Bible Translation?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yahshua

Yahshua

Senior Member
#21
Sep 22, 2013
2,820
755
113
#21
In the first printing of the KJV (this is several centuries ago) I hear there were lots of complaints about certain words the scribes added that they thought would "help" the translation, but because they were unfamiliar with that culture (and figures of speech) they made mistakes...so in the next edition they placed any words they added in italics.

So I like the KJV as an English translation because I can clearly see and ignore words not from the originals...you can't do that with most (not all) later English versions. They're not completely incorrect everywhere, but there are more than a few instances where the added words or phrases actually change the original meaning of the text.

As far as I've seen with later English translations (even the NKJV), many (not all) have simply translated the KJV into modern English with all of "extra-biblical" words & phrases kept (this time without any italics), so these errors are now baked in and hidden.

To be honest, all translations are a bit faulty (even some Greek and Hebrew manuscripts), but the further you get away from those manuscripts the worse the translations are (by comparison). Still, reading *a* holy bible is better than reading no bible. Because you're sincere, God will guide you to the truth.
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#22
#22
JesusChica1991 said:
yeah Johnson University - Statement of Faith
Click to expand...

Thanks! :)

Quick request: could you possibly elaborate, or reword, the eight bullet of the Statement of faith?
"Faith, repentance, confession of faith in Jesus, baptism (immersion) and prayer are for the remission of past sins, and faith, repentance and confession of sins and prayer are for the remission of the erring Christian's sins (Acts 8:22)"
 
D

Dywane

Guest
#23
#23
Tradition for the most part, most current bibles are based on the most current manuscripts available. The real difference lies in the presentation of the words. Bibles such as the KGV are a word for word translation, and because of this some words just don't carry over as well. Bibles such as the NLT are paraphrases based more on the meaning of the text. Then there are Bibles such as the HCSB which stay with the traditional verbiage when possible but will paraphrases when needed. So if you are reading for enjoinment and general understanding read the NLT, as you start to break down the verses look a word for word translation.
 
JesusChica1991

JesusChica1991

Banned
#24
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#24
DorothyG said:
Thanks! :)

Quick request: could you possibly elaborate, or reword, the eight bullet of the Statement of faith?
"Faith, repentance, confession of faith in Jesus, baptism (immersion) and prayer are for the remission of past sins, and faith, repentance and confession of sins and prayer are for the remission of the erring Christian's sins (Acts 8:22)"
Click to expand...
I have no power over that XD
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#25
#25
Yahshua said:
In the first printing of the KJV (this is several centuries ago) I hear there were lots of complaints about certain words the scribes added that they thought would "help" the translation, but because they were unfamiliar with that culture (and figures of speech) they made mistakes...so in the next edition they placed any words they added in italics.

So I like the KJV as an English translation because I can clearly see and ignore words not from the originals...you can't do that with most (not all) later English versions. They're not completely incorrect everywhere, but there are more than a few instances where the added words or phrases actually change the original meaning of the text.

As far as I've seen with later English translations (even the NKJV), many (not all) have simply translated the KJV into modern English with all of "extra-biblical" words & phrases kept (this time without any italics), so these errors are now baked in and hidden.

To be honest, all translations are a bit faulty (even some Greek and Hebrew manuscripts), but the further you get away from those manuscripts the worse the translations are (by comparison). Still, reading *a* holy bible is better than reading no bible. Because you're sincere, God will guide you to the truth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input! and I agree with your last sentence for the Bible says in Matthew:

"Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.
You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not! So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him." (Matthew 7:7-11 NLT)

 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#26
#26
Dywane said:
Tradition for the most part, most current bibles are based on the most current manuscripts available. The real difference lies in the presentation of the words. Bibles such as the KGV are a word for word translation, and because of this some words just don't carry over as well. Bibles such as the NLT are paraphrases based more on the meaning of the text. Then there are Bibles such as the HCSB which stay with the traditional verbiage when possible but will paraphrases when needed. So if you are reading for enjoinment and general understanding read the NLT, as you start to break down the verses look a word for word translation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input! I'll keep that in mind.
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#28
#28
JesusChica1991 said:
I have no power over that XD
Click to expand...

I see, I noticed Baptism (immersion) is also required for remission sins and I got confused. I've always been told that faith in Christ alone was the only way our sins could be taken away.
 
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#30
#30
I like the esv, the NIV, and the nkjv. The net bible is great because of the translators notes.
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#31
#31
Reformedjason said:
I like the esv, the NIV, and the nkjv. The net bible is great because of the translators notes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input! May I ask why you prefer those translations?
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#32
#32
Dywane said:
Tradition for the most part, most current bibles are based on the most current manuscripts available. The real difference lies in the presentation of the words. Bibles such as the KGV are a word for word translation, and because of this some words just don't carry over as well. Bibles such as the NLT are paraphrases based more on the meaning of the text. Then there are Bibles such as the HCSB which stay with the traditional verbiage when possible but will paraphrases when needed. So if you are reading for enjoinment and general understanding read the NLT, as you start to break down the verses look a word for word translation.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of the KGV but the NLT isn't a paraphrase but a thought-for-thought translation. The message remains the same and the translation generally flows really well. The Message on the other-hand, is a paraphrase.
 
