jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (203 posts)

Bible Translation Issue

  1. 0
    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago

    Which Bible translation do you use and why? Do you consider your translation as superior to others? Why?

    1. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I use a NLT for quick reading but for any serious study I use either an interlinear Greek or an online Young's Literal if I can't be bothered to walk to the bookcase.

      I wouldn't waste my time with a King James; its archaic language and mistranslations make it only useful as a doorstop.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello I am using basically non archaic NKJV. I am using Hebrew Old and NT plus Greek NT. I have many other translations including Young. I love to listen Tanakh and NT in Hebrew on audio.  I have available home German Dr. Martin Luther Bible Russian, Slovak, Czech.
        Amplified Bible in English is very good.

      2. 0
        Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        NKJV is a good one...

    2. Ann1Az2 profile image61
      Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I love reading the King James Version, but I like reading out loud from the NKJV better. I don't get as tongue-tied.

      The Living Bible paraphrased, I don't care for because it seems to take away from the holiness of the Bible. I have an NIV which I'd like to read, but the print is way too small, so I'm going to have to get one with larger print.

      1. 0
        Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ann, also use the KJV with the NKJV. I sometimes use the NASB.

    3. Gottabegod profile image60
      Gottabegodposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I use the NIV very often, but read the KJV & the NASB a lot, too.  They are all translations, even the KJV, which some people mistakenly believe is the one and only true Bible.   The translations that I use are for better understanding of the scriptures.

      1. 0
        Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Gttabegod,
        you pointed out something there... "some people mistakenly believe is the one and only true Bible." some of my friends really think that way.

    4. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fellow Christians, thank you for giving your personal preferences and opinions. Let us just ignore those destructive comments. What we are apt to is to from each other and not to prove our selves or disprove the other. God bless

      Jessie

    5. Paul Wingert profile image80
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Bible Translation Issue? With all the issues found in the Bible, translations is the least of its problems. I have issues like talking snakes, discrimination against homosexuals and women, a supposedly loving god that kills innocent men, women and children, glorifies slavery, and virgin births.

      1. aguasilver profile image88
        aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well that sure explains why you are as you are! smile

      2. 61
        passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Paul can you list a few? or email me your  issues

        1. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Read the Bible.

          1. 61
            passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have and I am.
            would you like to share what you see as problems?

            1. Paul Wingert profile image80
              Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I already mentioned the issues (just to name a few) earlier.

              1. 61
                passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know if you know but Abraham, Jacob and others like them paid there slaves.
                It says that women should submit to their husbands. But it also says that the man must love and treat their wives like Jesus treated the church. How did Jesus treat his followers? He washed their feet he comforted them he loved them he died for them. This looks equal to me.
                God does not hate homosexuals; he hates the act of homosexuality. Just like premarital sex and cheating on your spouse. God does not hate the people, he hates the act.
                Can you clarify on those innocent killed?
                About the snake, the snake refers to Satan the devil. The word snake is a description of Satan. Sneaky conniving, a killer
                Rev 12: [9] And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,
                This is the same serpent in Gen 3: 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.
                Isa 59:5 he is called a viper
                It was not a snake it was Satan the Devil that is talking here.
                The virgin birth is a long conversation.

                1. grand old lady profile image89
                  grand old ladyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  May I know your reference that shows Abraham and Jacob paid their slaves? The only transaction I know for a slave was when Joseph was sold by his brother for 20 pieces of silver.

              2. NSIEFBOOKS profile image60
                NSIEFBOOKSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am curious. Have you read the whole thing? From cover to cover I mean?

                1. 61
                  passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  yes, but that doesn't mean anything.

                  1. NSIEFBOOKS profile image60
                    NSIEFBOOKSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am glad that you are at least talking from knowledge rather than spouting nonsense!

