Discuss Bible changes...

[talib-al-kalim]

There are in fact many aspects that influence a translation.
1. Variants between sources and choice of the reference source.
2. Choice of the target style (literal vs. easy-to-read), and relevance attributed to the lyrics of the original, important in many texts of the Tanach (Old Testament) and in the Quran.
3. In particular for the Gospel accounts: Translate directly from Greek or consider how it may have said originallly in Hebrew/Aramaic.
4. Inclinations of the author(s)

1. You find information on variances between sources in critical editions, e.g. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament with a large comment sector that mentions all this.
A critical translation such as the French TOB also comes with half of the page filled with footnotes but it already leaves apart some details on variant sources, adding remarks on passages that allow for different interpretations instead.

2. Easy to read editions have to choose an interpretation more often than "literal" translations. Some translations go to an extreme, like Martin Buber's translation of the Tanach into German, where he tries to find 1:1 correspondence of vocabulary and keep the poetic structure, but it is really hard to understand it even if you are an educated German speaker. In contrast, if you want to just read a book at first glance, you may prefer e.g. the New Living Translation in English and it reads well and it's not really wrong. But if you want to get deeper into it, and you are not able to read the original language, you may go to Bible hub and read all translations verse by verse.

3. Most translations merely translate from the Greek sources of the NT. There is also a translation from the Aramaic Peshitta and one (called "The Jewish New Testament*) that tries to go back to the Hebrew and Jewish background (there's an other project in this sense still not realised).

4. Yes, everyone comes with his or her understanding. A translation is never 100% neutral. But some, (I think of the Sahih International Quran translation at first, but there are also such Bible translations) really aim for a particular interpretation of the text.

 

[EricPH]

I believe the Bibles I read today, are the Bibles God intends me to read. The NIV and the Catholic NRSV versions.

I take the first sentence in the Bible to be an absolute truth, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. The rest of the Bible is a life time journey trying to understand meaning, to search for hope and to be encouraged and inspired. All the law of God and all the messages of the prophets hang and depend on the greatest commandments, so I try and test everything to see how it could hang on the greatest commandments.

If the KJV is your book, then that is the Bible God intends you to read.
My 2c.

 

[OupaPiet]

nd because of the context of the whole chapter?

(Where does it say 'boyfriend and girlfriend'? What if they're at home and not outside?)

A man takes a girl and they have sex.
She does not scream for help.
Easy, they liked each other.
Violah!
Boyfriend and Girlfriend.

 

[OupaPiet]

Because both the Hebrew and the Greek imply force was used on his part?

And because of the context of the whole chapter?

(Where does it say 'boyfriend and girlfriend'? What if they're at home and not outside?)


I think the KJV followed the other bible translations ... the translators used pre-translated versions (even Calvinist and Catholic) in making their decisions.

And Tyndale's translation.

 

[OupaPiet]

There are in fact many aspects that influence a translation.
1. Variants between sources and choice of the reference source.
2. Choice of the target style (literal vs. easy-to-read), and relevance attributed to the lyrics of the original, important in many texts of the Tanach (Old Testament) and in the Quran.
3. In particular for the Gospel accounts: Translate directly from Greek or consider how it may have said originallly in Hebrew/Aramaic.
4. Inclinations of the author(s)

1. You find information on variances between sources in critical editions, e.g. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament with a large comment sector that mentions all this.
A critical translation such as the French TOB also comes with half of the page filled with footnotes but it already leaves apart some details on variant sources, adding remarks on passages that allow for different interpretations instead.

2. Easy to read editions have to choose an interpretation more often than "literal" translations. Some translations go to an extreme, like Martin Buber's translation of the Tanach into German, where he tries to find 1:1 correspondence of vocabulary and keep the poetic structure, but it is really hard to understand it even if you are an educated German speaker. In contrast, if you want to just read a book at first glance, you may prefer e.g. the New Living Translation in English and it reads well and it's not really wrong. But if you want to get deeper into it, and you are not able to read the original language, you may go to Bible hub and read all translations verse by verse.

3. Most translations merely translate from the Greek sources of the NT. There is also a translation from the Aramaic Peshitta and one (called "The Jewish New Testament*) that tries to go back to the Hebrew and Jewish background (there's an other project in this sense still not realised).

4. Yes, everyone comes with his or her understanding. A translation is never 100% neutral. But some, (I think of the Sahih International Quran translation at first, but there are also such Bible translations) really aim for a particular interpretation of the text.