T

tdrew777

Guest
#33
#33
Tintin said:
I think it's perfectly acceptable to prefer one translation over all others. I enjoy the NRSV and NLT. The NIV isn't bad. I haven't had the NRSV for that long, so so far my Bible of choice is the NLT. The Message has its moments too but sometimes it's more confusing than the KJV (and that's saying something).
Click to expand...
I agree with you. IF you can justify it (which is what I said). You did not simply pick a translation. Nothing I said should stop you from picking your favorite.
 
T

tdrew777

Guest
#34
#34
Yahshua said:
In the first printing of the KJV (this is several centuries ago) I hear there were lots of complaints about certain words the scribes added that they thought would "help" the translation, but because they were unfamiliar with that culture (and figures of speech) they made mistakes...so in the next edition they placed any words they added in italics.

So I like the KJV as an English translation because I can clearly see and ignore words not from the originals...you can't do that with most (not all) later English versions. They're not completely incorrect everywhere, but there are more than a few instances where the added words or phrases actually change the original meaning of the text.

As far as I've seen with later English translations (even the NKJV), many (not all) have simply translated the KJV into modern English with all of "extra-biblical" words & phrases kept (this time without any italics), so these errors are now baked in and hidden.

To be honest, all translations are a bit faulty (even some Greek and Hebrew manuscripts), but the further you get away from those manuscripts the worse the translations are (by comparison). Still, reading *a* holy bible is better than reading no bible. Because you're sincere, God will guide you to the truth.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. Most translations are translations of the manuscripts, not translations or updates of the KJV. I agree that translations or updates of the KJV are immediately suspect. I have an NASV bible that also puts words added into italics.
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#35
#35
Has anyone watched the videos from Day of Discovery I included in the original post? If so I would like to know your thoughts on them. Thanks!
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#36
#36
I enjoy the NKJV.....find it easy to read, I use eSword software which comes with quite a few versions so comparison can be made. eSword is free to download but I had to purchase NKJV and Vines add-on.
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#37
#37
Graybeard said:
I enjoy the NKJV.....find it easy to read, I use eSword software which comes with quite a few versions so comparison can be made. eSword is free to download but I had to purchase NKJV and Vines add-on.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input! I'll check eSword out.
 
T

tdrew777

Guest
#38
#38
Dywane said:
Tradition for the most part, most current bibles are based on the most current manuscripts available. The real difference lies in the presentation of the words. Bibles such as the KGV are a word for word translation, and because of this some words just don't carry over as well. Bibles such as the NLT are paraphrases based more on the meaning of the text. Then there are Bibles such as the HCSB which stay with the traditional verbiage when possible but will paraphrases when needed. So if you are reading for enjoinment and general understanding read the NLT, as you start to break down the verses look a word for word translation.
Click to expand...
We use the most ancient manuscripts available, not the most current. Word for word translations from one language to another are non-sensical (one word in the original strictly corresponds to the same word in the translation - it breaks the rules of grammar in the new language and fails to convey any meaning). In that sense, all translations must be meaning-based. Some do a better job than others. Translator's notes usually do a better job then paraphrases. Good translations do a "comprehensibility check" before printing. They question people as to what they understand when they read particular passages.
 
ChosenbyHim

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
#39
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
#39
DorothyG said:
I have just recently (7-8 months ago) began extensive study of God's word and I've heard from several sources that the King James Version wasn't translated as accurately as it could have been.

I personally prefer the New Living Translation by Tyndale House Publishers as I have a hard time studying the KJV and also because I've been informed that Tyndale House has taken Greek and Hebrew text from around the world and spent a large amount of time on accurately translating from the dead sea scrolls and other ancient texts.

Here's a link to where I got a lot of information on this subject:

https://dod.org/programs-by-category/land-of-the-bible-topics/dod2116.html

Part 2 of this program can be accessed through the link under the video.


I would love to know what your point of view is on this subject.

Please, try to be nice. I'm not trying to start any heated arguments.

Thanks!
Click to expand...


Hi there Dotothy, the bottom line is that if you want to have a copy of God's pure and inerrant words, then you will need to get yourself a King James Bible. The modern versions are based on two corrupt Greek texts (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). The modern versions can be traced back to Westcott and Hort (two heretics) who did not believe that the first three chapters of Genesis were a literal account of History.


Here is a good tree chart given below, showing the heretical belief system of these two men:






1a.jpg​
 
D

DorothyG

Guest
#40
#40
ChosenbyHim said:

Hi there Dotothy, the bottom line is that if you want to have a copy of God's pure and inerrant words, then you will need to get yourself a King James Bible. The modern versions are based on two corrupt Greek texts (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). The modern versions can be traced back to Westcott and Hort (two heretics) who did not believe that the first three chapters of Genesis were a literal account of History.


Here is a good tree chart given below, showing the heretical belief system of these two men:






Click to expand...
Hmm, I think you may be a little misinformed. (I could be wrong of course) Can you give me some evidence to this claim? Thanks :)

Also, please watch the videos on dod.org that I included in the original post. You may find a lot of useful information to aid you in your walk with God :)
I know I sure did. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.