Errors in Various Bible Translations

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Anything that is thought-for-thought is going to be more accurate, in my opinion. No one with any scholastic integrity has ever favored the KJV for its accuracy.

As far as the reading level...I wouldn't agree with the 5th grade level thing, not in practical purposes, anyway. In fact, the language style used in the translation of the bible has never been spoken in the history of this planet. It's a completely "made-up" style in an attempt to sound spiritual. Speaking of, I always crack up when someone prays in "King James English."

I didn't really read the examples you posted. I'm not in a good place right now to research it if I need to. However, as anyone else who is defending a position no matter what, if I try hard enough I can explain it away!

I prefer the formal equivalence over the dynamic equivalence. I think the dynamic sacrifices accuracy for the sake of readability. I don't want someone telling me what they think. I want to find out what I think, KWIM?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

As far as the reading level...I wouldn't agree with the 5th grade level thing, not in practical purposes, anyway. In fact, the language style used in the translation of the bible has never been spoken in the history of this planet.

That isn't really true. Quakers spoke like that as did the English. And it is written on a 5th grade reading level. It's a totally excellent book for phonetic instruction - totally a phonetic work.

It's a completely "made-up" style in an attempt to sound spiritual. Speaking of, I always crack up when someone prays in "King James English."

When I give tongues and interpretation, I start out with - "Forsooth!" I guess I shouldn't joke around about that.

I didn't really read the examples you posted. I'm not in a good place right now to research it if I need to. However, as anyone else who is defending a position no matter what, if I try hard enough I can explain it away!

You didn't read my post and we discussed me starting this thread! You and I discussed me starting this thread and you didn't read it?!!! We discussed this and you didn't read it?!!! You didn't even try to read it?! You didn't look at it?! You glanced over it?!!! We discussed this and you didn't read it?!!!

There's that continual, dripping and contentious woman rearing her head!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I prefer the formal equivalence over the dynamic equivalence. I think the dynamic sacrifices accuracy for the sake of readability. I don't want someone telling me what they think. I want to find out what I think, KWIM?

What makes you say that?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

How do we know the translations in the KJV are legit......

because they were good Anglicans who believed in the trinity and infant baptism and it was authorized by a pervert.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

What makes you say that?

Because, from what I understand, the "formal equivalence" is suitable for serious study as it gives you the literal word for word. It seeks to preserve the structure of the original text.

The "dynamic equivalence" gives you thought for thought. From what I understand, and it seems to be true, it seeks to reject to preserve the original text.

I think that "optimal equivalence" is trying to do both. In other words, appreciating the goals of the "formal", but knowing it's limitations.

[Sam]

When Daniel interpreted the handwriting on the wall as recorded in Daniel 5:25-28, was it a translation or interpretation? was it dynamic equivalent or formal equivalent?

[Sam]

Is the expression "God save the king" in 2 Kings 11:12 and other places in the KJV dynamic equivalent or formal?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, I do lean more toward the KJV.

Now we are getting into Bible Translations that we prefer and the thread is supposed to be about scriptures we read that we think are translated wrong.

want to get into a scripture that some would consider a error of the poorly translated LXX that would have caused misconception to the early church...

Gen 15:6 the argument is text is not about a reference to Abraham being counted by God but Abraham doing the counting God's promise to him a just or right. The basic reading of the original Hebrew and context supports this.

In Professor Victor P Hamilton’s New International
Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans 1990), we read
in Vol. I at 425:
The second part of this verse records Yahweh’s response to Abram’s exercise of faith: ‘he credited it to him as righteousness.’ But even here
there is a degree of ambiguity. Who credited whom? Of course, one may say that the NT settles the issue, for Paul expressly identifies the
subject as God and the indirect object as Abram (Rom. 4:3).13 If we follow normal Hebrew syntax, in which the subject of the first clause is
presumed to continue into the next clause if the subject is unexpressed, then the verse’s meaning is changed... Does he, therefore, continue
as the logical subject of the second clause? The Hebrew of the verse certainly permits this interpretation, especially when one recalls that sedaqa means both ‘righteousness’ (a theological meaning) and ‘justice’ (ajuridical meaning). The whole verse could then be translated: “Abram put his faith in Yahweh, and he [Abram] considered it [the promise of seed(s)] justice.”

