Keskustelu:Bible/Translations

Problems with proposed text

I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. To wit: This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:

• Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the oldest texts, a majority of texts, and the most geographically diverse texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
• Texts are grouped into families: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
• All other things being equal, a more difficult reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.

This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

RESPONSE

• It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels he accessed. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choose 66 books to be in the Bible and yet, the earliest New Testament Library even in Greek (older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (which are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.

CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .

Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is Ez. 37:16 which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".

Yes, this is true of any translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates Isaiah 26:19a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in Daniel 3:25b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage should read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).

Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. John 7:53-John 8:1-11 is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).

There are a number of significant problems with this claim:

• The pericope adulterae does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
• On what basis do you claim that the pericope is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
• On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?

Defending the pericope is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in a list of suspect passages.

RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS

• Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272

We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)

Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible

There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.

On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text. --MikeParker 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)