Prepared Society Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What value of reliability do you place on your chosen translated Christian Bible as it comes to your worship and faith?

Does the Septuagint play any role in your faith?
Do you know what the Septuagint is?
Where does your chosen Christian Bible take it's translation from?

I'm looking for incite/opinions into the Septuagint and Christian Bible translations. I'm approaching this in disagreement to the King James translation, even if it includes the original one with the Apochrypha.
 

·
Preparing for the End Times
Joined
·
334 Posts
This, my friend, is touchy ground for many people so please try to avoid letting any disagreements get personal. There are quite a few Christians who believe the KJV is the ONLY usable English translation, as you know, so I just hope this stays friendly.

As for me, I use a NKJV for my daily readings, mainly because I love the poetic nature of that translation and it drops the old English tongue that we do not speak today. For more in depth study, many times I will consult other Bibles I also own. NASB and ESV are considered the most exact literal (word for word)translations of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, while other versions such as the NIV give a thought by thought translation in modern English that can at times prove useful when engaging youth and teenagers.

The Septuagint was commissioned in the second century BC, and effectively served its purpose for its time, but many of the modern translations do not rely solely upon that for the Old Testament translation to English. I also have a computer program (PC Study Bible Version 5) that has more sources than I could ever use, even if I was a full time pastor, which I am not. That program includes the Septuagint which I might read someday if I ever learn to read Greek.

The bottom line for me is that every Christian should use the version that they feel serves them the best. As I said, I love the poetic nature of the NKJV and fully understand its shortfalls in that it is not the most accurate word for word translation of God's word. My wife uses the NASB. My daughter uses the NIV. In our church, Each of our pastors prefers a different version. God inspired them all and uses them all for His purpose. I therefore can find no complaint with any version that stays true to the actual Hebrew and Greek writings of the original authors.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks. I never heard of the Septuagint until a few years ago. I'm just now looking into the era of translation of different texts, looking for the most accurate from the earliest translations. It seems evident that the earliest translations would be the most accurate "Word of God". The KJV being a 17th century translation? Sixteen hundred something? So, yes northstarprepper, thank you for suggesting that any discussion stay on topic. And before anyone can put words in my mouth in that regard, the reason for the questions is not to diminish anyone's belief or faith. That's a personal decision. This is to educate myself on where the texts come from and determine where they all came from in a time line. It's completely understandable that each translation of a translation received a 'coloring' from some words.
Per Wiki:
The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary) and some are stored at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. The oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus). The oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic Text, which modern editions are based upon, date to the 9th century CE.[citation needed] With the exception of a few biblical sections in the Prophets, virtually no biblical text is contemporaneous with the events it describes[1]
The last sentence says that none was compiled during the events described in texts/translations by original witnesses, except some text of prophets. So we're all willingly basing our belief on faith. :)

That's in full understanding that word definitions have evolved over time and even within specific dialects of the same language at the same time period. I'm also seeing some signs that some words were intentionally translated in alternative meanings to suit the dialect of the audience.

If I'm understanding correctly, most Bible translations are derived from the Masoretic scholar's translations. The Masoretic translations of the 7th through 10th centuries(?) have the hindsight of the Christian era to which the writers directed the translations. Some say parts are earlier. The period of the 1st through 3rd centuries AD had dramatic religious turmoil along with the appearance of The Christ and then the Christian sect breaking away--understandably inspiring council on what ancient text meant in their now 'modern' era. It's my understanding that the King James is a translation from the Masoretic texts of Judaism and not from the earlier texts that the Septuagint was translated from into Greek. I may be misreading or mislead by the reading, but if this is true and the Masoretic texts are compiled and redacted after The Christ, wouldn't that tend to beg the question of what might have changed?

Also, I'm reading that the ancient spoken Hebrew was lost centuries before the Masoretic translations and that they instituted their own punctuation and annunciation to recreate written texts into spoken. The old Hebrew could be written but nobody knew how to speak it. So the additions of vowels and the actual spoken words are just supposition (SWAGs). Discovering lost texts in the old 2nd Temple site and in the caves/tunnels of the West Bank and Dead Sea Scrolls it appears there was disagreement even in the texts of the day that they were originally studied and taught within the original region. Each major compilation (including the Septuagint) was similar to the Ecumenical movement where Constantine decided there would only be ONE officially allowed form of Christianity. We know texts/sects were cast out and persecuted/erased. That had to have happened each time texts were regathered, even while the spoken Old Hebrew language was lost.

Scripture states that the Word of God shall have nothing added to it Deu 4:2.

If the Septuagint is well earlier than the Masoretic, I'm inclined to look toward it for study. And it shouldn't be that different if everything held fairly true. Of course the Greeks would want me to believe they have the truer facts.
 

·
There is a place in Hell for me...the THRONE.
Joined
·
8,927 Posts
I like mine, it's put out as a set by my (LDS) church.
My dad still uses the set the LDS missionaries gave him 20 years ago. He never converted but he enjoyed his studies with the missionaries and they are the reason he accepted Christ after being a non-practicing catholic his entire life.

