Is there a danger in too many translations?

[Brian K. Mitchell]

19 minutes ago, Rick55 said:

I am quite fascinated how the translators of the NIV came to the conclusion to publish the following: 

KJV Matt. 24.29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

NIV Matt. 24.29 ¶ “Immediately after the distress of those days  ¶  “ ‘the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,

and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’^{a a}

 

Issues like these highlight one the benefits have access to Accordance (and tagged translations/lexicon) and knowing something about biblical languages. With a smartphone and or tablet (or computer) a Teacher, student, or the laity can quickly gain knowledge about the Greek (Hebrew or Aramaic) word behind the conflicting and or contradictory English translations of the Bible durning Bible study, class, or even discreetly durning a public sermon. 

 

[Pastor Jonathan]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:14 AM, Brian K. Mitchell said:

I, however, believe with perfect and unwavering faith that: "Monolingualism can be cured!" 

 

Regardless of whether one is plow boy or not one can acquire a foreign language or more. For example the polyglot (and later minister) John Brown of Haddington as young lad was employed as a shepherd (because of his families financial troubles) but he used his time to learn Biblical language on his own before he reached the age of 20. As, an adult he learned more languages.

 

What would you lose if more people acquired Biblical languages? Nothing! because this is not an either or situation, translations in the common language can continue to exist and be produced and more people can acquire foreign languages. One process does not exclude the other from occurring. 

 

But, I think that the confusion and or danger that could or might come from too many translation can be easily overcome if more people have the skills to read the text in the original.

Agree, to a point. There are some who are wholly incapable of picking up other languages. I dabble in Greek, and a little Hebrew but am no way an expert. Hence I use tools to help me. 

 

However, I know many who are absolutely unable to learn another language other than theirs and even that is a hardship to use it right. But that is why, if we are able to have the most accurate of translation, it is better to bring that to the forefront. 

 

Again, my point is not that we have an either/or situation. Just that I hear the call to Biblical languages and while that is great, I am also faced with the reality that for some, the common and used language is the best way to go. If they are then handed an Greek grammar and Hebrew Lexicon, they will just put the Bible away and never use it again. I don't want that. 

 

Also, while I am a strong supporter of the Traditional Text, if I am, and I have been, asked if I would never encourage any Bible reading, my answer is no. If all someone has is a Bible that is based on the Critical text, I would absolutely encourage reading it. I will work on the back end, and have done so, but I would rather have people read a Bible at least. 

 

Except paraphrase Bibles. I never support those. 

 

Thank you for the list of works. I will have to take a look at that. One of them sounds familiar. Right now I am working through Dean Burgeon's work, "The Revision Revised". It is eye opening. Hard read but worth it. 

[Pastor Jonathan]

On 10/15/2023 at 10:13 AM, Rick55 said:

 

 

I am quite fascinated how the translators of the NIV came to the conclusion to publish the following: 

 

KJV Matt. 24.29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

 

NIV Matt. 24.29 ¶ “Immediately after the distress of those days  ¶  “ ‘the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,

and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’^{a a}

 

Any idea what the NIV translators were thinking to translate bodies instead of powers? 

 

 

The only 'heavenly bodies' I can think of are the uncorrupted bodies in heaven.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not really sure why. The Greek word you are looking at is the word Power (as found using my Accordance !) 

 

The Greek word, really expands upon the ability of God, and Jesus. In the N.T. what I found, and this is a very quick read, is that the focus is on the ability and authority to be able to act and do. Hence Jesus had the power to command the wind and waves, turn water into wine, etc. 

 

But why would the translators choose to use the word bodies? I have two plausible answers:

 

1. This was a translators interpretation by which to hopefully add clarity.

2. This is a rewriting based on an assumption of what is meant by the phrase, "the powers of the heavens". 

 

Doing a search for this word across the N.T. it is used some 120 times and not once is it translated as the word body. Anywhere. 

 

To use the word power is absolutely the better English word. Not only does this reflect the meaning of the word underneath, but I think there is more in picture here than just the Heavenly bodies being shaken. 

 

During the time of the tribulation, after the rapture (which is alluded to in 24:27), we find the sun, moon, stars are darkened. These would be the bodies. 

 

But to understand powers, I would say the focus is on the powers of the earthly rulers (as it was used to describe Israel from turning from Him in Leviticus 26:19-20), as well as the Spiritual powers that are in the heavens. Satan has his power in the heavens (Revelation 12:7-9), Daniel spoke of this casting down of the power (Daniel 8:10), and finally we fight now against the Spiritual power (Ephesians 6:12). 

