How Many More?

[Bit Brush]

My question is simple. How many more versions of the bible will there be before we one right? Seems every time a scholar thinks they have a better version to correct the problems with the previous versions they publish it? How many English bibles do we have now? Now some of the reasons to publish include readability, better scholarship on older witnesses, making a more accurate thought for thought or word for word version, etc, etc.

One last question. Should there be a super committee formed of all the current and soon to be bible scholars who have or will soon have versions published? Where they all agree to peer review everyone's work? Where all such works are condensed into two final works being one thought for thought and one word for word? No individual work will be published. No versions need be published other than these two version for many many years or until the language significantly changes again. What do you think?

I see such a work unifying all the churches, promoting memorization again, increased study, understanding and individual reading. A good thing right?

[Bit Brush]

You try to ridicule my statement, but consider this. Who spends years working on a translation for free? Who can convince a paper company or a printer to donate supplies? Ever used free ads in the newspapers, magazines or internet that got any real sales? Not happening. People need to feed their family and pay for services they can't perform themselves. Stores want room to mark up the price to pay for overhead. 

So uniqueness is NEVER consideration when selecting words for a new version? You better believe it if it comes down to getting a copyright or not. Remember a copyright protects your investment. So how can you use the same Hebrew and Greek texts and come up with anything really different without trying? If the best words have been selected, then you need to make use of different words, different sentence structures, whatever. Probably harder for word for word versions.

So tell me this, is it peddling or corrupting? 2 Corinthians 2:17.

Daniel said:

So they are just in it (making changes) for the money? LOL

[Bit Brush]

It happens when their pet versions get thumped and they try to convince the KJV is a bad translation because it had influence from members of the RCC. Good scholarship not withstanding.

JRKH said:

To be truthful I have no idea what that means...sorry...

Peace

James

[Bit Brush]

If you want to believe Wikipedia and the Hitler thing...

[Gerhard] Kittel and his father Rudolf, are responsible for what have become the two most eminent works in Theology over the past century, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which is a retranslation of the Old Testament Hebrew, parting from the traditional Masoretic Text.

OT Biblia Hebraica is the foundation of every Modern Bible Translation, coupled with the Nestle-Aland Greek, including even the Jewish New Testament.

Kittel wrote a 10 volume Biblical Greek Lexicon Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT. The first 7 volumes were written while Kittel was Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, while the last three volumes of his Biblical Greek Lexicon were done while he was in jail for his War Crimes.

Daddy Rudolf was an anti-semite. Son Gerhard was a National Socialist just like Hitler. More things to make you go hmmmm...

Daniel said:

And we are all six degrees (or less) in separation from Hitler.  Guess we should just close up shop now. LOL

[Ryan]

The last one is here: the Jimmy Carter Bible.

Like the KJV, it was also used by Jesus himself, but without all the olden time baggage.

[Norrin Radd]

Perhaps you have misinterpreted the meaning of the endorsement, "Used by JC himself!"  ;-)

Ryan said:

The last one is here: the Jimmy Carter Bible.

Like the KJV, it was also used by Jesus himself, but without all the olden time baggage.

[James Gibbons]

Okay. I’ll go with you on this. For a minute. So…

Why two?

[Bit Brush]

Why two versions? We are in the business of accommodating people's preferences aren't we? Someone suggested we wold be inviting confusion with two. What do we have now with hundreds? The two versions would be produced at the same time by the same people so they should not confuse. 

Found an interesting article from a year ago.

[Daniel]

Well, since you asked.... :)  I think your question sets up a false dichotomy.  The verse isn't about new translations or the written Bible at all.  The verse is about the MESSAGE of the Bible.  Paul is setting his efforts apart from those of others that were, among other things, NOT apostles sent by God.

I've heard this charge that assumes ulterior motives ("need to be different so I can get a copyright") for new translations.  But it is a fallacious assumption of assumed motives.  Unless you can show that the English word(s) chosen do NOT accurately reflect the original words on which they are based, it doesn't matter what all motivated  something.  And even if the motives were bad, something I reject as unfounded, there is the whole principle of "you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" that needs to be taken into account.  

But all these little slams against modern versions (in it for the money, linked to Rupert Murdock and the Satanist Bible, play with The Bible, had a grammar stylist consultant that later came out of the closet, etc) all need to dismissed.  They are distractions from the primary point.  The primary point is whether or not YOUR Bible is or is not an inspired translation that sets the standard to which all others must be compared.  You keep assuming that with all  your disparaging comments as to why folks want to monkey with it, but refuse to actually defend that position.  Why is that?

Bit Brush said:

You try to ridicule my statement, but consider this. Who spends years working on a translation for free? Who can convince a paper company or a printer to donate supplies? Ever used free ads in the newspapers, magazines or internet that got any real sales? Not happening. People need to feed their family and pay for services they can't perform themselves. Stores want room to mark up the price to pay for overhead. 