                    It is obvious you are just trying to stir things and you don't sound interested in actual information. I hope it's not true. Best of luck to you. God bless, whether you want it or not! :-)

      3. Ann1Az2 profile image61
        Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I shouldn't, but I'm going to anyway because I'm a Christian and this demands my attention. The talking snake was Satan and him beguiling Eve is what started all the discrimination against homosexuals and women, and the killing. I hardly think the people of Sodom and Gomorrah could be called innocent. They were evil. As far as God not loving homosexuals or woman, that just isn't true. God hates sin, but he loves all who will repent of their sin and believe in Him. Who was the only one who didn't run when Jesus was crucified at the cross? a woman. Who found his empty tomb? women. The reason God condemns homosexuality is because He defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It doesn't mean he hates the homosexual - he just hates the act because it is a sin. As far as slavery goes, slavery was seen differently in Biblical times. Often, a slave became part of the household and even inherited some of the family's inheritance.

        As far as a virgin birth, you are talking about my Lord and Savior and it was necessary for Mary to be a virgin because Jesus was the pure Lamb of God and by the way, the only innocent one killed in the Bible in order that we might be saved from our sinful natures, such as homosexuality. Jesus died for all, whether you want or not or whether you believe or not. The question is whether you accept Him or not.

        If you don't believe in the Bible, then it doesn't make any difference what version you read.

        1. 61
          passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Paul I hope you see in these two answers that if you read the bible carefully you will get the right answer.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do love my sisters in the Lord. Ann, it is great answer.

        3. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well I shouldn't but I'm going to anyway because there's too much believing what the man at the front of the Church says rather than looking into stuff for one's self.

          As for Sodom, their sin was not homosexuality. A simple reading of Genesis tells us Sodom's sin was rising before God but it does not state what that sin actually was. The Church assumes it was homosexuality because the men at Lot's door wanted to have sex with his visitors. If God did consider homosexuality a good reason for destroying the city why didnt he also kill Lot for offering up his two virgin daughters for gang rape? Yet Lot was called a righteous man because God sent in two angels to get him out after Abraham's plea. Here is Sodom's sin:
          Ezekiel 16:49
          “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

          Sounds a lot like the Church doesn't it? Watch out Bible Belt !

          As for Satan. There was no rebellious Satan character in the garden. This is a Christian misunderstanding.
          http://www.jewishpathways.com/chumash-t … arden-eden

          http://www.examiner.com/article/the-tru … orned-eden

          If you don't believe you need to study the bible aside from what your pastor told you it means, it won't matter what version you use.

          1. Ann1Az2 profile image61
            Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am aware that the Bible doesn't say what Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was - I was using them as an example that God doesn't kill innocent blood.

            Neither, do I have any Christian misunderstanding of what happened in the Garden of Eden. I checked out your links, but I believe God gave us a choice between good and evil. That's because he didn't want to create a race of robots. I also happen to believe that Satan spoke through the snake. If you don't that's your choice.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are aware that Lot wasn't innocent aren't you? He offered his daughters for gang rape.

              You say you believe Satan spoke through the snake, but you present no evidence for your case. If you blindly accept what you have been told the Garden events are all about but refuse to consider the Jewish interpretation (for whom the account was written by the way) then how can you expect God to teach you anything?

              1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So when the pharaoh refused to let Moses and his people go (even though there's no record of this outside the bible including the existence of moses), god did not send an angel of death to deal with the pharaoh, but kill innocent children instead? Back when the earth was flat and consisted of only three land masses (Europe, Lybia, and Asia) that floated on an endless sea, god assumed that every man, woman and child, except Noah and his family, was evil and killed then all with a flood. Of course god didn't think that all the way through. By killing off every living thing has some drawbacks. Mainly, without plant life, there goes the oxygen supply.

                1. 61
                  passingthewordposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Paul, have you not herd of the hyksos expulsion Out of Egypt. The Pharoh at the time of the expulsion was named Ahmose l (which means brother of moses.) Ahmose's son died very young.
                  This story is told by the Egyptians. But they tell it backwards. They say that they kicked the hyksos out.
                  Where does it say that the earth is flat. Are you talking about when the four beast are at the corners of the earth? because if so you need to read the bible. It says that the 4 beast will be in the corners of Jerusalem. bring the 4 winds which means judgment. Ez. 14:21 talks of God sending "My four sore judgements upon Jerusalem,  The word earth in hebrew can mean the land.
                  I could go on and on. You gotta read paul.

