The Bible & its translations

coldie · Post by **coldie** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:06 am

[Admin note: This thread was split from the original here: <a href="http://www.dosgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5726">If you could be any character from a book, who would you be?</a> Thus coldie's post below is in response to that thread, which generated further discussion below re translations n'such.]

I would be Paul, form the KJV Bible.

Post by **emmzee** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:14 pm

I dunno, Paul had it pretty rough ... "I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches." (2 Cor 7:23-28)

But thankfully he persevered anyways (Romans 5:1-5)

Any reason for the KJV preference, other than it's "holy sounding"?

Post by **Dogbreath** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:36 pm

I think it's all of the "whither wherever thou goest"s.

And, how can you not love this passage:

2 Kings 18:27

27But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

More seriously, the KJV is by far the most poetic translation of the bible. AFAIK, nobody in modern times has bothered translating the bible keeping the original poetic format, instead going for exact conversion of the words. (Sometimes they still come out pretty good, but not uniformly)

Examples:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... &version=9;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... &version=9;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... &version=9;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse

Etc, etc., etc.

coldie · Post by **coldie** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:45 pm

i perfer the KJV because I belive all those other versions are filled up with garbage, but thats just me. I alos would be Steven from the new testament! Hes my hero!!

Check-Mate · Post by **Check-Mate** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:06 pm

Does anyone watch Jeopardy?
It's proven that "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is the most accurately translated in comparison to the original texts.
That's all I've got to say about that.

Post by **emmzee** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:03 pm

I held my tongue re the KJV and "all those other versions are filled up with garbage" remark, and so too I shall re the NWT, for the purpose of relevancy; let's try to keep this thread on topic, shall we?

Post by **wardrich** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:59 pm

Are there any copies of the very original bible? Like, how do we know that the translation itself isn't a load of bull?

Post by **emmzee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:27 pm

Since you asked ...

The discipline is generally referred to as "textual criticism"; although it's primary purpose is not to criticize the text, and it is not unique to the Bible. We do not possess the original copies (usually referred to as the "autographs") of any ancient document. (Notwithstanding something like the Declaration of Independence which doesn't really qualify as a historical document of the same type as we're discussing, nor is it considered "ancient".)

To be able to conduct textual criticism, two of the main factors are the number of extant manuscripts, and the closeness of those manuscripts to the autographs. In terms of the New Testament, there are more existing manuscripts of the various books than for any other ancient text. They are also, in comparison to all other major historical texts of the time, closer to the autographs. The oldest surviving copies are 2-3 generations away from the autographs, which is considered to be extremely close.

Actually, I was just (in the last few minutes) reading Dawkins' The God Delusion and he provides an apt example of this, although he was using it to try to explain the survival of memes, not the Bible. But the same concept Dawkins was using is applicable to textual criticism. The copies branch out from the originals like a tree and by comparing the various copies we can determine which (if any) mistakes have crept into the manuscripts. The more manuscripts, the more sure we are that we can get back to what the autographs said.

All of this background is to suggest that if we can be reasonably sure that we can accurately say what the originals of any ancient text said, we can be sure of the NT text. In terms of the translations themselves, we would evaluate the various (English) translations in much the same way we would evaluate any other translation from one language to another. Some things that come to mind include that the translators should be well versed in the source and target languages, that the names of the translators should be made public so that their credentials could be verified, that translation should be done as a large team not a single individual, the translators should be knowledgeable about the society & time period at which the source documents were written, etc. Also in terms of the manuscripts, the best available manuscripts should be used, and of course it is best to use the original languages. (ie the NT was written in Greek, so when translating into English the Greek text should be used so we have only one translation, not Greek->Latin->Whatever->English or something.) Of course the issue of aesthetics (as discussed well by DB above) also comes into play, but accuracy should be the paramount concern, next readability, next aesthetic beauty.

coldie · Post by **coldie** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:00 pm

I love how ppl just start up topics for me.. sorta odd

Check-Mate · Post by **Check-Mate** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 pm

I heart MZ.

Post by **wardrich** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:11 pm

I'd just like to post up the link to <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... >Zeitgeist, The Movie</a>. One of the best documentaries I've seen. The whole first part solidifies the fact that Christianity is just a ripoff of a bunch of past ripoff religions all based off of the early Egyptian beliefs... Then it gets into war conspiracies.

Post by **emmzee** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:58 pm

Although I don't have the energy to refute pseudo-scholarship like Zeitgeist at the moment, I'll take the time to make a few brief comments ...