Thus, in the Hebrew original version of this verse, it had nothing to do with justification of Abraham by God based
on faith. It was Abraham counting the promise of God in Genesis 15:5 as justice by God. Professor Hamilton was
being honest despite how a true translation would upset Hamilton’s own Protestant theology.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'm an NLT bible-thumper. Literal translations like the KJV can never truly capture the real meaning of what is being said...in my opinion. When speaking with a translator, the only way that translator can relate the content of what is being said, is to give "Thought Translation", which is what the NLT is. If a speaking translator were to give a literal word for word translation, it wouldn't make any sense to the hearer. This is why I feel the NLT is a much more accurate translation and the "experts" are starting to jump on board.

But really, the KJV contains some "Thought" translation as well, just not nearly as much.

But Pressing-On, I'm really surprised you'd want to read a bible that was translated by 44 trinitarian theologians for a gay king!

Maybe because of my age or maybe because we all read the KJV only for so long, but I still like the KJV. I also like the NKJV because it is so much like the KJV but does eliminate some archaic wording.

I'm old enough to remember the furor over the RSV when it came out over half a century ago. As a kid I remember reading about a preacher publicly throwing a copy in a bucket of lye. I also remember a picture from a magazine or newspaper of a preacher holding up a RSV and a blowtorch and saying, "It's like the devil. It's hard to burn."

I remember one time back in the late nineteen sixties or maybe in 70 or 71 when my wife purchased a Bible for one of our kids. She brought home a RSV. I didn't know what to do. I sure didn't want that Bible in my house and I didn't want a child of mine reading it. I didn't want to return it to the store because then somebody else might buy it and bring it into their house or read it. The only righteous thing I could do was to destroy it to protect anyone else from it.

I've mellowed over the years. I even like TLB (The Living Bible) now. I actually read The Message and quote from it once in a while.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

want to get into a scripture that some would consider a error of the poorly translated LXX that would have caused misconception to the early church...

Gen 15:6 the argument is text is not about a reference to Abraham being counted by God but Abraham doing the counting God's promise to him a just or right. The basic reading of the original Hebrew and context supports this.

In Professor Victor P Hamilton’s New International
Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans 1990), we read
in Vol. I at 425:
The second part of this verse records Yahweh’s response to Abram’s exercise of faith: ‘he credited it to him as righteousness.’ But even here
there is a degree of ambiguity. Who credited whom? Of course, one may say that the NT settles the issue, for Paul expressly identifies the
subject as God and the indirect object as Abram (Rom. 4:3).13 If we follow normal Hebrew syntax, in which the subject of the first clause is
presumed to continue into the next clause if the subject is unexpressed, then the verse’s meaning is changed... Does he, therefore, continue
as the logical subject of the second clause? The Hebrew of the verse certainly permits this interpretation, especially when one recalls that sedaqa means both ‘righteousness’ (a theological meaning) and ‘justice’ (ajuridical meaning). The whole verse could then be translated: “Abram put his faith in Yahweh, and he [Abram] considered it [the promise of seed(s)] justice.”

Thus, in the Hebrew original version of this verse, it had nothing to do with justification of Abraham by God based
on faith. It was Abraham counting the promise of God in Genesis 15:5 as justice by God. Professor Hamilton was
being honest despite how a true translation would upset Hamilton’s own Protestant theology.

I am dense, but it seems to be saying the same thing - faith brought a promise of justice from God. Either way, they both knew that faith brought a promise of justice. God knew Abraham's heart and Abraham understood what God wanted from him. Right? lol