                  1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I do. If I'm interested in Egyptian history, I'll read a history book on Egypt. If I want to learn about our universe, I get my info from a credible source, the Bible isn't one of them. The Bible is neither a history or science book and never meant to be. The only thing missing from the Bible if the disclaimer, "This is the work of fiction, any resemblance of persons living or dead is coincidence".

                2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Paul.  I think problem with some people is that they do not honor Word of God. It is too bad. God set for his people Law on temporary basis, till final solution - the Messiah comes.  The Law is the Law and is demander. God said that if one transgressed will die. He warned the people.  If God will not give the law then people will be wipe out from the earth.  Since that problem occurred broken faith in Word of God in Garden of Eden man died and you have evidence of it.  If you don't believe please go to cemetery. 
                  By the way there is death penalty in the world today.

              2. Ann1Az2 profile image61
                Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Disappearinghead: So since Lot who was a relative of Abraham, by the way, should have been burned along with Sodom because he was trying to protect God's angels by offering a homosexual mob his daughters? He put God first. And by the way, later, if you'll recall, those same daughters got Lot drunk and slept with their own father.

                If you've read the book of Genesis, it presents the evidence of the snake in the garden and I believe the Bible version that I have (the KJV) was originally written in Hebrew (some in Greek, some in Aramaic, just so you know I'm not stupid). The Torah was written by Moses, so I have the Jewish interpretation.

                Paul: like I said earlier, if you don't believe the Bible in the first place, you won't believe in Moses. God did all of that to Pharaoh in order to show the Egyptians and the Israelites that He was the only true God. Up to that point (and unfortunately, afterward), they had been worshiping all kinds of gods and idols. Sarcasm, while funny in a lot of situations, is not in this particular case. God doesn't do anything by mistake. The flood was a preordained, calculated event just like everything else in the Bible.

                1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                  Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I do not take the Bible literally, neither do mainstream Jews or the Vatican. These are nice stories to serve as a moral, not science or history. Moses does not exist outside of the Bible and the creation story is one of hundreds, most older than the Biblical version. The Noah and the flood story ( a ripoff from the Epic of Gilgamesh) is too rediculous to even get into.

                  1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Paul, of course you cannot. Bible is manual for our life and not for scientific analysis. Spiritual matters cannot be seen and parables was used.  BTW Bible helped many facst to science. Let say Job revealed so many thing the same Peter. We do not believe in religion only Word, which set us free. Religion offended you and us as well.  The Bible is collection of individuals their their experiences and truth has to be found by abiding in the Word.

          2. 0
            genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I must say that "sister Sodam" sounds a lot like many in the U.S.

        4. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          All that you attribute to God was done via Man and was subject to the perceptions of those claiming God said this and that. God hates this and that was a perception of Man. It is human emotions that whomever attributed to an all powerful God. This makes no sense, yet people continue to believe it blindly because understanding all powerfulness is limited to what a carnal mind can accept.

          Jesus dying was a waste of time as the supposed sinful natures apparently still exist.So what was the point of his death?

          1. 0
            genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Seems like you "blindly" accept that Jesus died. Good start. Now, it was for sin that he died. His death provided a once and for all sacrifice for sin. Before that, we killed goats. The animal killing was stinky because the heart of man was hard and just killing goats, probably for sin that they were about to commit. Jesus' death represented a perfect sacrifice to atone for all sin. That was the point.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How is it that he died for sin when it supposedly still exists? No atonement therefore occurred or is that those who claim it still exists did not understand the whole said sacrifice?

              1. 0
                genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                He died as a once and for all sacrifice for sin. Those who believe in him are saved because of that faith. This faith, from what I understand, is what makes us acceptable in spite of sin. The death of Jesus did not wipe away sin from the earth. His death wiped away the penalty of death for sin. No more killing to say, "i'm sorry for sinning"

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hebrews 9:26
                  26 "Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."

                  1. 0
                    genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Keep reading smile

      4. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Paul, people who are not born of (in) spirit, cannot understand the Bible.

        1. 0
          genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          God's children know that even if they don't understand the bible, they are covered. Understanding the bible is not a requirement. Faith is. All who have faith in the work done by Jesus are accepted even if they know no scripture.

