Which translation?

ryan · Feb 5, 2009

I would like to suggest that you find out more about " The WAY", because this is a one on one translation of the original: Greek,Hebrew,& Latin.
they will come by for personal vistation and mostly translation. You are all seeming to be correct in your assumptions that different versions of our LORD's shared word has been distorted to lead you to possibbly find an incorrect translation.

Ryan: yes, i agree that the hebrew, greek and latin versions are the most accurate translations that the apostles and prophets meant for the scripures to be from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

ryan · Feb 5, 2009

Please reply. I'd like to be involved this is my first time in a chat room
I love talking to other christians we live in a world where we really need
each other-God bless you, hope to hear from someone soon.

ryan · Feb 5, 2009

ryan: please give me yur input on what i corresponded to inyour discussion. wil SOMEONE please respond! Please respond to our input . you seem to be searshing for an answer that i belieive will answer all this debate, ryan & hogi

Baptistrw · Feb 6, 2009

ryan said:

I would like to suggest that you find out more about " The WAY", because this is a one on one translation of the original: Greek,Hebrew,& Latin.
they will come by for personal vistation and mostly translation. You are all seeming to be correct in your assumptions that different versions of our LORD's shared word has been distorted to lead you to possibbly find an incorrect translation.

Ryan: yes, i agree that the hebrew, greek and latin versions are the most accurate translations that the apostles and prophets meant for the scripures to be from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The Greek and Hebrew are the originals, the Latin Vulgate however, is a Roman Catholic corruption.

Slepsog4 · Feb 6, 2009

The OT was written mostly in Hebrew with a bit of Aramaic.

The NT was written in Greek.

Latin is merely a translation. The Vulgate was not the first Latin version. Jerome was commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church to develop it.

Charles · Feb 14, 2009

KJV:I can't understand why so many wrack their brains trying to figure out the Hebrew and the Greek of the scriptures. God has already put the scriptures in their proper interpretation for these last days; and that interpretation is the KJV. Psalms 12:6 states, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Though there were ten English bibles, Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Taverner"s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew"s Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list. This leaves seven

s. 12:6 "...purified seven times", Tyndale"s, Matthew"s,Coverdale"s, the Great Bible,The Geneva Bible, The Bishop" Bible, and The King James Version. Furthermore, if you do the will of the Father,you will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself (Jo. 7:17): that doctrine is the King James Version.

Slepsog4 · Feb 14, 2009

Charles,

By what stretch of the imagination did you contrive that non-sense? Do you really believe that the Hebrew text of that Psalm was talking about the English Bible in the future some 2500 to 3000 years later? Give us a break.

The KJV is a great translation, but don't destroy credibility by unsound arguments. Don't you think it a bit suspicious to eliminate certain translations in order to get to the number 7.

The KJV was/is a literary masterpiece. It has great precision in rendering many things, but it is not perfect. It was not miraculously guided in its work.

By the way, the KJV is not written in the street English of the 17th century. It is the English of literature. The use of thee, thou, ye, etc. is for the sake of precision not because the average person was still talking that way.

You need to be honest as well, the KJV has gone through about 8 revisions (not talking about the NKJV, etc.). This alone should let one realize that the work was not supernaturally overseen or the work would have been flawless the first time (or is it the 7th time?).

Baptistrw · Feb 14, 2009

Charles said:

KJV:I can't understand why so many wrack their brains trying to figure out the Hebrew and the Greek of the scriptures. God has already put the scriptures in their proper interpretation for these last days; and that interpretation is the KJV. Psalms 12:6 states, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Though there were ten English bibles, Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Taverner"s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew"s Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list. This leaves seven

s. 12:6 "...purified seven times", Tyndale"s, Matthew"s,Coverdale"s, the Great Bible,The Geneva Bible, The Bishop" Bible, and The King James Version. Furthermore, if you do the will of the Father,you will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself (Jo. 7:17): that doctrine is the King James Version.

lol are you one of those King James only people?

dodolah · Feb 16, 2009

I used KJV, NKJV, Textus Receptus, and Hebrew Modern.