In Islam you also find, just as with the Bible, different versions of the Quran.
For instance the one Muslims knows well is the Hafs, which was standardized only in 1924.
There is the Warsh, Qualoon, Al douri, which has numerous differences than the Hafs.
Even between these 4 readings, there are thousands of differences, and some are very detrimental in meaning.

Does that pose a problem to me?
Not at all, I am the first person to say that obviously due to transmission and the poor technology over the past 1400 years, one will expect such variants, and it is easy to correct with the understanding of the context of the meaning.
Does it pose a problem to Muslims?
Yes due to their belief that Allah protected His Quran, and they will claim the Quran to be a miracle and unchanged.

 

[Thomas]

A man takes a girl and they have sex.
She does not scream for help.
Easy, they liked each other.
Violah!
Boyfriend and Girlfriend.

OK – there's a lot of assumption going on there ... the scholarly discussions in the verse do rather point to your interpretation, and I agree that the NIV's use of 'rape' is dubious, maybe because the Septuagint uses the same Greek verb in both cases (v25 & v28)?

One could argue that they weren't boyfriend and girlfriend, it was just casual sex, and they got caught out! Or, that what started as one thing ended up something else, as most of the effort is from the male side – he seizes her, not she him, nor they each other – who knows?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Nope, there are only 2 versions of the Bible.
The KJV and the rest.
The reason is that there are 2 main manuscripts of the New Testament.
Without going into much detail, the Byzantium and Alexandrian texts.

All bibles before 1860 used the Texus Receptus, or the Byzantium text.
The reason is that throughout the ages since the first century, the Christians copied the manuscripts by hand which they had used to the end of its life.
These copies in transmission ended up as the Texus Receptus, or the "texts we received".
This was the manuscripts Erasmus used.
This was what Tyndale, and the first bible translators used.
This is where the King James came from.

Then there were other manuscripts discovered by Tishendorff in the 1860's such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
They are the Alexandrian family.
they are very bad manuscripts and tainted with Areanism denying the divinity of God.
Tishendorff managed to propagate these manuscripts as the discovery of the century, and declared it the oldest and most correct manuscripts of the Bible. Excellent, and Oldest, and Best and all the other lies....
However, careful textual investigation shows it to be very poor copies, with lots of verses and chapters missing and changed.
However, The moneymakers of the world could not wait to publish their Bible versions. The published manuscripts of Wescot and Hort, as well as Nestle Alland, was used to create the New International version, ESV, New KJV, and all the other bibles which contains copyrights to make money.
The only Bible without copyrights is the KJV. You might see the commentaries under copyright.

Therefore, if you want to talk about Bible versions, know there are only 2 versions from its manuscripts.

The KJV and the other false versions.

To say there are many versions of the Bible is not true at all. Just these 2.
There are many translations which thesemoneymakers like to call versions.

This would imply that all versions of the bible in any language except for English is in error.
Unless there is a similar single "correct" version in other languages (French, German, Russian etc)

 

[Faithfulservant]

The thing I find most beautiful about the bible is that you can literally tear sheets out of it and the message doesn't change. All these questions of which versions are the most accurate or which ones have changed this or that .. I personally think it's just an excuse to not read it.

 

[Thomas]

I don't think any version is unquestionable, and the broad debate among scholars as to the interpretation of texts is clear evidence that there are and always will be two things at play:
1: The translation,
2: The meaning we derive from the reading of the translation.

Any translation is an art, and the translators make the best of their own skills and the materials they have. Erasmus was working on a limited set of texts (many copies were simply unavailable to him) and also against the clock (another version was forthcoming from elsewhere).

The most modern translations are clearly not always the best, and the idea of translating the Bible into 'accessible (pick-your-language)' often rides roughshod over the nuances of the text ... every translation will tell you something about the translator.

What we do know is that the KJV is an 'enhanced' version of the primitive texts, so clearly as Bibles were copied, notes were added to aid clarity and that of course allows for all manner of diversion ...

The Johannine Comma, for example (1 John 5:7-8) is debated back and forth ... Erasmus was going to leave it out, clearly being a later addition of a footnote actually into the text, but being accused of some form of Arianism, he was obliged to insert it.

So I'd say the KJV is certainly not flawless, nor without error, but it is entirely sufficient to the task, and an exemplary effort at that, better than some later efforts. The English is a bit jaded now, but its none the worse for that.

It's just that times have moved on, and our understanding of texts is better today than it was then.

I'm about to embark on a reading of Hart's translation of the New Testament, which has set the cat among the pigeons, as it were, but his point is that one can take comfort from the Bible, but not too much! If it doesn't challenge us, then we're not paying sufficient attention...

