The NLT replacing the word "virgin" with "bridesmaid" is totally commentary, not translation. It was completely out of line. They could have reasonably said "maiden" or "young woman", but "bridesmaid" alters the text.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Response to Mike Winger's Train Wreck on Polygamy and Divorce
- Thread starter PeteR
- Start date
I grew up on KJV as a kid and was mentored by the adults to read NIV, due to KJV's perceived difficulty. I liked the old english way better, and it just felt right so I continued with KJV. Once you're used to it and get all the nuances, it actually flows very well, and is quite easy. I believe in classical eduaction, giving tough, classic information to children to educate; So I'm very pro hands on with what is considered harder material. To me, to give a child a book for the sake of ease, can also be a way to dumb them down. Kids 100 years ago read way tougher books than kids today, so it's possible. Look at the original Kipling's 'The Jungle Books' compared to today's abridged versions.
It's better to teach a pursuit of knowledge through rigor and discipline, gained by consuming tougher material than to teach taking the easiest way out. Without KJV I doubt I'd be as interested in classic literature, especially Shakespeare. And through classic literature, I became a huge cinema buff of classic films. So I think it is a great decision to give them this translation, as long as it is in the father's wishes.
Level of ease, I don't think should factor into it. My 2 cents worth.
We read our children Swiss Family Robinson and had to look up words in the dictionary. We were raised on the kjv and so were our children. Comprehension was never a problem.
The NLT and NIV are preferable to the original Living Bible, The Message, and a few others.
Maybe the Holman Standard might be an ok starter Bible.
My wife is Japanese. English is her second language and I think the NKJV was her first English Bible. She did read the NIV for a while before moving to the ESV.
I grew up on the NIV (and to a lesser extent the Good News Bible and the original Living Bible). In the Nazarene church, we jokingly called the NIV the "Nazarene Inspired Version", since we all used it.
Moving to the ESV-NASB (and recently NKJV) really helped me. The word "Propitiation" is much more specific than the phrase "atoning sacrifice".
I think the paraphrased Bibles make things feel doctrinally fuzzy. I like clear
Again, even the better translations are wrong sometimes.
Exactly. Raise a child up teaching them that KJV isn't a big deal, and they'll cruise through it, and be much better off than those that were taught it was too hard for them. Children aren't dumb, the environment of education you place them in is how they will start to take form.
Guys, I have studied translations in-depth for many years. There are hundreds of dead words and false friends in the KJV. I can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. There are words that you think you understand, but don't realize that the meaning of the word has completely changed it's meaning since 1611, and you have no idea that it has changed it's meaning, because it's a familiar word to you in 2023. Read Mark Ward's book on the KJV or watch his youtube channel.
I have really studied this one out in depth.
The KJV is a great translation, but no one on earth can understand each and every word of it. I can back up that statement with proof if you want it. I can give you verses that you are guaranteed to misunderstand the meaning of the archaic or even modern words that have changed their meaning over the past 400 years. Any takers?
I guarantee you on this. I've probably read over 10 books cover to cover on this by Greek and Hebrew scholars. You don't understand each and every word of the KJV.
I have really studied this one out in depth.
The KJV is a great translation, but no one on earth can understand each and every word of it. I can back up that statement with proof if you want it. I can give you verses that you are guaranteed to misunderstand the meaning of the archaic or even modern words that have changed their meaning over the past 400 years. Any takers?
I guarantee you on this. I've probably read over 10 books cover to cover on this by Greek and Hebrew scholars. You don't understand each and every word of the KJV.
The problem is in the KJV there are words that you don't know you need to look up in the Oxford English Dictionary covering the 1600's, because you see the word and assign the 2023 meaning of the word, and therefore think you know what it means, even though the meaning has completely changed in the past 400 years. I can give you over 60 words as examples of this in the KJV. I have an extensive list of these words if anyone is interested. They are called "false friends".
That might be interesting. We do lots of word studies.
Mark Ward has all 60 of them listed on his Youtube channel, along with an explanation video on each one showing how it is misunderstood by the modern reader and how the meaning has changed over the past 400 plus years, even though it is a familiar word to everyone in 2023. I will compile a few of them tomorrow and try to give verses that are clearly misunderstood tomorrow evening if I have time.