I love talking to the MOBs (missionaries on bikes) when they come by. I always offer them a bottle of water before they leave.
 

·
I invented the internet. :rofl:
Joined
·
3,698 Posts
For accuracy I go with the ASV, NASV, NKJV, and the God's Word version. The God's Word version is easiest to read. The ASV the most wooden to read. Every translation must balance readability with accuracy to the original meaning. The NIV is easy to read but is almost a paraphrase in places instead of a translation. (I would still recommend it though.) Every translator must seek balance between a literal translation which is very difficult to read due to sentence structure, etc. and a paraphrase which is easy to read but laced with a lot of "this is what we believe the original meaning of this passage was."

Just because a manuscript is oldest doesn't necessarily mean it's the most accurate text. Age often has as much to do with climate (arid climates preserve paper/leather/etc. better than humid climates) and politics (vendettas to stomp out the Word).

The most flagrant variations in translation are not from the sources used but from the individual views of the translators.

Transliterations are often used for contentious issues so that people can assign the meaning that they want to assign. For example: "baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek, "baptiso." Rather than ignite arguments whether baptism means "immerse" or "sprinkle" (both common forms of baptism with doctrinal differences), the word was transliterated as "baptism." That way individuals with different views of baptism would not reject the finished Bible translation. Other troublesome transliterations include "deaconos" (deacon = servant), "angelos" (angel, meaning messenger), and "apastolos" (apostle = one who is sent on a mission, AKA a missionary), among others. (Or maybe the issues are contentious because of the transliterations!)

Don't believe that controversy will end just because one translation is more "accurate" than another. The Jews still had three major sects all reading the same manuscripts.

I've seen very few arguments that were a result of the translation of the Bible. Even with the "sects" I could prove my (differing) point-of-view using their translations.

The failures of Christians are not due to their Bible but due to free will and the fallen human spirit.

I always get nervous when people start talking about subjects like this. The most spiritually "in tune with God" people I know do not consider this subject as important as developing a relationship with our Creator.

None of the currently popular (ASV, NASV, NKJV, KJV, NIV, GW, or even The Living Bible) versions will lead a person away from a solid relationship with God even with their shortfalls in translation. It isn't about knowledge or being "right." The Pharisees had that down to an art form and look what kind of rating that got them. It's about a relationship with God.

Incidentally, I never recommend the KJV. Language has changed too much since it was written. Modern versions are just easier to understand and read.
 

·
Preparing for the End Times
Joined
·
334 Posts
As you look further into the origins of the KJV, you may find that because King James sought to break away from the Catholic Church and eventually form the Church of England, the translation of the Bible into English may have in fact been done from the Latin Vulgate which was used by the Catholic Church and their priests. The Latin Bible was the most used in Europe during that period. The Catholic Church was still powerful in Europe during that time and wielded a lot of political power as well. There may well be some book written about how this all occurred.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
687 Posts
ESV, HCSB and NET are my favourites. I preach from ESV. KJV was a decent Bible in it';s day although (IMHO not as good as the Geneva Bible ... sorry KJV only folks, I don't want to fight with you, I know we disagree). NIV pre-2011 is okay, after 2011 the gender neutral thing really distorted the text. I have about 20 translations (including the LXX) that I consult, but like anyone else I do have my favourites.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
687 Posts
Credo House Ministries haas an excellent albeit long video series done with lectures by Doctor Dan Wallace (the pre-eminent textual critic in the world today) if you want to look at technical differences. The quality of the videotaping is a little sketchy and it takes some work to sit through because of the length but it will give you a great introductory education to the subject matter.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Credo House Ministries or any of their affiliates in any way shape or form. I have never met Dan Wallace in person.I am simply expressing my personal opinion on the subject matter
 

·
Supporting Member
Joined
·
3,243 Posts
It's easy to get bogged down in the different translations, it's hard to actually be the hands & feet of Jesus & do His work. I've spent no time researching versions of the Bible, none, & short of a direct command from God, I won't ever. I'll spend my time reading my KJV & NKJV & attempting to live the life I'm supposed to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,753 Posts
When it comes to biblical translation, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. one is best served by allowing the Holy Spirit to guide them, not the thoughts and opinions of man (or the world at large). I explored several bibles and found none of them suit all my needs perfectly. In fact when I am practicing biblical study or meditation I will read several translations and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me in the truth. Leaning on one's own understanding (which is impossible) is why non-believers feel they can so easily pervert and distort the Word. They simply don't understand what is before them. As a believer in the pure Gospel of Christ Jesus, without religiosity, the bible only provides me with two things: the shadow of Christ and the substance of Christ. No matter which translation I read the message is the same; believe in the One who He has sent and receive the blessings provided as a gift from God in the current covenant in which we live.
 

