How often should a bible translation be revised/updated then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
As often as necessary, because English, like all languages, is a living thing, dynamic in nature. Once people find it necessary to completely revise a dictionary, it might also be a good time to determine whether to revise the Bible translation for that language.
Agreed, as often as necessary. There is no specific timetable.
Good morning, YeshuaFan;
How often should a translation be released? I noticed you like to get other's thoughts first in your threads, and then come in with your own?
I'm interested to know how often do you feel the translation(s) be revised?
God bless you, brother.
Bob
How often should a translation be released? I noticed you like to get other's thoughts first in your threads, and then come in with your own?
I'm interested to know how often do you feel the translation(s) be revised?
God bless you, brother.
Bob
I think if we have changed the textual basis, should update the bible, like when the nas went from 23 Nestle to the 26 Nestle, and also when the grammar of the language had had noticeable changes, but am NOT a big supporter of gender inclusive language "fixes" like they tried to do when went from 1984 Niv to 2011 Niv, as that made a decent translation worse
Last edited:
Yes, YeshuaFan;
What you share adds to the many revisions of various translations, one that is disconcerting is re-interpreting the text from the then times to the here and now times.
God bless you.
Bob
You're right, Bob. Understandably interpretation is sometimes necessary, especially when dealing with idioms, but translators should avoid unnecessarily inserting their theological interpretations into the text. That's the purview of study bible notes.
And many times that seems to be what happens when the translation get really into heavy Gender inclusive language and renderings
Yes,,, I remember struggling with the KJV’s old English, thou, thy, thee, shalt... I was in the Fundamental college, only the KJV was accepted, and I honestly could not understand at all. It was 10 years ago, and decided to improve my English. At the Chapel, we used only the KJV, so for self study I purchased the NKJV, which helped me grasp its meaning.
Revised versions as generational are helpful for non-native like us, as language develops with each generation and progress...
I had NO clue that Bible translations got updated..... Isn't ONE time ENOUGH?? I mean... what words in our language are going to change that much??
What is being REVISED??
What is being REVISED??
Do you remember Origen"s game of what does this word mean in the KJV? There were words that just aren't used anymore in modern english, so
translators updated the language for modern day english. The caution for them is to keep the word true and not interject their own agenda.
Every language on earth is a living thing in flux. It changes constantly. Look what happened to British English as it spread across the globe. We now have different flavors of English from Australia to America. More than that, do you still address people with ye, thou or thee? Which English do you speak? Do you speak the language of C. S. Lewis or Shakespeare or Chaucer or Beowulf? Look at the difference in slang terms between the 1920s and the 2020s.
Good point. New words, phrases, and idioms are coined all the time. According to AI Google:
"The Cambridge Dictionary added 6,212 new words, phrases, and meanings to its online edition this year, reflecting how quickly language is changing..."
Some words fall out of use. They become archaic. The definition of a word may expand, contract (i.e. become specialized), or even flip. For example 2 Thessalonians 2:7.
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." (KJV)
"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way." (ESV)
Let us also not forget the suffix "-eth" at the end of the verb in older English which indicates the third-person singular present tense. It is serves the same grammatical function as the modern "-s" ending for verbs.
Take the example of the word "nice." The word "nice" in Old French meant "careless, clumsy, weak, simple, foolish, or stupid". This meaning was inherited from the Latin. However as everyone here knows that is not the meaning of the word "nice" in English.
Last edited:
Many times one gets a misunderstanding of what the bible is actually saying but reading back into the text what English means today, and not what it meant in 1611 Mard ward calls themFasle friends for the words and terms
Think that many who hav used the kjv were raised up in their churches and families early on to use it, but if not with that background, especially if saved as adult, can be very hard to read with full understanding
Think good example is Conversation, as in time of Kjv met life style, not just saying do not cuss
Which seems to not happen under gender Inclusive language revisions, as they seem to be imposing modern cultural viewpoints into bible text
Good morning, YeshuaFan;
As I'm scrolling this morning's posts with my cup o' coffee, your two posts are interesting. Please give us a couple of examples of the texts and please include the translation.
This is interesting.
God bless you, YeshuaFan, and thank you.
Bob
Critics of the NIV 2011 identified problematic translations in verses like 1 Timothy 2:12, Galatians 1:8, Jeremiah 3:24, Isaiah 19:16, and Romans 16:7, arguing that the translation philosophy of the NIV 2011 prioritized gender-inclusive language and theological interpretations over literal accuracy, which distorted the original meaning and created theological inconsistencies. Other examples include changes in Proverbs 15:5, Luke 17:21, and Acts 22:9, as well as the controversial "deacon" footnote for Phoebe in Romans 16:1.
Examples of criticized passages:
- 1 Timothy 2:12:
The 2011 NIV's rendering of "I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man" faced criticism for altering the original text's meaning.
- Galatians 1:8:
The NIV's phrase "let them be under God's curse" was considered a theological interpretation, not a direct translation of the Greek "let him be accursed".
- Jeremiah 3:24 and Isaiah 19:16:
The NIV replaced "women" with "weaklings" to make the text less offensive to modern sensibilities, losing the insult intended by the prophets.
- Romans 16:7:
The translation referring to Junia as an apostle was criticized as a possible interpretation that should have been a footnote, not a definitive statement, as the Greek name "Junia" could also be masculine (Junias).
- Luke 17:21:
The NIV changed "the kingdom of God is within you" to "the kingdom of God is in your midst," based on modern theological opinion rather than textual evidence for the meaning of the Greek word ἐντὸς.
- Acts 22:9:
The NIV translated the Greek word for "hear" (ἀκούω) as "did not understand" to resolve a perceived contradiction, altering the original meaning.
- Gender-Inclusive Language:
.
The primary criticism was the NIV's extensive use of gender-neutral language, which some argue led to inaccuracies and distortions of the original text's meaning.
- Philosophical Approach:
.
The debate centered on whether the translation philosophy, which prioritized inclusivity and communicative clarity, was justified when it meant deviating from a more literal rendering of the original languages.
- Theological Interpretations:
.
Critics argued that the NIV committee allowed modern theological viewpoints to influence translation decisions, leading to interpretations not supported by the original Greek or Hebrew texts.
Hello YeshuaFan;
I thought you would point out the NIV. They have long been criticized and we can point out other translations, as already shared in this thread.
I use all formal equivalence translations and even these have received criticism. My view is to utilize the best translation that remains faithful as possible to both the original and receptor languages, best understood without losing the meaning of the original languages.
I've always been curious, who are these critics, who authorize their critique? Do they ever give praise to God for the hard work and years spent by the scholars, theologians, contributions of seasoned Pastors and ultimately the publisher who approves the production of the translations? Are we to dismiss them? I never hear about that from these critics.
Truth is, on the flip side there are countless translations that were proposed after their efforts but were not final approved for publishing.
The Bibles I use are valuable tools and are used for preaching, officiating funerals, weddings, baby Christenings beside teaching and personal study.
I'm officiating a funeral tomorrow and the family asked me to use the Catholic version, the Douay - Rheims. It contains English that is not fully understood today, it leans more toward the Latin Vulgate and less toward to the original Greek and Hebrew. I asked them why, and they responded because our "parish traditionally uses it."
I hate to be brutally honest, but most Catholic congregations don't understand what was being read from this translation but favor more comfortable, "traditional" practices.
God bless you all.
Bob