22 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThat's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
It's very accurate for the scholarship of that day, this is true. It was a monumental achievement.
However, it's woefully less accurate than most of the modern translations which utilize the newly-
discovered ancient authorities. The New King James edition fails to incorporate these new texts,
which makes it the worst modern translation available.
Nemesio
But I very much disagree. I find it a very good modern translation. I find it Way better and more accurate than the NIV which most use today, besides the old King James.
Can you tell us these newly discovered ancient authorities you are referring to??
22 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KingDavid403Er. By 'newly-discovered' I mean discovered since 1611, largely in the 19th and 20th centuries.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
But I very much disagree. I find it a very good modern translation. I find it Way better and more accurate than the NIV much most use today besides the old King James.
Can you tell us these newly discovered ancient authorities you are referring to??
Nemesio
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by KingDavid403Sorry.
That doesn't answer my question. Such as??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
and most of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_papyrus
22 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI agree with some of what you are showing me here. I do NOT believe that the Protestants should have removed the books from the original bible 400 years ago, That's now know as the catholic bible.
Sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
and most of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_papyrus
These links you posted show some of those books and other Apocrypha books. I have studied the apocrypha books from the catholic bible, but I've only gone over a few others. And I found some of the others to be non sense. But not all.
I do agree that the protestant bible does have missing books and writings. But what it does have is very accurate and I still pretty much consider it the cannon of the bible. But as I said I still agree there's missing pieces. The book of Ecclesiastes being a big one to I.
A notable example of an agreement between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts is that they both omit the word εικη ('without cause', 'without reason', 'in vain'😉 from Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment".
I highly agree that this is truly how Jesus stated this scripture and that this is how Matthew wrote Matthew 5:22,
But it is also written in the old and new King James version this way.
The NIV and other new translations leave out the "without a cause" Leaving the reader to believe he's sinning even if he's just angry with his brother. Which clearly cannot be the case. Jesus got plenty angry with many. But He had a cause. This is one of the problems I stated earlier that I have with the NIV translation.
Good work Nemesio. I see you've done your homework. 🙂 That straw hides it. 😛😉🙂
Not all these are newly discovered. But I guess that's pretty much besides the point. 🙂
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by KingDavid403Actually, omitting 'without cause' is probably a more faithful reading because it shows the sort of
I agree with some of what you are showing me here. I do NOT believe that the Protestants should have removed the books from the original bible 400 years ago, That's now know as the catholic bible.
These links you posted show some of those books and other Apocrypha books. I have studied the apocrypha books from the catholic bible, but I've only go ...[text shortened]... ese are newly discovered. But I guess that's pretty much besides the point. 🙂
hyperbole that Jesus was prone to using. Adding 'without cause' softens the proscription, making
it something subject to interpretation -- I can be angry because I 'have cause.' This runs contrary
to the exaggerated things that Jesus said in other places.
And it's not only those two ancient authorities that lack it. The Latin Vulgate also lacks it, and
while a subservient authority, represents 5th-century scholarship using the best available sources
to St Jerome. But, if you don't find that compelling, two other older authorities also lack that
translation:
P67 from the late 2nd/early 3rd century lacks it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus
p86 from the late 3rd/early 4th century lacks it.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/P86.html
Generally, in textual criticism, all things being equal, early sources should be favored over later
ones, especially when there is concordance (as among these five citations). Furthermore, readings
which run contrary to the expected grain (harder to live by) are more likely to be authentic
rather than interpolations, whereas those things which soften a hard reading are more likely
to be the result of scribal editorial license.
And simply because Jesus said something literally doesn't mean that one should take it literally.
Jewish tradition was riddled with hyperbole and exaggeration, with proscriptions which are
impossible to meet literally (and, when interpreted in that fashion, yield contradictions in Jesus'
teaching). Simply because Jesus taught it in an exaggerated way doesn't mean that He would
have viewed anger in your heart as a sin. It was part of the 'hasidic hedge,' so to speak, in
which one distances oneself as far from the actual sin as possible. We see this in the way that
Orthodox Jews keep kosher (e.g., the command was to avoid boiling a kid in its mother's milk,
but, in order to avoid going anywhere near the sin, Jews will not consume meat and dairy at
the same time).
The (original) King James translation used the best sources it had available, which were late
sources, much further removed than the ones available today. As far as the editors of that
translation knew, they were utterly faithful to the original. They were wrong. The New King
James version basically pretends that Biblical scholarship since 1611 doesn't exist. It's a
shameful work which butchers the language of the 1611 edition but doesn't replace any of the
erroneous translations.