    6. twosheds1 profile image61
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm an atheist, but I always use the KJV for reference. There may be some "problems" with the translation, but it's old enough to have politics not be part of the translation. Example: apparently recent versions have the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill."

      1. Logos831 profile image59
        Logos831posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The reason why newer translations write this as "murder" instead of "kill" is because so many people do not understand the context of the word "kill" in that verse. The law is talking about unjust killing ie: murder.  Because the  KJV is more vague in its translation of the Hebrew word "ratasch", newer translations have made it more clear by using the word "murder". The word is also translated as "murder" and "slaying". Clearly the OT does not condemn lawful killing because just two chapters later in Exodus 22:2, God allows for killing in self-defense.

      2. 0
        Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        even then, thanks twosheds for responding. This is a friendly advice. If we treat the Bible as merely a reference, you won't really benefit from it. But try to open your heart to the message, I believe the Words will make you the most wonderful man you can be.

  2. RaymondLPeters profile image60
    RaymondLPetersposted 4 years ago

    Believe it or not, I still use the old King James Version 1611. I guess that makes me old fashioned but I read it and understand it perfectly. To me, it moves me that in no other book or translation has ever moved me. I am very passionate about the beautiful words in these scriptures. My Mother, Father, Grandmother and Grandfather all read this book for comfort. I believe that it is probably because we know the auther of the book so it is so dear to our hearts. It is like a love letter from my heavenly Father.
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6986569_f248.jpg

    1. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why have you posted a picture of Jeremy Beedle?

  3. Joy56 profile image60
    Joy56posted 4 years ago

    the good news bible is an interesting translation.......  it makes good reading......

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No matter which translation we use, just use it, believe and love it.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    I'm not particular which vrsion of the Bible I use to start camp fires.

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You just want to get heated by the flames I guess!

      1. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I just want to get the fire started to cook some hotdogs. LOL

        1. RednecksForObama profile image61
          RednecksForObamaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Look what passes for humor around here. What a weenie roast. There is corn in your relish.

          1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
            tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps you soak too spoon.

      2. flpalermo profile image24
        flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ha, Ha, Ha, on target!

  5. aguasilver profile image88
    aguasilverposted 4 years ago

    I use a KJ for checking, mainly because after 400 years all the errors of translation are known, but I use a wide variety for reading or quoting, mostly from on-line sources.

    It's pretty much in my heart and head by now, so mainly I am seeking to save time writing out verses that are already known by me.

    God speaks to us however He needs to, so if our English is not up to understanding His word, we go to simpler versions.

    John 3 16:19 reads much the same in any version.

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like this from you, "...if our English is not up to understanding His word, we go to simpler versions."

  6. RednecksForObama profile image61
    RednecksForObamaposted 4 years ago

    The Word of God should live in your heart on a level too deep for words. That is the translation I use.  I highly recommend it!

  7. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    I think that it matters very little which version that we use when reading THE  Jesus loves me this I know parts of scripture and the love thy neighbor as thy self verses .....BUT  when studying prophesy You need not be reading  of rewrite of someone elses translations  because "sometimes" to change the meaning of a single word brings us to a different conclusion than was origionally intended.

    One such instance is when the word "a TIME" is changed to "for a little while " or "a span of time" or such.
       The words  "A  Time"  in prophesy =s  approx. 52.2  prophetic weeks   and 62 weeks in prophesy is equal to approx 568 of our years.
      And there are four seasons in a "Time"

    As I said earler ...   except in the case of understanding prophesy, it makes little if any difference which of the many versions of the bible that we study.

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I was just reading (albeit in a fiction book) a Jewish sage stating that the OT prophets were just preachers, albeit accurate preachers, describing what would happen to those (in this case the Jews) who rebelled against God.

      Interesting proposal.....

      Because there are also 'prophetic' preachers today, maybe we should pay more attention to what are the instructions to OUR generation?

      Conceptualise..... (selah) smile

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I would have to agree that the OT prophets were "Preachers"   though  NOT self appointed as most are today.

        according to scripture themselves, these "Prophets" were chosen by God and were given specific messages to give to the people.
          These messages were addressed to those who were living under the covenant which THEY were breaking.
          These prophesy were given to the descendants of Abraham concerning that covenant.
          I see Daniel chapter nine as something similar to a "Pink Slip"   a warning  kinda like  If you do not repent ..... "You are fired.   And this is what is going to happen if YOU don't.

