Errors in Various Bible Translations

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So, is there a translation that has every detail correct, precisely reflecting all the intended meanings?

Yes, it's the KJV, 1611 version (after the revision to add the word "not" to "thou shalt not commit adultery")

[Shawn]

funny how some folks can feel a translation is 100% inerrant when they can't even believe the translators are saved. Never could figure that one out. I'm sure someone will supply the perfect answer shortly.

Just like the perfect exegesis to explain away the obvious......

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by LandonDavis

The word translated scrabble is the Hebrew word tavah. It simply means to mark. Another example is Ez 9:4. The prophet is to "tavah" or put a mark in the forehead of all the men. I find it highly unlikey that he scratched them.
What did David write? Why would a truely insane person write on the door? Could David have looked at the sword in his hand and thought of the great victory that the Lord had given him in the past? Maybe he encouraged himself and under the unction of the Holy Ghost began to write Ps. 34.
The pretext uses the word shanah. It simply means to change. The word has no relation at all with being crazy or mad. It is translated this way in many translations for clarity of the event that is being described.
This really just proves the point of this entire thread. It is very hard to translate without having bias. All the bibles we have are versions of the true word of God.
I do prefer versions that attempt to have a more literal translation. I can do the research and put in the thought to make judgements on implied meanings and idiomatic expressions. Some versions have been translated down to the point of simply being a paraphrase. There is nothing wrong with this, but they should be understood for what they are.
I read from the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT. I would not recommend the NLT for deeper study. It is a very simple and direct translation. It is very useful for teaching young people and to get an easy to understand overview of a book. In its simplicity, I'm afraid some of the deeper meaning of scripture can be lost. Again, this is just my personal feelings.
The truth is that you can never have an authoritative version when you are translating unless you believe that the Lord has annointed the translators. Of course, we still have the problem of deciding which group of translators was annointed. The Word of God has been translated so that we can understand it in our language. We are blessed with multiple translations to aid in our endeavor. We are responsible to study, apply the gospel to our lives, and try to please our great God.

Thank you for your post. You've made some excellent points of which I agree! Very interesting!

From all that you've talked about, how do you fit in this portion of I Samuel 21:13, "and feigned himself mad in their hands..." With all that you said, what do you make of "feigned" being used? It means "the sense of deceiving, fraud, deceit, guile, subtilly, treachery".

All of the words you defined are in the place of being honorable, but then we add in "feign" and it throws a kink in the system, so to speak. LOL!

What do you make of it and how can that passage then make sense with what you were saying you thought it was implying. I know you weren't emphatic, but still.....

[LandonDavis]

The word feigned doesn't come from the original text. A verb that is usually translated "to make praise to God" in this case and this case only is translated as the expression "feigned himself mad." You would have to replace the entire expression with an alternate expression such as "lifted his praise to God."
This is the problem with getting precise definitions of words in a translation. You are getting too many steps removed from the original. Sometimes it brings clarity, but you can also lose more truth than you gain by studying in this manner. If you want to do a word study, it is best to get a concordance and refer back to the Greek or Hebrew.
One very easy way is to use the site blueletterbible.org. You can look at any verse in the bible in multiple translations for comparison. You can also examine the text that it is translaated from. It shows every word with the English translation beside it. It is very easy to see if it is a literal word for word translation or an idiomatic expression. This will also help you to understand some of the grammatical challenges in translation. This along with the various text, Majority, Recieved, Critical,etc, explains why there are so many versions and why it is impossible to annoint only one as completely authoritative.

[LandonDavis]

I'm personally not a Greek scholar or an educated textual critic. In ministry, I usually stay away from issue regarding translations. It is simply not my field of expertise. I know just enough to be dangerous.............

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by LandonDavis

The word feigned doesn't come from the original text. A verb that is usually translated "to make praise to God" in this case and this case only is translated as the expression "feigned himself mad." You would have to replace the entire expression with an alternate expression such as "lifted his praise to God."
This is the problem with getting precise definitions of words in a translation. You are getting too many steps removed from the original. Sometimes it brings clarity, but you can also lose more truth than you gain by studying in this manner. If you want to do a word study, it is best to get a concordance and refer back to the Greek or Hebrew.
One very easy way is to use the site blueletterbible.org. You can look at any verse in the bible in multiple translations for comparison. You can also examine the text that it is translaated from. It shows every word with the English translation beside it. It is very easy to see if it is a literal word for word translation or an idiomatic expression. This will also help you to understand some of the grammatical challenges in translation. This along with the various text, Majority, Recieved, Critical,etc, explains why there are so many versions and why it is impossible to annoint only one as completely authoritative.

I do use Blueletterbible quite a bit. Thanks for the post. I enjoyed reading it! But, I still can't wrap my brain around the "praise to God" there. It doesn't make sense. LOL! Especially after reading all the other versions and commentaries, which I checked at Blueletterbible.

I've read laborious studies trying to explain a passage only to find that the Strong's nut shelled the whole thing in all the time it took to look up a few things in the Hebrew or Greek.

Originally Posted by LandonDavis

I'm personally not a Greek scholar or an educated textual critic. In ministry, I usually stay away from issue regarding translations. It is simply not my field of expertise. I know just enough to be dangerous.............

Well, as you can see, neither am I, but I Press-On regardless. LOL!

Okay, let's look at I Samuel 21:13 in various versions:

NKJV:

"So he changed his behavior before them, pretended madness in their hands, scratched on the doors of the gate, and let his saliva fall down on his beard."

NIV:

"So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard."

ESV:
So he changed his behavior before them and pretended to be insane in their hands and made marks on the doors of the gate and let his spittle run down his beard.

NASB:
So he disguised his sanity before them, and acted insanely in their hands, and scribbled on the doors of the gate, and let his saliva run down into his beard.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

I Sam 21:13. feigned himself mad--It is supposed to have been an attack of epilepsy, real or perhaps only pretended. This disease is relieved by foaming at the mouth.
let his spittle fall down upon his beard--No wonder that Achish supposed him insane, as such an indignity, whether done by another, or one's self, to the beard, is considered in the East an intolerable insult.

I looked the passage up in Barnes, Clark, Gill, and also Matthew Henry. They all agree -"He used the gestures and fashions of a natural fool, or one that had gone out of his wits, supposing they would be ready enough to believe that the disgrace he had fallen into, and the troubles he was now in, had driven him distracted. This dissimulation of his cannot be justified (it was a mean thing thus to disparage himself, and inconsistent with truth thus to misrepresent himself, and therefore not becoming the honour and sincerity of such a man as David); yet it may in some degree be excused, for it was not a downright lie and it was like a stratagem in war, by which he imposed upon his enemies for the preservation of his own life."

I'm just thinking that I Samuel 22:1 is why David wrote Psalm 34. I'm thinking that the pretext of Psalm 34 is giving the reason why David wrote Psalm 34 - written after he escaped.

"David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father's house heard [it], they went down thither to him." I Sam. 22:1

[LandonDavis]

I actually tend to agree with you and the majority of other translators. My main point is that you can make a case for an alternate translation. This one verse is a great example of the debate and decisions that are involved with each version of the bible.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by LandonDavis

I actually tend to agree with you and the majority of other translators. My main point is that you can make a case for an alternate translation. This one verse is a great example of the debate and decisions that are involved with each version of the bible.

Well, you made the thread a whole lot more interesting, to say the least! Glad you dropped in!!

The one verse was a great example! Hope we find more that we run across and want to discuss.

Again, thanks for the input, Landon. Glad you joined AFF!