 

But in Matthew 24:29, it is the coming of the Lord and all that is entailed which will truly shake the powers of the heavens, for there is One power in Heaven that will never be shaken. That is the power of God, His rule, and His authority. 

 

Therefore, Hebrews 12:25-28 could shed some light here on the different kingdoms that are being shown. 

 

As a side note, there is a lot in the O.T. and N.T. dealing with the Heavenly bodies and that is worth looking at (Isaiah 13:10; 24:23; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 5:20; 8:9; Zephaniah 1:15; Matthew 24:29-35; Acts 2:20; Revelation 6:12-17; 8:12). So I also believe that not only will the powers and kingdoms of earth and the spiritual kingdom of Satan be shaken, but there will be physical and cosmic level catastrophes that will also be seen. But it is because of God's mercy the sun and moon are dimmed (Revelation 8:12; Revelation 16:8-9). If it were not the 1/3 dimming of the sun, the scorching would be worse, and there would be less time to repent. There is a verse that speaks to God's mercy being the reason the sun is dimmed, but I cannot find it at the moment. 

 

But, I pose another question and it is the same one asked by Dean Burgeon when this whole affair started. Did the original translators working with Wescott/Hort, follow the guidelines given to them by the church body? 

 

There is, documented, enough evidence to say they did not. So my question is, should the critical text (the Nestle Aland text which derives almost 90 something percent from the Wescott/Hort text and thereby carrying forward the very issues found in the W/H text) even be acceptable? If not, then the whole issue of translations, the confusion, and the disparity is solved which was the basis of this thread in the first place. 

 

I would say the Critical text, while interesting to see variants, should not be accepted. 

 

Again, I am a minority on this here on this forum and I can already see the responses now. But Dean Burgeon's work has yet to be answered and it has been standing since the late 1800's. I think that is telling. 

 

But I want to be careful so as to not go against the TOS so please feel free to DM me and I will be happy to talk more about this. ETA: As I have time to respond. My calendar is fairly full. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Pastor Jonathan

[Brian K. Mitchell]

8 minutes ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

There are some who are wholly incapable of picking up other languages.

Well, while I do not believe that all people can learn languages through the grammar-translation method so often used for the instruction of Biblical and so called dead languages I however do believe that all people can acquire languages through immersion and comprehensible input. 

 

24 minutes ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I know many who are absolutely unable to learn another language

I do not doubt you for a second, however while that is true...

I also believe that it is true that you do not know of anyone who is unable to acquire another language.  Language learning and Language acquisition are two different things. In the beginning no one learns their first language (L1) rather they acquire their L1 primarily through hours and hours of a variety of comprehensible input. See: https://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/alternative methods/natural_approach.htm

https://www.fluentu.com/blog/natural-approach-to-language-learning/

http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/the_natural_approach.pdf

 

44 minutes ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

...I am also faced with the reality that ...

 

With all due respect the reality that we are faced with is that most do not and will never acquire Biblical languages including the clergy and Bible teachers. In that case there is no need to compel people to use their local or common language because the reality is they are all ready doing that.

On the other hand I believe encouragement for SLA(second language acquisition) however is needed.

 

1 hour ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

If they are then handed an Greek grammar and Hebrew Lexicon, they will just put the Bible away and never use it again. I don't want that.

Yes, I agree the grammar-translation method is a very poor pedagogy for beginners it is much more suited for people who are at least at an intermediate stage! Language acquisition is a much better option for beginner and for those actually want to become proficient in a foreign language.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10952296/SIEFERT_gsas.harvard_0084L_11049.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

https://ancientlanguage.com/why-grammar-translation-method-does-not-work/

 

1 hour ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

Thank you for the list of works. I will have to take a look at that. One of them sounds familiar. Right now I am working through Dean Burgeon's work, "The Revision Revised". It is eye opening. Hard read but worth it. 

 

And, thank you for the dialogue! I enjoy hearing different points of view and exchaning ideas

 

Grace and Peace

[Pastor Jonathan]

3 minutes ago, Brian K. Mitchell said:

Well, while I do not believe that all people can learn languages through the grammar-translation method so often used for the instruction of Biblical and so called dead languages I however do believe that all people can acquire languages through immersion and comprehensible input. 

 

I do not doubt you for a second, however while that is true...