           Well!   those Hebrews were fired, they cleaned out their desk and were escorted out of the building exactly as stated.  In 138 AD  the entire population was escorted away and scattered through out the rest of the world.    This is the opening of the seven seals ...  then there was silence in heaven ...
        before the seven trumpets began being sounded  (338 AD)
        Mt. Krakatau erupted sending the world into a mini Ice age, crop failures, starvation disease leading to the fall of the western Roman Empire.    etc. etc. etc.

        1. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ...and it's the same today! smile

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Name one  person you consider to be a prophet today. All the ones I've heard make that claim prove themselves to be liars. Which, I don't think fits the  definition of the word prophet.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Don't listen to false prophets, the point was that there are preachers here today who still perform the task, I will try to dig some out for you, but frankly, they are not the ones who do TV stuff.

              Off the top of my head, Derek Prince was one I would consider prophetic in the way he warned folk about how things were going to turn out.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNnN0b16HIQ

              Try to listen to the whole thing.....or at least the whole first section.

              Edit: This was made about 20 years ago....

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'll watch it when I get a chance. But, before I do I'll say some people say some things at some times which sound prophetic, or hit the mark if viewed from the right angle. That does not make a prophet. If it did, we would all be prophets.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Derek was a man of God who had an extraordinary amount of getting it right in his life!

                  Do listen, the main section starts about 8 minutes in, before that he is opening up with scripture, you may find that tedious, but what he states will interest you, i think....

      2. 71
        Robertr04posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I now use the JP Green Interlinear bible. There are many interlinears and most use modern Hebrew, not paleo (ancient) Hebrew (not found on the net.). The JP Green is the only complete interlinear available in English. This interlinear is keyed to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Interlinears are a time saving tool to research the subtle nuances and layers of meanings within the ORIGINAL (not shouting) biblical languages and this one features the complete Hebrew/Aramic, Greek texts with a direct English rendering below each word, and also includes the literal translation of the bible in the outside column. The Hebrew is based on the Masororetic text and the Greek is from Textus Receptus. I also use about 9 other references including the KJV to try and come to an informed opinion. I truly thank a fellowshipper for leading me to these references.

    2. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Friends, I believed that the written Word of God we have today is complete for our faith and practice.

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Faith and practice  YES   ...    For understanding prophesy  NO.

        1. 0
          Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          All prophecies in the scripture can be clearly understood as they are all stated int the Word of God. As we see things going on we clearly see the vivid reality of bible prophecies. We do not need other prophecy today to interpret prophecies of old.

  8. r-o-y profile image82
    r-o-yposted 4 years ago

    No matter what translation one uses unless God illuminated the pages of that book we are still subject to deceptions because of the imperfections of the imperfect men and women who are doing the translating and our own imagination.  The first thing everything needs to do is pray and asks God to shed His light on His word  anything less would be leaning on our own understanding and the understanding of other men! There are just too many translations that are not saying same the thing. There’s only one who have all the answers and that is the author Himself, Jesus Christ!

  9. r-o-y profile image82
    r-o-yposted 4 years ago

    As for myself I use The King James Bible!

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you are comfortable with it. Why not?

  10. 61
    passingthewordposted 4 years ago

    I use King James because I use the strongs concordance with it.

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      yes, KJV goes well with the Strong's Concordance.

  11. Gypsy Rose Lee profile image58
    Gypsy Rose Leeposted 4 years ago

    The Bible I have I got when I was in 7th grade and I've used it since then. It was published by a Christian Society so I've never wondered about the version. I just read from it. I also have The Book on the Bible and a couple of Bible's in the Latvian language.

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, I believe your bible is dirty now, I mean, A dirty bible means a clean life. The dirt I'm talking about are your personal markings while you read.

  12. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    I've used the King James version for most of my life, but I've found many other translations to be very valuable in helping illuminate some passages.

