Bill Mounce: Can We Trust Bible Translations?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 гру 2024
- seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
Download the PDF discussion guide:
my.seedbed.com...
The English-speaking world has an abundance of Bible translations. Selecting a Bible from the Christian store can be overwhelming. What’s the difference between them all? Are they all equal in value? Watch this Seven Minute Seminary with Dr. Bill Mounce to find out more.
Thanks Dr. Mounce! I still have an old copy of "Basics of Biblical Greek". God Bless!
Revised Standard Version with footnotes that interpret names.Best English Bible.
I can translate the ancient Greek word for word, no problem. I have been learning modern Greek for many years and can speak it well. Translating the ancient Greek bible, its something I like to do. It gives you a first hand feel on how it was written.
That's fascinating! Love that "holy kiss" example. My first time watching the Seven Minute Seminary and I can't wait for more!
I love J B Phillips original 1962 version of Romans 6.2, which uses the expression "What a ghastly thought!" - sadly changed to "What a terrible thought!" in the 1971 revision.
I must say I do like your work. Keep posting.
One of these days, I’d like to buy Dr Bill a cup of coffee (or tea), & thank him for what he has taught me (via a distance). “All scripture is the Holy Spirits working ground”, so I use a broad range of translations, as well as diving into the Greek. As a Reformer we must always remember that since Scripture is the Holy Spirits venue, then we believe in the “perspicuity” of scripture (from the olde KJV to the NLT). If we ever elevate simply one translation as being the ‘right one’ above all others, than we have reduced that bible into a Magic Book. Thank you Dr Bill.
Dr. MOUNCE was tge only professsor in 3 years whose pedagogy was so unclear that many of us dropped his class and took it from someone else after he quit his job because he was having difficulty getting along with other faculty. He is unrelateble.
I'll take words every time. Stay with formal equivalence
How can two different versions of the same book have a different translation philosophy? I feel like this is going to muddle the message that God originally intended.
This was an excellent insiders view, and overlay, of Bible translation and its inhetent shortcomings, etc.
I so greatly appreciate the concise Seedbed videos. I'm saddened when I see so few take advantage.
Two adjuncts come to mind when I succinctly want to add to this translation understanding. Firstly, is the all-encompassing lesson attempted by God in John 2:23-25. God certainly knew what He was doing when he had the Greek manifest in the way it does, in the time and place it did. Ditto English. God does not commit Himself more than he does. He would idealistically "want" to in a perfect world, which we are not. We as hubristically inclined mortals cannot handle any more preciseness than what we are given. Prov. 6:16-17a. Sadly so.
Secondly, is our hearts' problem. The writers of the NT were not given such prohetic dictation until, what, 20, 30 and 40 years and more after the Ascension. Why? It takes decades to entirely purify the heart. It takes the not so heavy Hand of God time and time again His dragging someone out to the bright Light of him revealing remaining impure motives of someone's heart; ripping out those idols, replacing them with the fullness of Fruits, Wisdom, etc.
I love best the old Douay-Rheims Bible translation of, "The husbandman who labors must first be partaker of the fruits," or something like that. The 2nd point here being, if a translator has not first had their heart entirely sanctified and it replaced with the fully ripe Fruits of Love, Meekness, etc., they will twist the Word to self-justify their remaining fig leaves which hide impure motives from their own selves. Jer. 17:9.
So, since translators very seldom equal the first apostles including Luke in purity of heart and presumably apprehension of entire entire (sic) sanctification via the Fruits of the S(s)pitit....
"Tweak" would've been perhaps a better word choice, certainly less harsh. ♡
How do people feel about the Revised Standard Version? A friend gave me one a few weeks ago. I switched from King James to the English Standard Version a few years ago, and have been happy with it. But I want to be open to others. Recently I bought a New American Standard Bible, but I haven't had the chance to start it.
King James? I got tired of all the Elizabethan language. Plus new manuscripts have been found since 1611. Time to update!
The Revised Standard Version is the basis for the English Standard Version, so they are close to identical. The Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible are based on the American Standard Version (which itself is the U.S. edition of the official U.K. revision of the King James Version), so they are fairly similar as well.
To illustrate the relationship, here's the basic history:
Great Bible -- Bishops' Bible -- King James Version -- American Standard Version
-- Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version --
-- New American Standard Bible
-- New Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version --
-- English Standard Version
The ESV was created in place of the RSV. So if you are looking for update you already have it. But don't discount the RSV. You may find you love the way it flows.
Not everyone is so gifted with language skills that they can read different translations. I do agree that the meaning is the most important thing. And so... the meaning should, logically, be impossible to interpret in a wrong way. Because God would have made shure that everyone who translates his words is doing so without the ability to change or distort it in any way. The meaning/information would always remain the same. Yet there are clear difference. For example... Im swedish. Yup, many americans thinks we are sinful and sexually "liberated". Well, actually, the swedish translation of NT doesnt say that sex before marriage is a sin. But some NT in other languages do. How is this possible?
Translations; Do they really help in a Bible study group? By the time everyone has said "my translation says this" time is up and everyone is gone. "Holy Kiss" everybody knows is about the intention of the heart which is known and discerned by God.
Hi Dr. Mounce are you still doing videos?
