Published last October, a new Norwegian translation of the Bible has been one of the top 15 bestsellers in the country for 54 out of the last 56 weeks, jostling for position with more populist titles from the likes of EL James, James Nesbø, Ken Follett and Per Petterson. It is now one of the bestselling books of the year, according to Dag Smemo, project manager for publisher the Norwegian Bible Society, with 157,000 copies sold in the last 14 months, and more time in the charts than both Fifty Shades of Grey and Justin Bieber's autobiography.
Smemo puts the popularity of the book – among Christians and non-believers alike – down to the strength of its translation. The Bible Society worked with Hebrew and Greek experts on the original text, and then involved literary writers including A Death in the Family author Karl Ove Knausgaard to perfect it.
John UK wrote: My Bible doesn't have marginal notes. However, the translators said for readers to continue their own investigations regarding certain words, noted in the margin. Thankfully, doctrine is not affected by such minor details.
But that is not the point is it? You want the inerrant word of God and yet the KJV translators themselves are saying that there are variant readings in the texts that they handled (as limited as they were) which throws doubt on the correct text!!
If the doctrine is not affected arguments holds for you, why not for other modern translations like the NASB that Frank uses?
Question wrote: What do you do when you are presented by the KJV translators with variant readings? Do you accept both as the word of God? And why did they only include some variant readings and not all?
My Bible doesn't have marginal notes.
However, the translators said for readers to continue their own investigations regarding certain words, noted in the margin. Thankfully, doctrine is not affected by such minor details.
John UK wrote: I'd be interested to know what you do when confronted with a marginal note which says, "not in the most ancient mss". Do you still accept it as the word of God, or scratch it out of your NASB with Tippex?
What do you do when you are presented by the KJV translators with variant readings? Do you accept both as the word of God?
And why did they only include some variant readings and not all?
Erasmus a servant of satan? Jim you parade your ignorance on the subject so unabashedly it's astounding. Try reading history and books not written and supported by Jesuits...old scarlet harlot has you duped.
Actually, I'm glad the warning is in there, no I think about it, I wish more versions would do it that way, instead of List of Bible verses not included in modern translations. I personally would be a little more pleased if they bracketed such verses and explain why they were.
I usually read various good commentaries about the verses in dispute, unfortunately the AV has what can be considered the Romish Appocrypha mixed into the New Testament at times so, these errors need to be pointed out.
Jim Lincoln wrote: John U.K., you really must have a sense of humor!
Sure I do, it is God-given.
Now you obviously did not read my post slowly enough. I did not argue against the inclusion of marginal notes.
No, not at all.
And I too have read the entire TTTR document.
I'd be interested to know what you do when confronted with a marginal note which says, "not in the most ancient mss". Do you still accept it as the word of God, or scratch it out of your NASB with Tippex?
Bill Combs wrote: ...the translators of the KJV were not opposed to such notes. In a study of the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, F. H. A. Scrivener counted 6,637 in the OT, 1,018 in the Apocrypha, and 767 in the NT, for a total of 8,422 (The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 56). In their Preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” the KJV translators argued strongly for their inclusion...
Mike wrote: NIV includes it as footnote, putting it in historical perspective. This doesn't make it "missing." NASB has it as a verse, but also notes it similarly. Why should noting that the oldest manuscripts do not have it be threatening? The detail isn't confusing, in spite there might be claims to the contrary.
Mike, remember "Yea, hath God said?"
If a believer is reading his Bible, and he comes to a text with a marginal note saying, "not in the most ancient mss", does he not then think, "Well if it wasn't in the most ancient mss then it probably shouldn't be in the younger mss, therefore I have some doubt as to the validity of this text."
You can see that the devil has introduced doubt into the mind of God's children, even in the 21st century. He is still winning battles for the mind, and causing doubt, and he is doing it through "scholars". Let them be damned who cause any doubt in the minds of God's elect.
Please note that the KJV/TR believers promote the truth about their glorious God and Saviour who has miraculously preserved his word intact for so many thousands of years.
And may God put rocks in the pillows of all who promote doubt concerning the words of life.