    I've also seen some versions butcher the meaning of some passages by leaving out critical details. For instance, CEV leaves out the mention of 3rd or 4th generation in Numbers 14:18. The Lamsa version clarifies the possible mistranslation of many passages which had errors because of similarities in Aramaic spelling. One misplaced dot changed the word used and possibly muddled the meaning in other versions.

    There is still so much to learn from the Bible, but many people have stopped pushing the frontier, relying solely on other people's interpretations. That's sad.

    For instance, I found a timeline in Genesis compatible with those of science. The seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs are far too short! But the ages given in Genesis pertain not to the individuals, but to the eponymous tribes, instead.

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are translations today that really does not help for better understanding. I perceive that you have wide understanding about translations.

  13. nina64 profile image81
    nina64posted 4 years ago

    Here's my take on Biblical translation. I have in recent years been reading different versions of the Bible. However, one thing still stands out for me, I can feel God's words come alive as I read. It's like He's sitting across from me having a regular conversation. There have been times when I have read the Bible that I didn't understand what I was reading. I guess some things in the Bible are not meant to be understood and we have to live and go through some situations in order to get some sort of clarity in the scriptures. All I can say is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and He rose on the third day and ascended into heaven. I still sometimes struggle with what I'm reading in His word, but I know that if I keep asking for His guidance, He will show me the way to a better understanding of His word. To me, if you're comfortable with reading whatever translation of the Bible, that's fine. You have to come to an understanding of God's word for yourself.

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      AS far as the translation remains true to the original, then it is good. For me I would suggest these translations: KJV, NKJ, NASB. Some says NIV is good as well.

  14. RichardGisMe profile image59
    RichardGisMeposted 4 years ago

    ...as far as "translations" go, and the question of superiority, you're wasting your time wondering. Before the Bible was even translated into Latin, there were supposedly up to six different versions of the Old Testament alone, along with parts of it being scattered across Mesopotamia, constant war and trading of cities and territory... The Romans, Hebrews, and Greeks all got a piece... Even Jerome, the Saint tasked by the Pope to provide a Latin translation said, "there are almost as many 'texts' as 'manuscripts," meaning, too many differing, contradictory pieces! Let alone what the English did to the whole work... Inevitably , the pooch was screwed from the start, sister... No translation is superior.

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As I study Bible for many decades I understand it more and more. But I concluded that Bible is the Manual of life, and not dead book to make an autopsy.
      Now I am listening audio living Word in Hebrew language and it completed my joy.

      1. 0
        Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        SO you understand Hebrew? good for you, I mean I'm happy for you

    2. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It seems to me that you are interested in manuscripts. That's good. By just pondering upon the vastness of manuscripts available today is a wonder. The written Word of God outlasts all attempts to eradicate it.

      1. 0
        genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yep

      2. RichardGisMe profile image59
        RichardGisMeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The same "written word of God" that was actually written by men, supposedly inspired or passed down by God... talking about translations, how are we to know that these men were able to accurately interpret what God wanted written? Or remember accurately what they were to account, I know most of the New Testament was written years after the supposed events. Right down to the origins, the authors themselves, things may have been lost in translation. The thread question was 'which translation is superior,' no one is attempting to eradicate the word here, I'm just saying in response to the question, the translations we have now are only what past generations have passed down. Ever played the game "Telephone," where one starts with a message, whispered down a line of people, the message gets changed, skewed from its original. I feel like the Bible we have now, with its versions, missing books, etc, probably isn't what an omnipotent God intended for us to have, if you believe in that.

        1. 0
          Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          “For eighteen centuries every engine of destruction that human science, philosophy, wit, reasoning or brutality could bring to bear against a book has been brought to bear against that book to stamp it out of the world, but it has a mightier hold on the world today than ever before. If that were man’s book it would have been annihilated and forgotten hundreds of years ago…” R A Torrey

          1. 0
            genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I believe that too.

          2. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, for eighteen centuries it was preserved by the Catholic Church that exercised almost complete control over people's lives in some part of Europe or other. The bible has never been under any threat of being stamped out. This does mot preclude that it is a man's book; it indicates that people in sufficiently powerful positions believed it was the word of God.

            1. 0
              genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Could God have ensured that those in power were his children, so that his word would be preserved? I think so. The bible was preserved for our use. The important parts are there. Again, that was my faith speaking.