I have a question on some problems i found in the NIV, NASB, RSV, ASV...
and more. Its the word Grievous vs Prosper in ps 10: 4-6
These 2 words are total opposite of one another. In the other versions it would mean if i didnt seek God and he is not in my thoughts my ways would prosper or my life would be firm.
Why do we need a new translation. The 400 year old KJV is Good enough for me.
Some immigrants in America do not understand that 400 year old language. This is why we need a new translation like NIV or ESV
It astonishes me that this conversation never brings up the replacement of "Lucifer" (and other overt references) with words and phrases that are far less indicative of the presence of the enemy in that verse or verses. This should be covered in any interview snippet like this.
"Luz" mean "light' in Spanish. So perhaps it's a latin derivative of light... star.
T AH Lucifer simply means morning star or bearer of light in Latin. For example, Jesus is referred as a lucifer as well if you look at the original Latin translations like the Vulgate. Lucifer isn't a name, it's a description, an adjective
I have spoken the same English language for over 30 years of my life. I haven’t had to learn a modern way of speaking English, so why do people feel the need to have more of a variety of English Bibles and to publish a new one every several years? It just makes no sense to me. The constant change is hard enough for the followers of Jesus Christ to try to understand, it becomes much more confusing for unbelievers to understand. Furthermore, with the constant change of God’s Word, it starts to lose its credibility and shows the world that we don’t really have an accurate translation of scripture. When will this stop?
Can someone tell me why all translations except KJV and NKJV leaves out the obvious trinity in 1 John 5:7? This to me is a little more than "word variations"
See this article by Daniel B. Wallace:
bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
Seedbed thanks for the share. That’s an interesting read.
Different manuscripts I believe. KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, most translations after the 1800's are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts.
How will I know that I am interpreting the Greek verse correctly if there are professional people doing it for me, even professional people have different interpretations. In other words, how will I know if my interpretation is correct?
You could ask the same question of a Dr. doing surgery. My point is not that you're asking a bad question, I'm just pointing out that you have to understand what they are doing to critique it, or else it's a matter of trust. So you learn the relevant aspects of surgery or you trust the surgeon.
Why should some words in king james version is not found in Hebrew Jewish bible?
Why does one have to translate the phrase "a holy kiss"?
Isagogics + exegesis = understanding
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRITURES is the most accurate Bible on this planet earth and they are free.
Bible is the Bible it's not up to us to make it understandable and fit our culture because it wasn't written in our culture, it's up to us to understand it and interpret it according to it's nature and the utterance of the holy spirit
Changing the Bible must be the worst thing one could ever do.
Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book
Bill Mounce considers the Bible to be imperfect and flawed.
This from "Kasper the Fake"??
@@TheBanddadams the user name speaks volumes about the commentator ;-)
NIV translation team must be like, "How do we twist this to make it sound more Reformed?"
Honestly, I think Young's Literal Bible is the best bible translation in English, if you want what's actually in the Greek and Hebrew. The problem with the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, and others, is they are forcing doctrines upon you. In other words, these linguists are good at language but are typically lousy theologians. Really bad actually.
Michael Word, which “Greek and Hebrew” manuscripts? You seem to think there’s only one of each out there.
I was merely referring to translations taken directly and solely from the original languages, Greek and Hebrew, and not, say, from Latin manuscripts or earlier translations into English or a mixture of those sources. Young's Literal is a very unbiased translation that allows the English reader to peer into the original languages. Most commercial bibles today are just descendants of the KJV.
The KJV is in reality a collation of the Geneva, Tyndale and Wycliffe bibles, mostly leaning on the Latin translations. The NASB and the ESV are merely descendants of the ASV, which as it's stated goal was to be a "faithful update" of the KJV. The NIV is clearly a loose paraphrase taken from those as well. So they are in reality largely paraphrased translations of translations and leaning heavily on those early translations.
That's the dirty secret of commercialized bible "translations". Not saying those bibles aren't useful, or easy to read, they are just not as accurate as other translations that are available.
Michael Word, you need to do more reading on this subject. I don’t know where you got your information, but it’s mostly wrong. The ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB etc have almost nothing to do with the KJV, regardless of what their deceitful translation committees stated their goals were. Modern translations use entirely different manuscripts, the corrupted Alexandrian “critical text”, than the KJV. So no, they aren’t at all “descendents of the KJV”.
I've done a lot more reading and research than you assume. As far as I can see they are close duplications of each other and contain the same errors as the KJV and added more of their own. They all follow each other over a cliff. Very different from the bibles that I know were actual translations.
none of you own the 1611 KJV bible because then you would've known that the 1611 KJV had freemasonry and kabbalistic imagery. Ridiculous
Johnny Santos what imagery are you referring to?
The niv is the worst translation so many scripture taken out I threw it in the trash better read the book of revelations again.the kjv version 1611 the only true translation..goodby.
this dude is dishonest. that's all that needs to be said.
he is attempting to side step the obvious issues with new translations and not mentioning that there are different manuscripts first off. and who is deciding the "philosophy" of translating. who's philosophy are they going to. God speaks once, Yay twice. he has his living word and written word which Jesus goes to throughout scripture.
he is speaking to the simple act of taking linguistic knowledge and applying. this is the word of God, not some random historical document.
I'm a bit shocked by your comment that translating is a "simple act." How well do you know biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
Well which is it, once or twice?
These guys make BANK every time they publish a new fake version.
You can only trust the KJV.