So uniqueness is NEVER consideration when selecting words for a new version? You better believe it if it comes down to getting a copyright or not. Remember a copyright protects your investment. So how can you use the same Hebrew and Greek texts and come up with anything really different without trying? If the best words have been selected, then you need to make use of different words, different sentence structures, whatever. Probably harder for word for word versions.

So tell me this, is it peddling or corrupting? 2 Corinthians 2:17.

Daniel said:

So they are just in it (making changes) for the money? LOL

[Ryan]

Lol.

Norrin Radd said:

Perhaps you have misinterpreted the meaning of the endorsement, "Used by JC himself!"  ;-)

Ryan said:

The last one is here: the Jimmy Carter Bible.

Like the KJV, it was also used by Jesus himself, but without all the olden time baggage.

[Marv]

The President James Version?

Ryan said:

The last one is here: the Jimmy Carter Bible.

Like the KJV, it was also used by Jesus himself, but without all the olden time baggage.

[Daniel]

But unless the two versions were identical, you would see the same "which is it?" arguments.  And seriously, the idea that you can even HAVE a single or duo of translations that would be perfect translations to end all controversy is a bit of wishful thinking.  And, I believe, shows a real lack of knowledge in how translation works.  Ultimately, since many words can have many different meanings and nuances, having access to multiple translations by the different "smart guys" provides us a much better look at the text than if all those "smart guys" had gotten into a room and decided on which single word or single thought was the best translation.  By having a library of several translations, it is almost as if I was a fly on the wall watching this super-council of smart guys as they discuss the best translation of something.  Instead of having a single translation that says X, but has margin notes that say it can also mean Y or Z, I can have parallel translations that show that most of the smart guys go with X, but some go with Y or Z.  So having multiple translations that express the different views ends up being just what my last blog was about, and why I mention this forum topic as an example.  Like the blind men describing the elephant, by combining all the views, we can get to full picture.  By forcing all the "blind men" to choose a single way to translate something, it is like making them choose which view of the elephant is the right one.  So multiple translations act like multiple witnesses or multiple Gospels from different authors.  We are better off having them.

Bit Brush said:

Why two versions? We are in the business of accommodating people's preferences aren't we? Someone suggested we wold be inviting confusion with two. What do we have now with hundreds? The two versions would be produced at the same time by the same people so they should not confuse. 

Found an interesting article from a year ago.

[Marv]

Remember the old joke. The guy is standing under a street light scouring the ground for something. A fellow comes along and asks him what he's looking for, then starts helping him look. After a while, neither of them finding it, the fellow asks the guy, "Are you sure you lost it right here?" Guy says, "Well, no, in fact, I dropped it over there (pointing several yards away). "Then why the bleep are you looking for it here?" sez the fellow in astonishment. "The light's better here," the guy says.

 

That's translation vs original language. The reason you can't have a definitive translation of any work is that the original formulation is in another language, or in the case of the Bible, languages. With our translations, the light is better, meaning we can readily understand the words, being in our own language. But at best you are indirectly accessing the text in the original document. And for any real in-depth search of the meaning, that is where you have to look.

 

Only the original text may present more challenges than the translation (it will-but those are the real challenges). For example, you might not know for a certainty the exact text of the original, hand copies all being to some degree flawed. You might not understand the precise meaning of certain words, if they are obscure and rarely used. You do not have the native speaker competence to pick up on subtleties of tone or figures of speech. In many, many ways translations are more convenient, but they also obscure reality--giving you clarity where the original is uncertain, certainty where the text is ambiguous, or simplicity when there is complication in the original.

 

Adopting any translation as the definitive one is naivete and folly, and is like an ostrich burying its head in the sand, no matter how many others one convinces to pretend someting is the truth along with one.

Daniel said:

But unless the two versions were identical, you would see the same "which is it?" arguments.  And seriously, the idea that you can even HAVE a single or duo of translations that would be perfect translations to end all controversy is a bit of wishful thinking.  And, I believe, shows a real lack of knowledge in how translation works.  Ultimately, since many words can have many different meanings and nuances, having access to multiple translations by the different "smart guys" provides us a much better look at the text than if all those "smart guys" had gotten into a room and decided on which single word or single thought was the best translation.  By having a library of several translations, it is almost as if I was a fly on the wall watching this super-council of smart guys as they discuss the best translation of something.  Instead of having a single translation that says X, but has margin notes that say it can also mean Y or Z, I can have parallel translations that show that most of the smart guys go with X, but some go with Y or Z.  So having multiple translations that express the different views ends up being just what my last blog was about, and why I mention this forum topic as an example.  Like the blind men describing the elephant, by combining all the views, we can get to full picture.  By forcing all the "blind men" to choose a single way to translate something, it is like making them choose which view of the elephant is the right one.  So multiple translations act like multiple witnesses or multiple Gospels from different authors.  We are better off having them.