First, there's no reason to suggest that, even if we found clear and numerous earlier parallels of the New Testament gospel, that the New Testament was therefore not recording history. There are <a href="http://www.whyfaith.com/the-historical- ... /">several good reasons</a> to conclude the NT authors were writing accurate history. Even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that numerous and explicit parallels exist between religious doctrines that pre-existed Christianity, that should not lead us to conclude that copying occurred. To argue that copying occurred merely because documents were written later is fallacious reasoning, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, ie the assumption of causation due merely to succession in time. Further, we shouldn't be surprised when certain parallels (ex. wise teacher, had disciples, traveled around, was martyred, etc) are found among religions because they are intrinsic to religions; they are often common to religions because of the nature of what religions entail.

Second, in order for copying to occur, the "ripoff religions" would have to have existed before the earliest Christian documents were written. ie, 50AD for the earliest of Paul's letters, or 33-35AD for the early church creed found in 1 Cor 15. The mystery religions that are compared to Christianity may have existed prior to this time, but almost without exception the supposed parallels only begin to appear after the New Testament was written. Therefore if there was any copying going on it would likely have been FROM the New Testament TO these other religions anyways.

Third, when closely examined, most of the supposed parallels are either unimportant, stretched, or even made up anyways. Kersey Graves' book "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" forms the basis of many of these parallels (apparently it's even used as a source for Zeitgeist), even though it has been dismissed by both Christian and non-Christian scholars (like Richard Carrier) as being useless for historical research. It's always somewhat tenuous to try to make definitive statements of what the "mystery religions" believed anyways since they were by nature secretive and tried to protect their beliefs from outsiders!

For more on this topic (the New Testament & "copycat" theories), see here:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/new_tes ... anism.html
Or specifically about Zeitgeist (the design is a bit confusing, the table of contents is on the right hand side):
http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zei ... tone.shtml
Or for a lot more detail, here (it's rather in-depth):
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
Or Lee Strobel's latest book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Real-Jesus-J ... 210X/">The Case for the Real Jesus</a> (I lent my copy out to a friend so I don't have it on hand at the moment).

Post by **dosraider** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:04 am

I'm not gonna add something to this discusion. *I'm belonging to the 'IF we must know someday we will know then' types ... aslong we all can get along it's all fine for me ...
Just want to say this is an entertaining and eternal discussion between believers and non-believers.
A bit as the whole 'Erich von Däniken' discussions.
Non-believers prove their points with 'A-B-C'.....
Believers counter them with 'Aa-Bb-Cc'.....

Makes humans an interesting kind.

BTW, aren't there any Jews or Muslms on the board to add something to this discussion?
Or Hindoes, Indians .... whatever?

Pancake · Post by **Pancake** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:23 pm

wardrich wrote:I'd just like to post up the link to <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... >Zeitgeist, The Movie</a>. One of the best documentaries I've seen. The whole first part solidifies the fact that Christianity is just a ripoff of a bunch of past ripoff religions all based off of the early Egyptian beliefs... Then it gets into war conspiracies.

Agreed, it's a great documentary. I used to consider myself a Christian, but now would consider myself a Pagan follower...

Post by **emmzee** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:37 pm

I won't presume to speak for Muslims ... Amro used to frequent the boards, but he only reappears briefly every few months or so ... but I will note that both Muslims and Christians would take issue with Zeitgeist. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus was a prophet, born of a virgin, performed miracles, will be coming again at the endtimes, etc. Of course it also teaches other stuff re Jesus that diverts from classical Christian teaching, but the Qur'an affirms, at least, that Jesus existed in history and did many of the things Christians claim.

Post by **emmzee** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:08 pm

Did anyone read what I wrote above? Especially re no evidence of the supposed parallels until AFTER the Christian New Testament was written even if the other religions existed pre-Christianity?

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... /yama.html

Post by **CPT Worm** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:23 pm

I like the NIV and the NASB. Sure, it's not as eloquent as the KJV, but it's much more to the point.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:54 am

NASB is the shiznit. NIV not so much, though it's certainly easier to read.

Post by **CPT Worm** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:58 pm

Dogbreath wrote:NASB is the shiznit. NIV not so much, though it's certainly easier to read.

NIV is the translation of my camouflaged New Testament. I guess it's Private-proof.

SimbatheKing · Post by **SimbatheKing** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:23 am

I actually like the NIV, although I admit that there are a few problems with it.

Everyone interested in the Bible should use this program - it enables you to compare different versions, and view the original manuscripts:

http://www.e-sword.net/