I am reading this at the moment.
Unvarnished New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's the four Gospels translated from the Greek source into modern American English.
Just finishing the book of Matthew now. I haven't noticed anything that changes the meaning of what is said. In fact the new phrasing provides a different perspective on the other translations I've read. It makes you think about it. Like someone communicating the same think in a different way.
Has anyone read this?
for many years i have heard people discuss the different "translations" of the bible. this it seems is always going to be left up to a persons opinion of what the "original wording actually meant" now take the kjv for instance we read "a scripture" than we take and research it word for word looking up the original manuscript text,i.e.bible hub,wescott Hort ect. and then make some sort of "personal decision as to whether or not we feel it was correctly interpreted",,
so then we take the new kjv and do the same ,,the new international,ect.ect. and we then examine the rendering of the same verse. now in one it's rendered this,in the other a little different and in the next the same(none have the exact same is the issue we are discussing),,so in the end what we are actually stating is "one man thinks the kjv is the closest" another thinks the new kjv is,another the same opinion of the one he is reading (but notice the reader is the one who is always agreeing with the certain version).
now we then say "well we are not professionals at interpreting the Hebrew and Greek and they are" but then again doesn't it make anyone wonder why,if all the different interpretations are interpreted by "professional,learned theologians,why do they all come to different conclusions as to the same verse"? you see at the end since they all render different meanings to different words then at the end each one of us "still need to look up the different words and make some sort of decision as to what we think they mean"
Now if we at the end all have to look up each word and educate ourselves as to what is the meaning of each word and scripture then what difference does it make which version it is from? well take a closer look,there is the Latin Vulgate and the Catholics looked at each word and then rendered their opinion of what it means(based on their denomination) and then made an interpretation of it.
then years later king James had a copy of the original manuscripts and noticed that according to his denomination's beliefs the wording(in his opinion) was not quite rendered as to the correct meaning and set about to have another translation,translated that reflected the way he and those who thought in the same manner believed.
Now today we do the same as in the past if one is a Pentecostal the tendency is to look at a certian word and from the different definitions provided in the dictionaries ect. find the closest meaning that reflects the denomination he follows. this does not reflect the same meaning as other religions so the baptist use the interpretation that closest resembles their denomination,the Jehovah witness use their own rendering,the others all do the same. the one that seems to be interpreted the closest to what they believe is the one they follow. and if the ones available they think are not accurate then another will soon be on the book shelves.
Now the pentacostals,baptist,and other denomanations for the most part use the kjv,or the new kjv,(or one of the ones that use the modern language i.e. not old English),makes no difference which one either they trust the interpreters opinions or they look up the different words themselves and choose the definition that best reflects the way they believe.(I SAY THIS NOT TO SINGLE OUT ANY DENOMINATION),that is it seems most all do this very thing,but why?
I'll use the religions that believe that the kingdom began at the cross and continues till the judgment day. that is as they come to any verse speaking of the kingdom then it should reflect their manner of belief,so if the way it is "interpreted in a certain version" reflects that the kingdom does not begin at the cross,"then the way the version was interpreted is incorrect in the interpretation of the wording(so it is corrected in the new interpretation),that is to them they earnestly believe it should say it the way they believe,so they interpret it that way.
But it is just the direct opposite with another religion they when they come to the verses that pertain to the kingdom, if they believe in their faith that the kingdom is a "future kingdom" then if there is a bible interpretation that interprets the direct wording around the wording of the kingdom rendering it future tense ,well then to them this is the most correct bible interpretation(in their earnest opinion),,,
So take the "unvarnished gospels translation",,do you notice that is most of the replies prior to mine they take a specific verse and give the translation from another version and then proceed to break it down as to the exact meaning to each word? so if it will be looked at the same as the versions before it,why begin again with a new version seeing that by now most here in the bible community can already direct you to the "believed errors in translation" from the existing translations?
you see (imo) the trick is to take the original Greek and try to leave it as close as possible,but that is what we all believe we have done. and then again it opens another can of worms,the m.t.?,LXX?,,,which text?,,,the Vulgate?,,,what each new interpretation says is the reflection of the interpreters denominational beliefs prior to the interpretation of it,,so which denomination do you choose? wouldn't it just make more sense to take the scripture's and conform to them rather than take the religion and conform the scriptures to it?,,,
