ChristiansUnite Forums

Hardly an exhaustive study of different versions,this brief summary of how various Bible translations present the first line of the 23rd Psalm is of some interest:-

"The Lord is my shepherd,I shall not want"  (King James/New American Standard Bible/English Standard Version/New King James/21st-Century King James)

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want" (New Intnl Version/New Intnl Version-UK)

"God, my shepherd! I don't need a thing" (The Message)

"The Lord is my Shepherd [to feed, guide, and shield me], I shall not lack" (Amplified Bible)

"The Lord is my shepherd;I have everything I need" (New Living Translation)

"The Lord is my Shepherd. I will have everything I need" (New Life Version)

"You, Lord, are my shepherd.I will never be in need" (Contemporary English Version)

"Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want" (American Standard Version/Darby Translation)

"Jehovah [is] my shepherd, I do not lack" (Youngs Literal Translation)

"The Lord is my shepherd; I lack for nothing"  - Revised English Bible
"Yahweh is my shepherd, I lack nothing" - New Jerusalem Bible
"The Lord is my shepherd : therefore can I lack nothing" - BCP (1662), Common Worship, APBA


And the point is?

I presume the point ebia is to show the superiority of the Authorised version.

" Ps 23:1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. "
Amen

Whatever could surpass that ?    :)

Sorry - I don't equate familiarity with quality.

Don't be sorry ebia.  It's not your fault if you can't recognize "gold."    :)

No big deal,I presented the comparisons just for interests sake,not to try to show any versions superiority.
The fact is,although the KJV's fearlessness makes it my favourite,I do also look at other versions now and again just to get an interesting new angle on a particular verse or passage:)

The Word of God is gold, but when fallible man gets involved translations can prone to error.

Question: Do you know who said these quotes?

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:"

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

The answer: the KJV translators.  They recognized that their translation was not perfect nor should it be used to the exclsuion of all else.

A little history of the how the KJV came into existance should show you just how prone to error it could be, since it is not even based on the original language documents as so many claim.

Erasmus laid the foundation of the Textus Receptus (TR) through 4 editions and he used about 6 (or so) different manuscripts...including the Vulgate (this was for the last part of Revelation and some other sporatic uses...but not whole books).

Erasmus started what would be the TR and he died in 1535 after publishing the 4th edition. Robert Estienne used these as the basis of his last two editions and Beza used these as the foundation for his translation. Then (finally) in 1604...the 47 biblical scholar sat down and started the translation ...based on 4 massorec texts for the OT and Stephanus'(Estienne) 3rd Edition for the NT. Elzevir's text is really called the Received Text, but they are so much alike that either one can be called the RT/TR.

So...although the KJV was not translated from the "TR"...it was (in way) because the latter text differs only slightly from the 3rd Byzantine edition of Estienne.

Just checked on his use of the Vulgate and it was only in the last 6 verses of Revelation.  What happened was he only had one manuscript in which to translate Revelation from...so he translated the passage from the Vulgate...which was pretty silly (and he took a lot of criticism)...but he did a real good job.

The only real explanation is that Erasmus used about 6 different texts and that on occasion...he followed the flow of the Latin...and he incorporated the Latin into his texts (like Acts 8/9). When Stephanus build upon his work... he kept it (and likewise Beza and the Elzevir brothers). Of course... a lot of the translations from the Latin that are included are not listed in the majority texts...but then you get into the infinite argument of "which is right...the TR or the majority"...and that could go on forever. However...the gospel really does not change b/w these texts and no doctrine is undermined because of a better translation of the same word...or another word all together.

The following is a timeline of man’s development of the TR.

Erasmus editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535

Robert Estienne editions: 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551; Estiennes's 1550 edition was a compilation of Erasmsus's 1527 and 1535 (mostly) editions.

Beza published 9 editions and he used a lot of different manuscripts, along with the Latin Vulgate (hence your previous question)

The Elzevir Bros had 3 (I think) with the 1633 edition coining the phrase TR.

Then the KJV translators took Estiennes's 1550 and 1551 editions, along with Beza's 1598 edition...and translate the KJV.

In conclusion it goes like this - Erasmus' 1527&1535 > Estienne's 1550&1551 > Beza's 1598 > The KJV ...then the Elzevir Brothers 1633 edition (a basic copy of the 1550 edition of Esteinne) is coined as the TR.

On top ofthis there are many well known errors in the Authorized Version, such as Jesus and the Disciples plucking ears of corn, when corn wasn't brought from the Americas for another 1500 years.  Another error is the doxology at the end of the Our Father which modern scholars all agree with the position the Catholic Church has always held that it was added by some scribe along the way.

No the KJV is not an inspired translation, it did not fall from heaven fully bound and with gold edged pages - it is just another translation, useful with all the others but not necessarily superior.

We are actually lucky to be living in a day and age when there are many translations and reference tools with which to study the scriptures even in their original languages.  It is a blessing to have other translations not a curse.