Nemesio
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioAm I right that you are implying that the editors of the (original) King James translation thought they were particularly accurate? Do you have any reason for that?
The (original) King James translation used the best sources it had available, which were late
sources, much further removed than the ones available today. As far as the editors of that
translation knew, they were utterly faithful to the original. They were wrong.
I came across a Bible from my family archives which is a King James version, but not the original. It clearly states in the introductory pages that it does not believe itself to be the final authority, and that the editors fully expect revisions to be made as more documents are discovered or better translations are made.
I think it was not until long after, when newer translations came out, that people started treating the King James version as if it held some sort of special authority. I think a lot of it was simply the fact that people have a tendency to fall in love with archaic language and resist change to a more modern language. I think the tendency of scholars to hold on to Latin was a similar phenomenon. Of course nowadays there are many people going around teaching that the King James version is the 'original' and anything else is a cheap copy.
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by PenguinSure, what points do you want to cover?
You may recall I mentioned considering stealing a bible from a hotel and was pondering the moral ramifications.
Well, I decided the ramifications would be minimal and easily waved away, so I 'alf-inched' it. I have now read Genesis up to 25-the death of Abraham and my initial thought is "Wow!".
Anyone care to discuss?
--- Penguin.
Kelly
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by Penguin"He creates day and night at least 3 days before any sources of light. He has day and night but no mechanism for generating them until day 4. "
Sorry to dissapoint you Robbie but...
He creates day and night at least 3 days before any sources of light. He has day and night but no mechanism for generating them until day 4.
1-6 implies to me that the entire universe was water before he separated water from sky. I'm not quite sure where the land was in all of this.
1-11 says he creates plants w ...[text shortened]... s any record of actual events. I think it was written by committee.
--- Penguin.
He created the light, therefore He is the mechanism for it.
Kelly
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by PenguinPick a point
Sorry to dissapoint you Robbie but...
He creates day and night at least 3 days before any sources of light. He has day and night but no mechanism for generating them until day 4.
1-6 implies to me that the entire universe was water before he separated water from sky. I'm not quite sure where the land was in all of this.
1-11 says he creates plants w ...[text shortened]... s any record of actual events. I think it was written by committee.
--- Penguin.
Kelly
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease expand on that. Are you saying God shone light on the earth during the first 3 'days' and did not during the first three 'nights' but did not use the sun to do so?
"He creates day and night at least 3 days before any sources of light. He has day and night but no mechanism for generating them until day 4. "
He created the light, therefore He is the mechanism for it.
Kelly
Or did he shine it in a continuously rotating fashion as the sun does now?
Which part of the earth is being referenced when a 'day' is talked about? Daytime in one hemisphere is night time in another.
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayso basically he made a rule one day and saw that it was good but then changed it and saw that it was good. kinda illogical don't you think? also do you mean to say that he personally shined light on all the plants before he invented the sun? and then told the plants to get their light from the sun and stop bothering him?
"He creates day and night at least 3 days before any sources of light. He has day and night but no mechanism for generating them until day 4. "
He created the light, therefore He is the mechanism for it.
Kelly
i think you hold god to be a bit stupid.
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesof course its just a theory and twhitehead is a heathen and a heretic for mentioning it. i mean it was never fully proven that the earth isn't flat and that daytime in america means night in china.
That's just a theory.
i don't get your joke.
22 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhitehead
Am I right that you are implying that the editors of the (original) King James translation thought they were particularly accurate? Do you have any reason for that?
My knowledge of the field is largely restricted to their translation of the Christian Scriptures, so
I can only comment on that, but yes. Given the inferior sources they had at their disposal, and
the state of translation studies that were just beginning to flourish in the century or so prior to the
King James translation, I'd say they did an excellent job, better than the other partial English
translations that existed (Tyndale, Wycliff). Keep in mind that faithfulness to the original was not
the necessarily the primary driving force in all translation decisions -- making the prose beautiful
and elevated was also a significant criterion.
All in all, the translation represents the best scholarship had to offer in the early 17th century
and should be afforded that level of respect in the history of translation practices.
And I do believe the editors thought they did a great job, as one can see from the title page
and prefatory material:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgement apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue...
And the following extensive Epistle to the reader on the justification for the translation and a
sense of their methodology further accounts for it. I'm not claiming that the editors thought
that they were perfect (there's always a sense of self-abasement in the prefatory remarks from
the 17th and 18th centuries, frankly), but I'm sure that they thought it was the best one available.
I think it was not until long after, when newer translations came out, that people started treating the King James version as if it held some sort of special authority.
That's true, even though, as you said, the editors acknowledged that it only represented the
best scholarship of the time, not of all time.
Nemesio