 

[talib-al-kalim]

In Islam you also find, just as with the Bible, different versions of the Quran.
For instance the one Muslims knows well is the Hafs, which was standardized only in 1924.
There is the Warsh, Qualoon, Al douri, which has numerous differences than the Hafs.
Even between these 4 readings, there are thousands of differences, and some are very detrimental in meaning.

What you are referring to are the Qirat, differenes in pronunciation, melodic and rhythmic traditions for reciting the Quran. There are no differences in meaning, all Qirat are fine (there are 7 traditional Qirat in total).
There have been much larger differences in the beginning because Muhammad had it recited in different Arabic dialects. Uthman decided to give preference to the Qairish dialect the prophet spoke himself when he had the Quran written down.

Does that pose a problem to me?
Not at all, I am the first person to say that obviously due to transmission and the poor technology over the past 1400 years, one will expect such variants, and it is easy to correct with the understanding of the context of the meaning.
Does it pose a problem to Muslims?
Yes due to their belief that Allah protected His Quran, and they will claim the Quran to be a miracle and unchanged.

I'm quite surprised that there's very little difference between historical and present Quran editions, knowing that the original script without consonant dots left space for many ambiguities, but the addition of those dots and even later the additional vowel marks are not reported to have caused larger dispute although Muslim fractions have divided and fought against eachother in those times.
God doesn't preserve the scripture through direct intervention, but through the faithfulness of those who are in charge of it.

 

[moralorel]

I'll stay on subject here.

I notice 2 types of translations of the Bible, literal and revised. The difference? Some translations are trying to translate each word even if the expression or idiom doesn't make sense today. A revised version tries to update the language, such as the famous NIV and RSV.

So let's take a common idiom in English as an example, pulling someone's leg.
If a book translated "John was pulling Mark's leg" into Chinese, the words would make sense but the expression most likely wouldn't make sense. The Chinese reader would visualize John pulling on Mark's leg.

A revised edition would translate the sentence to "John was lying to Mark". It updates the idioms.

A big issue at hand here is also the translations from one language to another. Hebrew and Greek are such beautiful languages that are complex and don't translate well into English at times. I'm bilingual and found that verses made more sense when translated into Spanish than they did being translated into English. Spanish has more depth to its words than English does.

It's the same with non-biblical books as well. The Divine Comedy is one of my favorite books. But if you read it in English and have no Catholic background, the book loses so much in translation. I find the book to take on more meaning when read in Spanish. And if I knew Italian, I'm sure the book would be even more beautiful to read.

I don't have a specific translation I care to read. Today we can look online for any version and even see the original Hebrew, Greek, etc. of the writing and research the possible meanings and the context of the words and verses. So I just do that.

 

[juantoo3]

This would imply that all versions of the bible in any language except for English is in error.
Unless there is a similar single "correct" version in other languages (French, German, Russian etc)

If this were the yardstick to measure by, surely the Aramaic Bible / Peshitta (and to also note @Thomas) within the social context would be the only translation without error. Not only within the words, but within the social fabric.

This is why I lean to the Interlinear complimented by history. The Companion Bible, translated from the Masoretic Texts by E. W. Bullinger, is another I favor.

The KJV is fine as long as one allows for the limitations. The 1611 Edition has a note from the editors to the King, and another to the people. They note the difficulties they had in translating. The committee was about half and half Puritan and CoE, and since the King authorized it at Puritan request, CoE was put in charge of everything. See "The Men Behind the King James Version" by Gustavus Paine.

One comma in Isaiah 9:6 has enjoyed especial fame: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” As we read that, we can hear the music of Handel’s Messiah. It is splendid verse in groups of balanced words. But the comma does not belong between “Wonderful” and “Counselor”

emphasis mine, -jt3

Gustavus S. Paine: The Men Behind The King James Version: Chapter 12: The Final Touches

Notes regarding the KJV: originally it contained several apocryphal books, such as Bel and the Dragon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sirach, Song of Susanna and others. These were later omitted for only economic reasons, not ecclesiastical ones.

The italicized words, which today I hear emphasized (in accord with modern linguistic practice) are not in the text, the authors state emphatically those words were inserted by them to read better in Shakespearean English, itself a challenge to readers of modern English. In other words...skip over the italicized words in the KJV, those words are NOT in the original texts.

Some other points of grammar in the King James Bible require us simply to forbear in adverse judgment. Elizabethan grammar has a charm of its own, even when a wrong pronoun gives a comic effect; in I Kings 13:27, the 1611 Bible says, “And he spake unto his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him.” The “him” is in italics to indicate that it is not in the original Hebrew, so there can be no argument when subsequent versions change “him” to “it.”

ibid