Ghost … as were the translators of the other 25 revisions. Furthermore, we believe the Byzantine texts, which Middle Age theologians compiled into the Textus Receptus, is flawless.” Call me a simpleton, but I believe “All Scripture is God-breathed …” (2Tim 3:16), not, “The 26th revision of the 1611 King James Translation of Scripture … is God-breathed.” I have no desire to add this to the Word of God … and present – that – as “Biblical faith.” This would be similar to asking one to believe the Pope’s “ex cathedra” (from the throne) declarations are on par with the Word of God. Sorry, no can do.

Conclusion

I have no desire to patronize whatever audience God allows me touch. There is no point. It never leads to spiritual prosperity. In fact, in my experience, the mentality that leads to embracing “KJV only” – does not end with just the rejection of Textual Criticism, Biblical Languages, and Translation History. They also reject, and often demonize, those engaged in these objective, fact-filled studies. This exposes a serious spiritual problem possessed by these “believers.” Clinging to error is personally dangerous on several fronts. For starters, errant beliefs – no matter how fervently held or heralded – are abysses void of God. Secondly, genuine believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. “When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13). The Word of God is so foundational to the entire Christian faith, that there is absolutely no way He is leading any Christian to adopt this “KJV only” position. God does not exist in – or promote – error. This persuasion is either from the flesh (stubbornness, pride, fear, wilful ignorance – or some toxic combination) … or else demons. Brethren, do not yield to it. That is not God’s call to you.

Well, here is a question for the “KJV only” group (in case any might be reading). Are other cultures only supposed to read the 26th (?) revision of the 1611 KJV … even if they do not know English? If you really think this question through … you are going to get all knotted up.

Question by : What is your favorite Bible translation, and why?
My favorite is the NASB because it is the most literal, word-for-word translation and selfsame accurate.

Best answer:

Answer by Sarah Jessica At The Races
I wish NASB too. Excuse me, I have an itch to scratch.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by : Is it true that only Trinitarian scholars have issues with the New World translation of the Bible?
People, mainly Trinitarians who are in direct opposition to Jehovah’s Witnesses and their ministry, have an issue with the Bible translation called the New World Translation. They holding calling it a mistranslation without any evidence.Is it true that it is Trinitarian scholars that are the only people who call this translation bad?What about the King James Version of the Bible, which has over 14000 documented errors? Why do populate cling to this translation, many calling it the best translation out there?

Best answer:

Answer by dallas
yes

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by Jack: How do ‘Jehovahs Witnesses’ warrant all the errors in their ‘New World’ translation bible?
How can Jehovahs Witnesses use a mis-translated bible and think their teachings are correct? There are so many places in the New World translation that change words and add words in in order to fit their doctrine, and yet so many people go along with it.

Best answer:

Answer by A Canadian Atheist
The way ALL other sects of christianity do; they claim theirs is the correct one and deride anyone else for their version of the same book of myths and fairy tales…Just as you have done. Thanks for that great example!

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Fuzzy: What is the very better translation of the Bible?
Do you think the message varies from translation to translation?

Best answer:

Answer by God Fearing TeaPartier
personally I like the French version, but the German, and Romanian versions are pretty good also

Know good? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by Chris M: How dependable is a bible translator and his work that has Satanic associations?
Case in point, Westcott and Hort who are known satanist with intimate association with Madam Blavatsky?the product of their work with the greek text alexandrian scripts (NIV, RSV, etc)Westcott and Hort “occult” and “satanic” affliliations are not made up and are factually documented.

Best answer:

Answer by Chris
Wescott and Hort were unbelievers. And the “alexandrian” text is corrupt. So instead, use the KJV, which comes from the Received text.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by david d: What is an Italian translation of the Bible alike to the English ESV/NASB?
I currently read the ESV of the Bible, and I also appreciate the NASB. I am looking for an Italian translation that faithfully renders the original Hebrew and Greek; preserves some of the historic vocabulary of the Scriptures (like “justification” and “propitiation”); and, preferably, feels the flow of “la bella lingua.” Any comments would be much appreciated!

Best answer:

Answer by Genegee
I do not know the name that your looking for but l can tell you this; The first Bible’s was written in Latin, transcribed by hand. In 325 A. D. by order of Emperor Constantine of Italy who gathered all the Bishops of the Christian world together to determine which books, of many available, should be in the Bible, as we know it today. It was around 1200 years later when King James of England had people translate the Bible into the English language.

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Anthony: Was Martin Luther’s translation of the bible a part of the protestant reformation?
I’m making a study sheet, and one of the topics is Martin Luther. For subtopics I was going to put the protestant reformation and the translation of the bible, but I forgot whether the translation was part of the reformation. Help?

Best answer:

Answer by Mr. Smartypants
Yes it was. Luther believed the Catholic Church had translated the Bible in a self-serving way, to suit their own biases. So as part of creating his new church, he went back to the Septuagint, the version of the Hebrew Bible used in Jesus’ own time (translated into Greek), and he re-translated it into the German language of his own time.

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Ideeit: What is the totally actual translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew named?
I once read about a version of the Bible that was a literal translation of the original Greek and Hebrew into English, word for word. I cannot remember what it was called though. Does anybody know?Beast… you and your 3% best answer rating can take it elsewhere. Come back if you develop the capacity to engage in intelligent communication.

Best answer:

Answer by Beast
Horse shit

Give your answer to this question below!