I also believe that it is true that you do not know of anyone who is unable to acquire another language.  Language learning and Language acquisition are two different things. In the beginning no one learns their first language (L1) rather they acquire their L1 primarily through hours and hours of a variety of comprehensible input. See: https://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/alternative methods/natural_approach.htm

https://www.fluentu.com/blog/natural-approach-to-language-learning/

http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/the_natural_approach.pdf

 

 

With all due respect the reality that we are faced with is that most do not and will never acquire Biblical languages including the clergy and Bible teachers. In that case there is no need to compel people to use their local or common language because the reality is they are all ready doing that.

On the other hand I believe encouragement for SLA(second language acquisition) however is needed.

 

Yes, I agree the grammar-translation method is a very poor pedagogy for beginners it is much more suited for people who are at least at an intermediate stage! Language acquisition is a much better option for beginner and for those actually want to become proficient in a foreign language.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10952296/SIEFERT_gsas.harvard_0084L_11049.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

https://ancientlanguage.com/why-grammar-translation-method-does-not-work/

 

 

And, thank you for the dialogue! I enjoy hearing different points of view and exchaning ideas

 

Grace and Peace

True on acquiring. And I absolutely agree with you on that method. I believe, for the ones I know, this kind of learning is best. The other comment about the Biblical languages, I do believe there is a place and time for the original languages. I use them as I need to. But I want to be careful that I do not talk over the flock God has put me in front of. 

 

I used to be very, very much a nuts and bolts type pastor. But I would spend all sermon on a word and I really am not sure if anything was gleaned from it. 

 

When I got here, where I am at, I was given the most amazing advice by my mentor. He said, "The people do not need to see the nuts and bolts. Just make the building so they can come in." 

 

That got me thinking and then was given the question, "How did your sermon help me this week?" Sure, I gave the mechanics of the original language, but the Bible is not just a text book. It is something that is to inform, correct, encourage, and help us. As Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16. 

 

So I do not want you to think I am trashing original languages. That is not what I am trying to do. I think I may be approaching this from a practical point mostly rather than an clinical point. 

 

Other than that, I do agree. I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you and God bless. 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

But I would spend all sermon on a word and I really am not sure if anything was gleaned from it. 

I agree with you as I doubt anything is gleaned from the 'stop and parse' or dissect that word approach. I think, however, reading in context and reading a lot is far the better option. This yet another reason why I dislike the grammar-translation method, because it does help people enjoy reading and immersing in long sections of primary texts nor does it help people to quickly sight read a text if needed.

 

 

8 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I think I may be approaching this from a practical point mostly rather than an clinical point. 

Thanks for clarifying.

As for myself though language is practical rather than clinical.

The last two last 20 years I have lived and worked outside of the anglosphere so knowledge of languages other English are a necessity not a luxury. Also, I since I’ve belong to congregations that used an ancient ecclesiastical or liturgical language different from the common language I have continue to find language to be practical.

 

8 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

Other than that, I do agree. I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you and God bless. 

I think the accordance forums are interesting because although we are united in our used of Accordance, we all come from very different backgrounds.

 

Grace and Peace!

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Brian K. Mitchell

[Rick55]

Greetings Pastor , and Brian.  

 

Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. 

 

They are engaging and thought provoking. 

 

Are too many translations a bad thing? 

 

My opinion: 

Yes they are

and no they are not. 

 

Too many translations can have a negative impact because:

- If they do no not translate the Word with integrity the people will be lead in error ,( by changing the words, etc., giving new names and meanings, etc.) , rather than leading them in truth and sound doctrine. 

 

 Thus, to much quantity heeds less truth than that which is of quality. Additionally, older does not automatically mean it's better. 

 

 

Contrarily,  

Too many translations are not a bad thing because they are an aid to the more unfamiliar language/literature.

 

Give 99.9% of the world population (who can read english) a copy of the King James without a lexicon , archaic or older dictionary (1828),

and they will yes, walk away with truth/ sound doctrine for the church (the core of our salvation), But will have many misunderstandings OF customs and the like.

 

This could and would for some, lead them to getting bored and less engaged in the Word. 

 

For example ,

how many independent baptists or any one who uses strictly use the kj knows what the word victuals means, or know what a chamois is? 

 

With no dictionary to look them up - then what? 

 

 

The consequence is that there are pros and cons on both sides of the batters box , so you ought to chew the cud and spit out the bones. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Rick55

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 

Question: Are too many translations a bad thing? 

My Answer: Translations are somewhere between good and neutral as long as would be readers keep in mind that all Bible translations/Versions are the interpretations of individuals or committees. In that case I believe can serve a tool to understand how others have wrestled with and understood the ancient text. 

