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]

That would be nice if they all were identical. One leader is better than dozens. One voice is better than a crowd of them. A crowd saying the same thing in unison is not what we have.

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.

[Bit Brush]

But like I stated above a crowd speaking in unison is understandable, but that's not what we have. It is folly to believe we can easily find the needle in the haystack. Helps if we've been magnetized by the truth already. But one has to learn the truth to know it.

Marv said:

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.

 

[James Gibbons]

But why two and not one? If we’re looking for the absolute correct bible, why not one?

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.

[Bit Brush]

But the vast majority of us will never read a manuscript, we are at the mercy of translators and their various preferences, traditions, pet manuscripts, dictionaries, etc.

[JRKH]

Allow me to offer you at least a partial solution.  A website that I have found to be very useful because, among the many different translations available are two "Literal" translations.  In addition, if one searches using the KJV version the results offer the opportunity to look at the Greek/Hebrew and this links to definitions from Strong's. 

So - not only does one have the opportunity to compare different "translations", one also has the opportunity to look at the Greek (or the Hebrew for the OT).  Most enlightening. 

Peace

James

Bit Brush said:

But the vast majority of us will never read a manuscript, we are at the mercy of translators and their various preferences, traditions, pet manuscripts, dictionaries, etc.

[Marv]

Indeed. And thus it is important to understand that situation correctly. We need to teach people what is the reality of the situation and how they can intelligently and realistically use the abundance of available translations and other materials. What does not help is pretending the situation is otherwise and teaching people manifest falsehoods--e.g. that one particular translation in English, such as the KJV, is the standard of truth, or that one particular critical Greek text from the 16th-17th century somehow stands out as the standard of truth against other critical texts with more data to work with.

Bit Brush said:

But the vast majority of us will never read a manuscript, we are at the mercy of translators and their various preferences, traditions, pet manuscripts, dictionaries, etc.

[Bit Brush]

Yet we can't when translations disagree.

Marv said:

Indeed. And thus it is important to understand that situation correctly. We need to teach people what is the reality of the situation and how they can intelligently and realistically use the abundance of available translations and other materials. What does not help is pretending the situation is otherwise and teaching people manifest falsehoods--e.g. that one particular translation in English, such as the KJV, is the standard of truth, or that one particular critical Greek text from the 16th-17th century somehow stands out as the standard of truth against other critical texts with more data to work with.

[Jax Agnesson]

I can only offer the fact that have found the internet invaluable in comparing different translations of verses and Chapters you guys (and others) have pointed me to. I think it highly unlikely that any Christian, in any technolgically advanced country, will ever again be in a position of having to take the word of an 'expert' for interpreting Scripture. What effect do you guys think this technology will have on the future of 'the church'? (I'm thinking of the effect of the printing press, Caxton, and all that, of course.)

Bit Brush said:

Yet we can't when translations disagree.

Marv said:

Indeed. And thus it is important to understand that situation correctly. We need to teach people what is the reality of the situation and how they can intelligently and realistically use the abundance of available translations and other materials. What does not help is pretending the situation is otherwise and teaching people manifest falsehoods--e.g. that one particular translation in English, such as the KJV, is the standard of truth, or that one particular critical Greek text from the 16th-17th century somehow stands out as the standard of truth against other critical texts with more data to work with.

[Marv]

Ridiculous. Of course we can.

 

A couple of sayings:

"An easily understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth."

"Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers."

 

The first describes my point with the lightpost joke. Picking one translation and all of us pretending its the REAL Bible may be useful, but it simply isn't true. Anyone who is at least as concerned with truth as with utility will reject any suggestion that the KJV or any other translation represents the standard.

 

Because, as the second saying indicates--that solution may offer ease and simplicity, but it's wrong, as in NOT RIGHT.

 

It may be HARDER to do things the right way, but IMHO it's better than trying to uphold the truth of God's word by embrasing a falsehood to do it.
Bit Brush said:

Yet we can't when translations disagree.

Marv said:

Indeed. And thus it is important to understand that situation correctly. We need to teach people what is the reality of the situation and how they can intelligently and realistically use the abundance of available translations and other materials. What does not help is pretending the situation is otherwise and teaching people manifest falsehoods--e.g. that one particular translation in English, such as the KJV, is the standard of truth, or that one particular critical Greek text from the 16th-17th century somehow stands out as the standard of truth against other critical texts with more data to work with.

[JRKH]

DUHHHH - I wrote the post below and then forgot to give the Website.  It is "Studylight"

JRKH said:

Allow me to offer you at least a partial solution.  A website that I have found to be very useful because, among the many different translations available are two "Literal" translations.  In addition, if one searches using the KJV version the results offer the opportunity to look at the Greek/Hebrew and this links to definitions from Strong's. 

So - not only does one have the opportunity to compare different "translations", one also has the opportunity to look at the Greek (or the Hebrew for the OT).  Most enlightening. 

Peace

James

Bit Brush said:

But the vast majority of us will never read a manuscript, we are at the mercy of translators and their various preferences, traditions, pet manuscripts, dictionaries, etc.

[Jax Agnesson]

I must say I really like the KJV, because it is the English of Shakespeare, and Marlowe and Donne. And also because, when I lived in South Yorkshire, only a couple of decades ago, that language was still being spoken. (Hast thou, sithee, sirrah?)

[Steve]

I think this whole question is much more of a problem when the Scriptures are your ultimate authority all on their own.  Then it's really really really important to get it Right™!