            2. 0
              Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No human effort can preserve anything except by God's providence. Men did not preserve God's word, God did.

              1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Human beings preserve ancient scrips all over the world in museums. The Quran is still available in its original form, and the very original scripts have been preserved. Whereas the very earliest biblical manuscripts are copies of copies of copies, the originals have long been lost. Thus by your and Genaea's argument, God has made far more effort to preserve the Quran than the bible.

                It was that Catholic Church that maintained the bible, human effort.

                1. 0
                  genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Seems you "know" all about the texts of the bible. Were you there when they changed it? Please say yes. Because if you were not, it seems as you have preferred the lie rather than the truth. Your faith is in men who hate the bible, not God. And that is ok, if that is your preference.

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh dear. You assume so much. You hold to a mystical belief that the bible had God's special preservation order on it, but you have no evidence for this claim. You just believe he must have done. Yet what you fail to take notice of is that all major religions, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, have their priests and scribes whose jobs it were to maintain their religious texts. Thus they still exist today. The bible has survived time, as has the Quran. What makes you think the bibe needed God's special attention beyond human effort and will to preserve it?

                    Where on Earth does your statement "Your faith is in men who hate the bible..," comes from? I completely fail to see how you draw this conclusion. Is it because I'm not a mystic like you?

            3. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, for most of that time the RCC attempted to keep the bible from the populace, it was the Genever bible that ensured that there was a version outside of Latin for folk to read, and Mr Guttenberg who made it possible.

              What has happened are many attempts to change the context and meaning of the bible into more 'user friendly' versions that tickle ears and provide rat holes for folk to run into who do not like what the bible actually states.

              The apostasy is alive and well, and we are seemingly on the way to a conclusion.

              1. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Those attempts in the past to adulterate the scripture never succeed. That's the marvel in God's Word. Yes gross apostasy is alive today and that means the coming of the Lord is nearer than yesterday.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Amen

                2. jacharless profile image81
                  jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  While myself -and others- might admire your zealous approach to Philos, Jess, I must remind you of these infallible points:

                  Scripture is strictly Torah. The added elements of the four epistles, remarks {acts} and letters are not -repeat not scripture. They are explanatory, suggestive texts, based on issues, conversations and events surrounding Moshiach fulfillment and those of the early Hebrew 'churches' -who might I add were horribly treated by Saul, then by the Romans -- as well as introducing Torah + mandatory salvation rituals to non-Hebrews, known as pagans or Gentiles. {These rules were later enforced violently upon them when Rome changed from polytheism to monotheism -thanks, again, to Saul.

                  Furthermore, the 'adulteration' occurred a long time ago, when specific texts were selectively added and neglected from the compilation. Important books of Torah purposefully left out. New letters, new epistles have been unearthed from Egypt to Syria and from beneath the sea. Why have they been neglected? Because to add them destroys the 'authority absolute' of the church, who claimed only these texts within are the truth, are the word.  If one reads the letter or Sophia of Moshiach, the story changes greatly. So does the epistle of Tomas, in India and Yon's hidden ledgers -even the diary of Mary M.

                  2. Not one yod of these texts has any power whatsoever. And saying one should marvel that these are the Word {ruach, pneuma, power} of Creator is ridiculous and cultist. So cultist, that doctrine upon doctrine {teachings} about demons {paganism 101}, wars of angels, an entity superior titled Satan/Lucifer/Devil, plus rapture and tribulations and rules, rules rules, have grown to fruition. Fruit on trees the size of evergreens. Fruit that is killing humans faster than bullets. All false, all used to justify continued control over people, continued fear among people, continued hiding of the Truth.

                  Just as the Hebrews believed Moshiach was coming as a King to re-establish the temple and an actual throne, to rule Israel in peace and freedom from oppression, so now believers think the same of Moshiach return. Yet, we see the actual work is much different than originally perceived by the keepers of the whole Law and all its parts -prophecy and prose. Furthermore, it proves -beyond a shadow of any doubt- that the book IS worshiped daily, hourly, minute to millisecond.  At least the Hebrew idols were made of gold, not paper. And still it shows how Creator is not actually, truly loved by the many, as they claim. No, instead the book and words in it are loved, adored, honored, cherished, memorized, quoted and forced upon others as absolute. Even the children of ba`al would be dismayed.