 

 

[Pastor Jonathan]

14 hours ago, Rick55 said:

Greetings Pastor , and Brian.  

 

Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. 

 

They are engaging and thought provoking. 

 

Are too many translations a bad thing? 

 

My opinion: 

Yes they are

and no they are not. 

 

Too many translations can have a negative impact because:

- If they do no not translate the Word with integrity the people will be lead in error ,( by changing the words, etc., giving new names and meanings, etc.) , rather than leading them in truth and sound doctrine. 

 

 Thus, to much quantity heeds less truth than that which is of quality. Additionally, older does not automatically mean it's better. 

 

 

Contrarily,  

Too many translations are not a bad thing because they are an aid to the more unfamiliar language/literature.

 

Give 99.9% of the world population (who can read english) a copy of the King James without a lexicon , archaic or older dictionary (1828),

and they will yes, walk away with truth/ sound doctrine for the church (the core of our salvation), But will have many misunderstandings OF customs and the like.

 

This could and would for some, lead them to getting bored and less engaged in the Word. 

 

For example ,

how many independent baptists or any one who uses strictly use the kj knows what the word victuals means, or know what a chamois is? 

 

With no dictionary to look them up - then what? 

 

 

The consequence is that there are pros and cons on both sides of the batters box , so you ought to chew the cud and spit out the bones. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would say most emphatically, I believe we should continually be updating and making new translations! 

 

Dean Burgeon also agrees with this. His argument, at the time was that new translations should be made, but not at his time (19th century). 

 

I am not against more translations. I just am strong on what Greek text those translations are based on. So I am very comfortable with the KJV, NKJV, and I am looking at the MEV but I have not decided yet on it because it seems to be a remake of the KJV but not the TR. 

 

Other than that, I have enjoyed this topic immensely! Thank you @Brian K. Mitchell and @Rick55 and everyone else for being part of this! 

[Pastor Jonathan]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:52 AM, Pastor Jonathan said:

I am not really sure why. The Greek word you are looking at is the word Power (as found using my Accordance !) 

 

The Greek word, really expands upon the ability of God, and Jesus. In the N.T. what I found, and this is a very quick read, is that the focus is on the ability and authority to be able to act and do. Hence Jesus had the power to command the wind and waves, turn water into wine, etc. 

 

But why would the translators choose to use the word bodies? I have two plausible answers:

 

1. This was a translators interpretation by which to hopefully add clarity.

2. This is a rewriting based on an assumption of what is meant by the phrase, "the powers of the heavens". 

 

Doing a search for this word across the N.T. it is used some 120 times and not once is it translated as the word body. Anywhere. 

 

To use the word power is absolutely the better English word. Not only does this reflect the meaning of the word underneath, but I think there is more in picture here than just the Heavenly bodies being shaken. 

 

During the time of the tribulation, after the rapture (which is alluded to in 24:27), we find the sun, moon, stars are darkened. These would be the bodies. 

 

But to understand powers, I would say the focus is on the powers of the earthly rulers (as it was used to describe Israel from turning from Him in Leviticus 26:19-20), as well as the Spiritual powers that are in the heavens. Satan has his power in the heavens (Revelation 12:7-9), Daniel spoke of this casting down of the power (Daniel 8:10), and finally we fight now against the Spiritual power (Ephesians 6:12). 

 

But in Matthew 24:29, it is the coming of the Lord and all that is entailed which will truly shake the powers of the heavens, for there is One power in Heaven that will never be shaken. That is the power of God, His rule, and His authority. 

 

Therefore, Hebrews 12:25-28 could shed some light here on the different kingdoms that are being shown. 

 

As a side note, there is a lot in the O.T. and N.T. dealing with the Heavenly bodies and that is worth looking at (Isaiah 13:10; 24:23; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 5:20; 8:9; Zephaniah 1:15; Matthew 24:29-35; Acts 2:20; Revelation 6:12-17; 8:12). So I also believe that not only will the powers and kingdoms of earth and the spiritual kingdom of Satan be shaken, but there will be physical and cosmic level catastrophes that will also be seen. But it is because of God's mercy the sun and moon are dimmed (Revelation 8:12; Revelation 16:8-9). If it were not the 1/3 dimming of the sun, the scorching would be worse, and there would be less time to repent. There is a verse that speaks to God's mercy being the reason the sun is dimmed, but I cannot find it at the moment. 

 

But, I pose another question and it is the same one asked by Dean Burgeon when this whole affair started. Did the original translators working with Wescott/Hort, follow the guidelines given to them by the church body? 