·
There is a place in Hell for me...the THRONE.
Joined
·
8,927 Posts
When it comes to biblical translation, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. one is best served by allowing the Holy Spirit to guide them, not the thoughts and opinions of man (or the world at large). I explored several bibles and found none of them suit all my needs perfectly. In fact when I am practicing biblical study or meditation I will read several translations and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me in the truth. Leaning on one's own understanding (which is impossible) is why non-believers feel they can so easily pervert and distort the Word. They simply don't understand what is before them. As a believer in the pure Gospel of Christ Jesus, without religiosity, the bible only provides me with two things: the shadow of Christ and the substance of Christ. No matter which translation I read the message is the same; believe in the One who He has sent and receive the blessings provided as a gift from God in the current covenant in which we live.
My dad did the same thing after he accepted Christ. He read every translation he could find and he settled on the one that works best for him. He does use a NKJV when reading the Bible to his Calvary study group. BSF allows you to read whatever translation you prefer so he uses his favorite for that. K likes the NKJV as that is what our church reads and I prefer the KJV I got back in '96. We have an NIV in the house and a few others from my confirmation days.

It truly is a personal thing and the Spirit does guide those that ask for guidance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,753 Posts
By the way my "bible" is a series of apps (including Bible Gateway) on a dedicated iPad mini covering approx. 100 translations / versions. The apps are searchable, comparable, provide added context, can be read or presented via audio, show maps and landmarks, allow for definitions of Greek and Hebrew terms, grammar, symbolism, etc., etc. My printed bibles include the HCSB, NIV, NLT, ESV & ASV. A list I add to when I come across a great deal.
 

·
There is a place in Hell for me...the THRONE.
Joined
·
8,927 Posts
By the way my "bible" is a series of apps (including Bible Gateway) on a dedicated iPad mini covering approx. 100 translations / versions. The apps are searchable, comparable, provide added context, can be read or presented via audio, show maps and landmarks, allow for definitions of Greek and Hebrew terms, grammar, symbolism, etc., etc. My printed bibles include the HCSB, NIV, NLT, ESV & ASV. A list I add to when I come across a great deal.
I prefer a leather bound soft cover Bible. Perfect for notes and cross referencing with other verses. I also prefer the Sharpie fine point pen and a dry highlighter for Bible study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,753 Posts
So did I until 1 bible turned into 4 bibles, 6+ books, 2 notebooks, etc, etc. and even then I had to turn to biblestudytools.com or other references from time to time to determine if the word "sin" was a noun or a verb in several passages, not to mention if a verb was active or passive. And I hate grammar, so the subject matter was obviously compelling! Regardless we each follow our own path and receive the word however the Spirit leads us. My wife has a single (pink leather covered) HSCB bible and a highlighter. It looks like it was thrown of an airplane on 3 different contents with three different weather patterns. My iPad mini is in a Magpul case with a glass screen protector and looks like new. ;)
 

·
Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
“What value of reliability do you place on your chosen translated Christian Bible as it comes to your worship and faith?”

NONE

Without his spirit your letter of the word boat is sunk any which way you go.:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,575 Posts
I hate the King James. It was translated 500 years ago. Word meanings have changed. The English language has changed. It's very difficult to understand. It has a lot of translation errors. Like translating "wild ox" as "unicorn". I think there are few things worse you can do for a new believer than give them a King James Bible.

I prefer the NIV. I prefer a thought for thought translation. The ESV is a word for word translation and it's not as accurate.
 

·
I invented the internet. :rofl:
Joined
·
3,698 Posts
I hate the King James. It was translated 500 years ago. Word meanings have changed. The English language has changed. It's very difficult to understand. It has a lot of translation errors. Like translating "wild ox" as "unicorn". I think there are few things worse you can do for a new believer than give them a King James Bible.

I prefer the NIV. I prefer a thought for thought translation. The ESV is a word for word translation and it's not as accurate.
I would not want a new believer or seeker to use the KJV simply because of the archaic language. However, I have no problems with anyone who wants to use the KJV to use it. I know many fine Christians who use the KJV.

There are no significant translation errors in the KJV. ("Significant meaning harmful to obtaining salvation or negatively affecting their walk with God.)

Incidentally, the Bible College I attended used the NIV for one year then went to the NASV and has stuck with it since. The NIV has a very strong translation preference for Arminian views and is antagonistic toward Calvinism. It's very close to a paraphrase like the Living Bible rather than a true translation. That being said, I learned and studied using the NIV and I've found that it is very difficult to change versions. I can sympathize with those who learned using the KJV and simply do not want to change. And when you get right down to it, why should they? The KJV has brought a lot of people to God.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
I typically read the KJV, part of my LDS scripture set, and rely on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost while reading it. Incredibly valuable to me...because of the spiritual guidance. Couldn't read the book without the guidance.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
902 Posts
My dad still uses the set the LDS missionaries gave him 20 years ago. He never converted but he enjoyed his studies with the missionaries and they are the reason he accepted Christ after being a non-practicing catholic his entire life.

I love talking to the MOBs (missionaries on bikes) when they come by. I always offer them a bottle of water before they leave.
I still use the BOM that I was given while considering conversion. My SIL gave me a great set and I love it. I have yet to write or highlight in it though. But that has more to do with what a special and emotional gift it was/is. It was the only time I had ever been given a bible and it may very well be my last.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top