                  James.

                  1. 0
                    genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And there you have it, from the "horse's" fingertips. See, Jacharless knows for sure, he attended the "word adulteration" ceremonies. Right??? smile Still attending services, I see wink

                  2. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    jacharless, this is not to debate with you but to let you propound your points infallible unchallenged is to agree with with you. By infallible means your saying that your humanistic philosophy is higher equal with the scripture. The Bible has no need to prove its innate infallibility. If you just study the scripture with an open heart, you will say that you are wrong and the Bible is true. That if, you are humble enough to see and accept the fact.

              2. Disappearinghead profile image89
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes the RCC made every effort to obscure the bible behind Latin but nevertheless it was preserved by human effort and was not in danger of being stamped out.

                From what I've read from the KJV, the NIV, NLT, the Message, etc, the translations are very much biased by the beliefs and motives of the translators, that is to continue to push Christian politically correct orthodoxy aka hellfire. Thus none of these translations can be considered the word of God. To have any hope of understanding the bible, we must read from literal translations.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So God, was incapable of delivering what He wanted to say to humanity..... without them being able to read Aramaic in the original form?

                  That seems like a pretty small god you are following.

                  I prefer to believe that God told us EXACTLY what He meant, and has hed the capacity to deliver it through the ages.

                  In the Dark Ages it was constricted, now it is open, and God has sent deception to deceive even the elect.... IF that is possible.

                  Could ALL of the believers currently alive be deceived, except your small group?

                  If that is so, then your heaven will be either very small or full to the brim with ALL of humanity, you would think all would be there, God seems to think differently.

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Read any of prefaces in the popular translations, and you will find such statements that the translators have given us a bible that reflects what they believed the source scripts were wanting to convey using idioms and figures of speech we are familiar with, rather than a word for word literal translation. Thus the word has been modified and we get a bible in accordance with the beliefs of the translators. For example, KJV uses the word 'hell' throughout the OT instead of 'grave' or 'Sheol' knowing full well the imagery hell presents and knowing full well that hell is completely alien to the Hebrews and the apostles.

                    You suggested some translations tickle the ears. Is this a suggestion that they pander to the liberals. I would say the contrary, they pander to a strings attached gospel of exclusivity.

                    I have never suggested that God has sent a deception to the orthodox Church. I have suggested that the orthodox chooses it's traditions of men that made the word of God of null effect, and it resists anyone who chooses to think for themself, search for themself, and brands those that do not comply to its rigid doctrines and creeds as heretics or "not a proper Christian".

                2. 0
                  Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What could be that literal translation?

  15. 0
    genaeaposted 4 years ago

    Many attempts to kill the bible. It still lives.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Please cite one attempt to kill the bible.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In Europe it was common to burn the Bibles.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But these were individual copies. It's not as if the bible was ever under any threat.

          1. Ann1Az2 profile image61
            Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            When the Bible was first written, the Roman Catholic Church tried to keep it from the public - only priests were allowed to read it. It was only after it was translated into English that the public became privy to it. That was started in England.

      2. 0
        genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yesterday, and every other day i speak to you.

  16. 0
    genaeaposted 4 years ago

    Jacharless, you never told me where you got all your new information about God. Seems to me, you just went and mofified what was in the bible. We cannot add to it.

  17. 0
    genaeaposted 4 years ago

    Jach, the parables were so that the people could understand the principles. Now, where do you think the principles came from? His heart, that he admitted was not the same when he said, not my will? THE will comes from the father, who had it written throughout the ages that he would come to die. Did you hear me say WRITTEN?

  18. grand old lady profile image89
    grand old ladyposted 4 years ago

    I use the Life Application Bible, but also enjoy the Good News Translation. For sentimental reasons, I love The Way which was our college Bible but which has gone out of print:(

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      grand old lady, thanks for responding to the forum. Godbless

  19. 61
    dna6380posted 4 years ago

    I read the New World Translstion.  it isnt better as i have several other versions but it is easier to read and compare verses

 
working