John UK wrote: --- explain to me then why the NASB has Acts 8:37, and in the NIV it is missing. Note again the words "translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today". Tripe.
NIV includes it as footnote, putting it in historical perspective. This doesn't make it "missing." NASB has it as a verse, but also notes it similarly. Why should noting that the oldest manuscripts do not have it be threatening? The detail isn't confusing, in spite there might be claims to the contrary.
Well, you should read John McArthur's comments in full, but as,
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: What we want among translators is the best skill available. In a life and death situation, would you rather have your child operated on by an unbelieving surgeon conceded by everyone as the best available surgeon with no fatalities on his record for this particular procedure or by a Christian surgeon who is only “average” and has a 20 percent failure rate? The same principle applies in translating. We want the best people available. This is because the process of objectively translating a text has no necessary relationship to personal belief....
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, let us certainly hope they didn't use, that work of the servant of Satan, Erasmus!
Well Jim, the article tells us they used the secular world... Quote; "But we had a very thorough procedure, involving authors and poets, secular people and believers, and discussing the whole translation word by word, so there is not only a good translation of the Greek and Hebrew but also a very good flow of the Norwegian language." And atheists like it too...
So yes another modern version with Satan involved just like the NIV and Nasb et al...
But Jim your usual mistake where you ignore Satans minions like Westcott and Hort; - And ignore history where true Christians were used to translate the King James Version.
Remember Jim. God has been using His Bible for four centuries the KJV and did not need anythibng else, especially the confusion which the myriad modern versions have brought.
Remember also Jim. That Westcott and Hort were heretical and popish sympathisers - They helped to write your modern versions.
John MacArthur wrote: Let me share with you my own conclusions after studying these issues. Bible versions, such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, have been translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today.
Jim, read through that quote, and explain to me then why the NASB has Acts 8:37, and in the NIV it is missing. Note again the words "translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today".
John MacArthur wrote: ....Let me share with you my own conclusions after studying these issues. Bible versions, such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, have been translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today. May I add, the manuscript evidence that is now available is far superior to that which was available to the King James Version's translators in 1611. I would have no reservation in recommending these versions, yet I myself choose to continue using the Scofield Reference Bible because it is the text with which I am most familiar.
Let me recommend a recent book which very carefully discusses the issues. I think you might find it helpful. The author is Donald A. Carson, King James Version Debate,...
Yes indeed...finally, a Bible that won't offend anyone. I can't believe how the corruption of God's word is becoming so commonplace. Not unlike open source software...only it's being done with the Bible now. Have they no fear of God almighty?
"The Bible is the most sold and read book in the world, and the most important book in our culture. The Bible Society therefore intends to present The Word of God to people 'in a language they understand and at a price they can pay'. Most Christian churches in Norway are represented in the governing bodies of the Bible Society." quote from Norwegian Bible Society
"Most Christian churches"? Ahem, that means Roman Catholics, Methodists, United Reformed, and other ecumenical liberal and non-Christian churches. Of course, this "Bible Society" is a member of The "United Bible Societies" worldwide, an ecumenical body embracing most of christendoms' bible societies EXCEPT the TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, who correctly stand aloof of this deceptive body of apostates.!
Deceptive?
Claiming to have the ORIGINAL mss!! And then accurately translating them with people you could find in a bus shelter!
I just hope folks do some research into this abomination. I couldn't find any details about which mss were used in the translation, but the bookies are not giving any odds on them being the VATICANUS and SINAITICUS or derivatives.
p.s. When you find NU in your Bible margin, the N refers to the Nestle/Aland text and the U refers to the UBS
Quote; "But we had a very thorough procedure, involving authors and poets, secular people and believers, and discussing the whole translation word by word, so there is not only a good translation of the Greek and Hebrew but also a very good flow of the Norwegian language."
"Authors, poets and secular people"???
Apparently even atheists like it???
I think i'll stick to God's inerrant word.
1
There are a total of 39 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Alan Cairns | 3/16/2009
COMMENTS | 
But, you can get the best English translation of the Bible, 
At least it is in modern Norwegian. 