Well I did say it to get a reaction michael_legna and you kindly obliged.  I was the same as you when I was a young Christian [ah! those were the days] but now when I have learned more sense I realize my error.  :)  I could quote sites that say that all modern translations are the work of the devil and they are prepared to advance arguments to that effect; but in my opinion that is a little extreme.  However the Authorised version is the one that sticks in peoples' minds and that is why I use it.  In an age when there has never been such a preponderance of bibles there has never been such a gross misinterpretation of scripture.

God Bless

If it was good enough for St Paul—it's good enough for me.  Just in case you are tempted to rise to the bait again—that was an old joke.   LOL

   Alice folded her hands, and began: --


              1    "You are old, father William," the young man said,
              2    "And your hair has become very white;
              3    And yet you incessantly stand on your head --
              4    Do you think, at your age, it is right?"


              5    "In my youth," father William replied to his son,
              6    "I feared it would injure the brain;
              7    But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
              8    Why, I do it again and again."


              9   "You are old," said the youth, "as I mentioned before,
            10    And have grown most uncommonly fat;
            11    Yet you turned a back-somersault in at the door --
            12    Pray, what is the reason of that?"


            13    "In my youth," said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
            14    "I kept all my limbs very supple
            15    By the use of this ointment -- one shilling the box --
            16    Allow me to sell you a couple."


            17    "You are old," said the youth, "and your jaws are too weak
            18    For anything tougher than suet;
            19    Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak --
            20    Pray, how did you manage to do it?"


            21    "In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
            22    And argued each case with my wife;
            23    And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
            24    Has lasted the rest of my life."


            25    "You are old," said the youth; one would hardly suppose
            26    That your eye was as steady as ever;
            27    Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose --
            28    What made you so awfully clever?"


            29    "I have answered three questions, and that is enough,"
            30    Said his father; "don't give yourself airs!
            31    Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
            32    Be off, or I'll kick you down stairs!"

You need to get out more and clear out some of those ethnocentric beliefs of yours.   :D  The AV only sticks in the minds of about 10 percent of Christendom.  That is because only about 30 percent of Christians speak English and of those the vast majority are Catholic and they don't use the AV regularly.  I use it because I spend alot of time in apologetics and it is not so wrong as to blur most points I want to make (other than it missing whole books of the Bible that is  ;)).  Of course the original AV included the Deuterocanonical books so at least it started out right. :)


This has less to do with the errors in the translations than it has to do with the errors of individuals thinking they, and not the Church, can interpret scripture for themselves.

P.S. I loved the poem, I think I remember it from the ChildCraft books we had as kids.  I can even picture a drawing of the old man with the eel on his nose.

well michael_legna our church says this about the apocrypha  " And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." [Article vi of the 39 articles of faith].

I understand some Churches take that position, but the early Church accepted them as scripture.  We know this because the Septuigant was the OT Bible used by the both the Israelites of the time until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD when they stopped using it.  It is interesting to note that this is the same council where they placed an anathema on the Christian cult.  The Deuterocanonicals are reference or quoted from over 100 times in the New Testament.  All of Christendom continued to use them until the 1500's. So I guess I will continue to use them as part of my Bible.

Feel free michael_legna
Septuagint  [Lat.,=70], oldest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made by Hellenistic Jews, possibly from Alexandria, c.250 B.C. Legend, according to the fictional letter of Aristeas, records that it was done in 72 days by 72 translators for Ptolemy Philadelphus, which accounts for the name. The Greek form was later improved and altered to include the books of the Apocrypha and some of the pseudepigrapha. It was the version used by Hellenistic Jews and the Greek-speaking Christians, including St. Paul; it is still used in the Greek Church. The Septuagint is of importance to critics because it is translated from texts now lost. No copy of the original translation exists; textual difficulties abound. The symbol for the Septuagint is LXX.

Textual difficulties only abound for those who don't have a proper interpretation of the rest of scripture.  That is why the Protestants had to throw it out of the Bible - they couldn't make it fit their interpretations.  Up until that time the Church, including St. Paul among others, had no trouble getting consistent interpretations from all of the books of the Bible.

“God be the Herder!  I don’t need nuthin’.” – Oakland Ebonics Version

I guess my point is – I think versions do, in fact, make a difference.  Although I believe we should always seek correct interpretation from our pastors or teachers according to our individual churches, I think interpreting from the same text would act to bring many of us closer.  We use NKJV at my church but my home study Bible is KJV.

That’s just my opinion in all its worthlessness.  :)

Tell me michael_legna, are you a Roman Catholic ?

Yes.

May I ask you what your denomination is?

Good posts otherwise, Michael, but I've got to pick you up on this one - it's not an error in translation, but a problem of Americans reading an English translation.   The English use the word "corn" to describe any cereal crop (wheat, barley, oats, etc).  What the Americans call corn, the English call maize.   Only very recently has English usage started to change towards the American usage.

