How many translations of the bible have there been up to this point?

Question

Do you feel that there is something lost in the translation?
If so, do you think, that as language changes and evolves, will more of the original meaning become lost in the future?

Black Robe was an excellent movie, good call.

Answer 1

i dont think so ... most follow the original greek text pretty closely and can be cross referenced in several translations to absorb the meaning ... i dont have any problems at this point anyway and the Spirit guides as always ..

Answer 2

The short answer is TOO MANY! Yes, it has already lost much in the translation but more so in the sophomoric way they have tried to make the language accessible to everyone. It changes the original meaning of the word when they do that and the wording is everything! I believe they've gone much too far with re-writing something that could have stopped at the St. James Version but if not there, then certainly the New Revised Standard Version goes far enough without losing the overall meaning.

An good argument can be made is one concerning the writings of Shakespeare. Why do people think those books have never been changed? I'm not speaking of the screenplays and films that have been based on the premise of one of his stories, but the writings themselves. It is tedious reading but if you change the wording, it takes away from the depth and meaning of the story.

Answer 3

In terms of the New & Old Testaments together, at least 1 for each language into which it was translated. In the English tongue, there were several translations after the start of the Reformation, the most important being by Tyndale. In 1611. the standby, King James Bible was issued for use in the English Church. This stood the test of time until the RSV. On the other hand, RC's use the Douai version, which has been updated at least once. Additionally, several churches have sponsered translations of their own, and there are the "common tongue" versions that are popular today.

Translations seek to go back to the oldest source for their starting point. The 20th Century has led to "better" initial versions, and there is no reason to expect that this will continue. Since the translation is into the English tongue at the time of the translation, the original meaning is not lost. This would only happen if you took an earlier English translation and used that as your base.

Answer 4

There have been hundreds of translations.
Something is always lost in translation. Indirect translation, that is translating an English bible into Swahili, gets quite distorted because the English bible itself is a translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation with Aramaic thrown in. Some languages have no verb tenses. How can you translate a statement like the one Jesus made, "Before Abraham was, I am." ? if the language in question, like Chinese, has no verb tenses. In addition Israel is a small country that many people in the world have never heard of and to convince someone born in the Amazon rain forest that the Bible has any relevance to him is a tough sell.
There are some excellent movies about the cultural gap between Christian missionaries and Amazon indians. Watch the movie "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" for an excellent look at this problem. It's got an all star cast. Another good movie for the same purpose is "Black Robe", about Jesuit missionaries in Canada about 1600.

Answer 5

1) Here's an incomplete list (refer to the links on the right in this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible

Note that these are just the *English* translations. Supposedly, there were over 40 Italian translations before a single complete English translation even appeared!

2) Certainly, something is "lost in the translation". This is true of the translation of any text of any significant length. The bible has the additional difficultly of being written in ancient languages, and our knowledge of them is incomplete. However, even if the bible were written in, say, 19th century French, we would have several translations. I have 3 translations of Verne's "Around the World in 80 Days" - a much shorter work, written in 19th century French, a language *thoroughly* understood.

3) Quite the opposite. With the passing of time, scholars discover new, more authentic (more nearly original) source texts and also make new discoveries in the field of ancient language translation. In other words, the accuracy of translation actually improves significantly over time. Trust me, modern English is no farther from ancient Hebrew than Old English. Indeed, we now can boast of the inclusion of such words as "messiah", "hallelujah" and "shalom".

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 6

If anything, the sense of the original will increase. That is the benefit of having dozens of translations. Obscure works that only exist in one or two translations (like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example) are the ones that are more likely to be misunderstood.

Understanding of the text of the Bible has increased significantly in the last 100 years, and translators are struggling to keep up with changes in the English vernacular, liturgical revisions, and new discoveries in the fields of archaeology and textual criticism.

I am astounded at the number of people who are actually opposed by new translations. When you consider that the average Greek word has five or six English synonymns (and vice versa), it only makes sense to have many different translations. Anyone who sees that as a bad thing must be confused about the nature of translation.

Answer 7

Depends. If you're talking about the Christian bible, there have been thousands.

If you're talking about the Jewish Torah, you can look at the Dead Sea Scrolls from thousands of years ago and find less than half a dozen letter differences than what is in the Jewish Torah now.

The Christian Old Testament has also been changed by the Christians severely, as it has over 30 thousand differences between it and what is in the Jewish Torah. Entire sentences, verses, and letters, let alone meanings, have been changed by the Christians.

Contrast that with less than half a dozen *letter* changes only between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Torah the Jews still use today.

EDIT: You can give me thumbs down all you like but it doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is true.

Answer 8

there are so many translations it is sickening. Many perversions exists. Seeing that things that are different are not the same, there can no doubt be several proper translations of God's word in any given language. God has, however, promised to preserve his word for Every nation and generation. Because of this, he will provide a Bible for each language that seeks it and translates it diligently from the manuscripts containing the words that were in the origionals. In the English language, that would be the KJV. God bless.

Answer 9

Thousands probably. If you look at the history of the Bible in English for example, you will find that early ones were translated from Greek, Latin, German, and French.
The process of translation these days usually attempts to go back to the oldest possible versions of each section which may be Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin depending on what is available and may pull in fragments from texts taken to other countries (e.g. Ethiopia) in early times.
By careful comparison and judgement based on new ways of looking at writing (who wrote what in what style) and by looking at new discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls), more accurate versions can be produced.
Of course, 90% of Bible users believe that the King James Standard Version was ordained by God and refuse anything else including the Revised Standard even if they don't understand all the words of Shakespeare's time.

Answer 10

The problem I see is many people WANT different translation to soothe their lifestyle. I understand the language difference in the KJV and today but I fail to see where translations are differing so much from the original literature.
As more and more "Bibles" come out, the more diverse they will get.
I'm not critical of all of them from the KJV, but some are so far out I won't touch them. The RNIV, for example, won't refer to gender for God, even when Jesus mentions "Father."
Don't want to offend the gender sensitive women of today.