I know you are right about this. A lot of words have changed definitions since 1611.
Moreover, some of the Greek manuscripts used the for newer translations might be more accurate than the textus receptus.
I don't intend to push the KJV. I'm not from the church you grew up in.
I'm just saying that more literal translations are generally preferable to the more paraphrased ones. I usually go with the NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I only use the KJV, NIV, and NLT occasionally. Lately, I've been looking at the 1565 Geneva Bible and the Literal Standard Bible 2020 a little as well.
Good choices. I prefer the NKJV out of those, just because I have a KJV background, but the NASB is a great choice also. I recommend someone use one of these as their main reading Bible and use the CSB, NIV, or NLT as basically a commentary. The CSB is kind of in between the two groups.I know you are right about this. A lot of words have changed definitions since 1611.
Moreover, some of the Greek manuscripts used the for newer translations might be more accurate than the textus receptus.
I don't intend to push the KJV. I'm not from the church you grew up in.
I'm just saying that more literal translations are generally preferable to the more paraphrased ones. I usually go with the NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I only use the KJV, NIV, and NLT occasionally. Lately, I've been looking at the 1565 Geneva Bible and the Literal Standard Bible 2020 a little as well.
I think you need to drop the NLT, it's horridly inaccurate. Our kids have them issued for a youth bible study. It makes weird choices, and I notice them every week. In addition to inaccuracy, one passage we were studying in it broke the verses as in the Vulgate, contrary to every other English translation I checked other than the DRC. And the grammar is so unmemorable that the children often choose to memorise verses from the KJV instead, as it flows better!
The problem is that those bad "translations" will give a mis-understanging of something so fundamental as marriage to those new Christians who are acting like a sponge and soaking up everything they can about this new thing (Christianity) to them, and they have no basis to sort out Truth from doctrines of demons. So the doctrine of demons called monogamy-only which those "translations" preach will be internalized as truth, and those new Christians may not recover from that damage in this life, and if they do, how much damage might have been caused in their life while they were laboring under that doctrine of demons?
I had a post written, but I'm going to go and study this Mark Ward that you've mentioned instead of asking you to present his case. I also don't want to derail this post more than we are. Even if I don't come to agree with the man, and your position, thank you for sharing this information.
Is there a translation that you hold to, and find superior to KJV for yourself, personally? Just so I know more from where you're coming from.
But that is the problem, they start with something easy to understand and then study from it because it’s easy.
Can you provide list of problematic words? I know for unicorn and gay words.
Preferably in new thread.
Yes
Yes I will.
I'm not NBTX11, but from what he said above, he seems to find the NKJV and NASB preferable. I would say that I also prefer those two (and probably the ESV) . Remember that all translations have some weaknesses. We use several translations (and other study tools) to help compensate for that.
I need to start another Bible translation thread. These questions can be talked about in depth. Perhaps I will expand on my views in another thread. But the short answer is that there is no perfect translation. God did not inspire translators, however he did use them. All evangelical committee based translations have some value. Each has a different translation philosophy and that’s why they differ. Also translation work is not an exact science. Words have an array of meaning in another language. It’s completely impossible to do a strictly word for word translation and have it retain meaning. Then there are idioms and phrases that are extremely difficult to translate and retain the same meaning. Every translation, repeat every translation including the King James adds words for clarity that are not in the original Greek or Hebrew. For example when Erasmus was completing his printed Greek New Testament that would become the textus receptus and later the King James, he did not have a Greek manuscript for the last page of Revelation so he back translated from the Latin Vulgate creating variants that are not found in any Greek manuscript on earth.
There is much to be said about this so I will probably create a Bible translation thread at some point. But if you have a committee based evangelical translation that generally favors a word for word approach then you should be good. I’m not going to get into the textus receptus vs critical text debate. It’s too long. I personally use the NKJV because I have a deep history with the KJV as well as the NLT. I totally get why someone would say the NLT is too paraphrastic and take liberties. I just like it myself. If nothing else it’s a good commentary on a more formal equivalence translation such as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB. I personally recommend having more than one translation so you can see how different translators render passages.