Thaddaeus · Feb 16, 2009

Narn said:

I have not studied the Nasb as much as I have the Niv, in comparision to the KJV But A friend did point out a verse in the Nasb that was real scarely to me John 4:29 this is the woman at the well as she went back to tell her townfolk about Jesus. compare the two verses and see which one best describes our Jesus
John 4:29 (King James Version)

29Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
John 4:29 (New American Standard Bible)

29"Come, see a man (A)who told me all the things that I have done; (B)this is not the Christ, is it?"

Cross references:

<LI id=cen-NASB-26186A>John 4:29 : John 4:17
John 4:29 : Matt 12:23; John 7:26, 31

Now thats real scarely is He the Christ (KJV) or is he not the Christ (NASB) . Not enough time to show where all the NIV messes up as far as why People don't use the KJV cause it is too hard to understand. when they run the KJV and the NIV through the reading test they do to determine what reading level books are on , The KJV checked in at the upper 5th grade while the NIV checked in at the lower 9th grade level. and since the KJV was the Bible for almost 400 years. didn't God say if we seek wisdom to ask him, I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it said if we seek wisdom to change His Word actually it warns us not to change His Word. If we study the Word we will find that it was a task of satan himself to try and change the Word of God as he tried to in the Garden with Adam and Eve and again in the wilderness when he tried to twist the Word of God with Jesus and looks like satan is still up to his same ole tricks, changing to Word of God with the modern day translations. But thats ok Christians we Bite into everyother trick he throws at us wny not the one where he said we need to change the Word of God. and then some we say we need all the translation to in the have the truth, that sounds stupid to me if the Bible is the inspired Word of God which it claims, so God gave us 20 different books some which will even disagree with others. A God that cannot lie and is not the Author of confusion has given us 20 different translations so we can figure out what he wanted us to know , come on pleeeeeeaaaaaasssssseeee!!! and the KJV is too hard to understand so we need to read 20 other translations which disagree with each other to clear up what God has said. again come on pleeeeeaaaasssssseeeee how stupid do you think we are satan. Ok I said i didn't have enough time to show the messes but I will share this one with you.
Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version)

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 (New International Version)

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

now this is the scarely part here, not only did the niv change lucifer to morning star but the same translation referrs to satan and Jesus My Lord with the same name; morning star

Revelation 22:16 (New International Version)

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Footnotes:

Revelation 22:16 The Greek is plural.

I have used BibleGateway.com for the verses

Baptistrw · Feb 16, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

I have not studied the Nasb as much as I have the Niv, in comparision to the KJV But A friend did point out a verse in the Nasb that was real scarely to me John 4:29 this is the woman at the well as she went back to tell her townfolk about Jesus. compare the two verses and see which one best describes our Jesus
John 4:29 (King James Version)

29Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
John 4:29 (New American Standard Bible)

29"Come, see a man (A)who told me all the things that I have done; (B)this is not the Christ, is it?"

Cross references:

<LI id=cen-NASB-26186A>John 4:29 : John 4:17
John 4:29 : Matt 12:23; John 7:26, 31

Now thats real scarely is He the Christ (KJV) or is he not the Christ (NASB) . Not enough time to show where all the NIV messes up as far as why People don't use the KJV cause it is too hard to understand. when they run the KJV and the NIV through the reading test they do to determine what reading level books are on , The KJV checked in at the upper 5th grade while the NIV checked in at the lower 9th grade level. and since the KJV was the Bible for almost 400 years. didn't God say if we seek wisdom to ask him, I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it said if we seek wisdom to change His Word actually it warns us not to change His Word. If we study the Word we will find that it was a task of satan himself to try and change the Word of God as he tried to in the Garden with Adam and Eve and again in the wilderness when he tried to twist the Word of God with Jesus and looks like satan is still up to his same ole tricks, changing to Word of God with the modern day translations. But thats ok Christians we Bite into everyother trick he throws at us wny not the one where he said we need to change the Word of God. and then some we say we need all the translation to in the have the truth, that sounds stupid to me if the Bible is the inspired Word of God which it claims, so God gave us 20 different books some which will even disagree with others. A God that cannot lie and is not the Author of confusion has given us 20 different translations so we can figure out what he wanted us to know , come on pleeeeeeaaaaaasssssseeee!!! and the KJV is too hard to understand so we need to read 20 other translations which disagree with each other to clear up what God has said. again come on pleeeeeaaaasssssseeeee how stupid do you think we are satan. Ok I said i didn't have enough time to show the messes but I will share this one with you.
Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version)