I have thought so for a while now but I don't hold it against you.   :)
It explains your aversion to the AV.  It's that "awful" Epistle Dedicatory in the front.  I am sure that if that had not been included, the RC Church would have taken the AV as its own.  As it was, they were forced to reject it.  It also explains your attitude to scripture interpretation.  I have seen really clever men deterred for interpreting the word because they have been taught by their church that only the priest can interpret the word.  I used to listen to "Eternal Word Television Network" [EWTN] radio and some of the scripture interpretations on there [to justify their dogma], defied belief.

Extract from the Epistle Dedicatory :
"that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil"

Popish persons could hardly embrace that.  I was baptized into The Church of England but foremost, I am a Christian.

Given that this was written at a time when both sides of the reformation argument were doing appalling things to each other in the name of God, its best forgotten by both sides.

And you take the 39 articles seriously as something more than an historical document?

Yes I do ebia.  The 39 articles contain valuable truths both for the time they were written and for eternity.  They reveal many of the false interpretations of the RC Church [and others] at the time they were written.  Unfortunately, many still remain to be corrected.  Many people would agree that the church has got itself into a fine mess but the written fundamentals have never been repealed.

Anybody interested to know what the articles say can find them at http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

I don't know who tried to pass this approach off to you but it doesn't make sense.  The Greek word is stachus (Strongs 4719) which is translated a head of grain.  The Douay Rheims which was translated prior to the KJV but in the same era refers to plucking the ears but doesn't add corn to the translation.  I think the KJV just got it wrong.  If they had just ears or just the corn of the grain they might be able to pass this off as a colloquial but not when they have "ear of corn" together, especially when another translation (such as the Rheims) which was relied on heavily by the translators, got it right ahead of them.

Besides this was just an example, we both know there are many errors of translation in the KJV.  That is not to disuade anyone from using it, all translations are the efforts of men so are bound to contain errors, we just have to be ready to recognize that fact.

If the Word is written in your heart, you will recognize it as true.
Surely someone has said that before me.  ???

If not - please give the credit to God.

I sometimes wonder if you guys give your wife a psychology test before kissing her good night.  LOL

Seriously, I grew up on an English arable farm, and it would never have occured to me that an ear of corn was refering to maize rather than the ear (head, whatever you want to call it) of wheat or barley.  It's not a colloquialism, it's a full scale difference in language between UK English and American English.

I'm not disputing the fact that there are plenty of errors in the A.V., but this isn't one of them - it simply isn't an error in British English.

2.   All the world is God's own field,
   fruit as praise to God we yield;
   wheat and tares together sown
   are to joy or sorrow grown;
   first the blade and then the ear,
   then the full corn shall appear;
   Lord of harvest, grant that we
   wholesome grain and pure may be.

Click here for the music and words (http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/comeyethankful.html)

Corn, in botany. The name corn is given to the leading cereal crop of any major region. In England corn means wheat; in Scotland and Ireland, oats. The grain called corn in the United States is Indian corn or maize (Zea mays). The part of the United States where most of the corn is grown, including Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, is known as the Corn Belt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
 
Click here for the words and music (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/ohwhata.htm)

What??!!  You don't???  :P

How romantic JudgeNot.     LOL

I will take your word for it, but I can't imagine going into an English market and asking to buy and ear of corn and being sold wheat or barley.  Still the English language is a stange beast so I guess it is possible.  :)

Or mistake "fool's gold" for the real thing.

You wouldn't - it would only refer to the thing while it's still on the stalk, which you're pretty unlikely to find in a market, but is dead common in a field.

Mind you, it just shows how careful you've got to be taking a translation across the Atlantic, let alone trying to read one 500 years old.

Anybody worried about the archaic words of the KJV only need to consult http://www.patriotist.com/kjv-glos.htm.

There are only a "handful."

It doesn't look very impressive at a quick glance:

1.  It doesn't included phrases, only single words.
2.  It seems to be missing important words that are still in use but have significantly changed in meaning, such as "charity".  This is the important one - if you don't recognise a word, you can go and look it up.  The real problem words are the one's people think they know, but which actually now mean something significantly different to when the A.V. was written.
3.  Despite being an apparently American site, I don't see mention of "corn" or other words that differ between Britain & America.

It looks far more like a list designed to "prove" that there aren't many problem words, than one designed to actually be helpful.

Well if you look carefully ebia you will find a way of submitting extra words.  Now is your chance to benefit mankind with your vast experience instead of being spoon-fed all the time.

LOL

You post a recommendation to a website, I point out that it's a heap of rubbish, and you want me to put it right for you?  ::)

Well if you want to be rude about my posts - go ahead you will get plenty of change but don't complain afterwards.

Lance:

You're absolutely right. There are only a "handful" of archaisms in the KJV.  This Bible has been used by semi-illilterate as well as learned for hundreds of years and has brought millions to Christ. The Holy Spirit was certainly in control of the translators in that they used extreme care to be "painfully" faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek.  This is "Biblical English" if you will, and yet even unsaved scholars and specialists in English literature acknowledge the Bible as one of the classics of the English language, if not the mould in which the language wsas formed.

I thank God for sanity Sower.   :)

Whatever the translation, it tells us that if God be for us who can be against us.
And:
With God nothing is impossible and one will be filled and never be empty of anything.