 

There is, documented, enough evidence to say they did not. So my question is, should the critical text (the Nestle Aland text which derives almost 90 something percent from the Wescott/Hort text and thereby carrying forward the very issues found in the W/H text) even be acceptable? If not, then the whole issue of translations, the confusion, and the disparity is solved which was the basis of this thread in the first place. 

 

I would say the Critical text, while interesting to see variants, should not be accepted. 

 

Again, I am a minority on this here on this forum and I can already see the responses now. But Dean Burgeon's work has yet to be answered and it has been standing since the late 1800's. I think that is telling. 

 

But I want to be careful so as to not go against the TOS so please feel free to DM me and I will be happy to talk more about this. ETA: As I have time to respond. My calendar is fairly full. 

@Rick55,

 

I mentioned above that it was God's mercy that the days were shortened but I could not get my hands on the verse quickly. I was listening to the Bible being read and they read the verse . 

 

It is found in Mark 13:20. The day is shortened for the sake of those who are saved in the Tribulation and it is giving mercy to the others to repent because unless it was not shortened, everyone would just die. 

 

Wanted to tie in that loose end. Thanks. 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

23 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I would say most emphatically, I believe we should continually be updating and making new translations! 

I think modern English has an abundance or maybe an over abundance of Bible translations(interpretations) to choose from, but there are plenty other languages that are not as fortunate and may have need of a new translation and/or undated translations. 

 

However, having said that I agree that English translations should continually be updated (and maybe re-translated) because the English language is always in a state of change and the fact that there are various national dialects of English around the world which deserve translations/versions specific to them. We also continue to learn more about the languages and cultures of the world that the ancient text of the Bible was written in. 

 

23 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I just am strong on what Greek text those translations are based on. So I am very comfortable with the KJV, NKJV,

You may find it interesting to note that a number of English speaking Greek Orthodox congregations also use the NKJV more so than the other translations out there. By the way the recent Orthodox Study Bible uses the NKJV for the NT, and a brand new translation of the OT/LXX. 

 

However, there is a new (as of 2015) translation of the Patriarchal Greek New testament Text of 1904 ( this is a Byzantine Majority type text) it is called the Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament or the EOB.

 

Grace and Peace

[Pastor Jonathan]

@Brian K. Mitchell,

 

I think there are a lot of English translations, but as my premise was, I am not sure I would count most as Bibles. However, I understand what you are saying. 

 

But our church does support a missionary who is translating the Bible into a foreign language that has never had one. So I do not see this as an either/or. I see it as a both/and. 

 

Your second part is absolutely good and true. English is very broad depending on where you are from. I did not know the Greek Orthodox used the NKJV. That is my translation I use and teach from as I find its accuracy unparalleled. But I will take a look at the Patriarchal GNT. Thanks. 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

17 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I think there are a lot of English translations, but as my premise was, I am not sure I would count most as Bibles.

Believe, it or not I think our opinions are pretty close on this point. For, me no translation is equal to the source text it was translated from. My point of view rhymes with the following famous statment:

"The real New Testament is the Greek New Testament. The English is simply a translation of the New Testament, not the actual New Testament. It is good that the New Testament has been translated into so many languages. The fact that it was written in the koiné, the universal language of the time, rather than in one of the earlier Greek dialects, makes it easier to render into modern tongues. But there is much that cannot be translated. It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turns of thought, the nuances of language, in translation. The freshness of the strawberry cannot be preserved in any extract. This is inevitable. " Archibald Thomas Robertson The Minister and his Greek New Testament (link)

 

17 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

our church does support a missionary who is translating the Bible into a foreign language that has never had one. So I do not see this as an either/or. I see it as a both/and. 

Thanks for sharing! The art of translation is something that fascinates me. 

 

17 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I did not know the Greek Orthodox used the NKJV.

Neither, did I until recently, but it makes sense that they would use it because the text the NT of the NKJV is translated from is basically or virtual identically with the Greek Text the Orthodox Church uses. 

 

18 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

I will take a look at the Patriarchal GNT.

Accordance has module that contains the 

• Antoniades / Ecumenical Patriarchal Text – ....GNT-Ecumenical Patriarchal Text, also known as the Antoniades Text. This is the official Greek text published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1904, incorporating corrections in the printed edition of 1912. (link)

Grace and Peace

[Brian K. Mitchell]

By the way the Antoniades /Ecumenical Patriarchal Text (link) mentioned above is coincidently almost identical to the GNT Robinson Byzantine (link) and (link)