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 (New International Version)

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

now this is the scarely part here, not only did the niv change lucifer to morning star but the same translation referrs to satan and Jesus My Lord with the same name; morning star

Revelation 22:16 (New International Version)

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Footnotes:

Revelation 22:16 The Greek is plural.

I have used BibleGateway.com for the verses

Modern formal equivalence translations don't change the Word, they translate the originals to words we can understand. And the KJV 5th grade? I've seen it rated 12th grade in a brochure on Bible translations, that's incredibly misleading.

Thaddaeus · Feb 16, 2009

Baptistrw said:

so translating lucifer into morning star so we can understand better who fell from heaven, oh yeah that really clears it up for me. NOT

MahogonySnail · Feb 16, 2009

I can't see the difference in John 4:29, they both read the same to me.

re: morning star, don't see a problem myself. Lucifer means light -bearer. Refers to the king of babylon, his glory and majesty being greater than all the other kings on the earth. morning star, refers to Venus.

By the way (Isaiah 14) is the only verse where the word Lucifer appears in the bible.
Satan is never called Lucifer anywhere in scripture, although I think the bible does say he was an angel..or transforms himself into an angel of light..soit is an allegation that satan's name is Lucifer, the bible doesn't explicitly say.

If you don't believe me, there's a challenge for anyone - find one verse that says satan's name is actually Lucifer, I'd like to see it.

Even if it does refer to satan, "morning star" is an accurate description in Isaiah 14:12.

Realise that good angels are called morning stars too..(Job 38:7) .

Author of confusion?
What about the fact that the KJV was around at the same time as the Geneva bible and came after the Geneva bible? Was the KJV responsible for causing confusion at that time?

Remember the NIV and KJV are from different texts. The common complaint is that NIV takes words out. Rather, the KJV had words added in.

We have to be careful what we call "God's Word". God's Word is perfect, but bible translations and versions are not. They are penned by the hands of humans, and humans are not perfect.

There are hundreds of translation errors in the KJV. There have been a number of revisions since the first KJV. Similarly in the NIV, translation errors. You get that, when you translate from another language to modern day english. This difference between "on" and "in" referring to the mark of the beast is a good example. The MKJV or NKJV changes 'in' to 'on' in places. The KJV is not without the doctrinal influences of a particular denominatione either - it was primarily written for the Church of England, Anglican or Episcopalian. They didn't like Calvinism or the Geneva bible very much. King James himself is alleged to have been a freemason, or at least supported freemasonry. The KJV has been called the "freemason's bible" by some. But I think that is just a case of the freemasons lieing, making up a story about how King James was one of them, he may not have been.

Baptistrw · Feb 16, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

The NIV is a dynamic equivalence, not a formal equivalence.

Thaddaeus · Feb 16, 2009

Baptistrw said:

I guess we would have to agree anybody can say anything but here is my source on the reading level you can argue with them
Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand?"In the last days. . .men shall be HEADY, HIGHMINDED" II Timothy 3:4
At the intersection of Bible Boulevard, Madi$on Avenue and Wall $treet, there are many crooked turns of the truth. Advertising campaigns create a cloud of confusion, calling the KJV "obscure, confusing and sometimes incomprehensible." While they crown the NIV's "clarity and ease of reading" and the NASB's "contemporary English." Christians are coerced by full color ads written to color the plain facts by advertising, not English majors.
The Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator betrays the strictly black and white nature of the issue showing the new version's true colors. The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete phrases ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.)
KJB Grade LevelNIV Grade LevelNASV Grade LevelTEV Grade LevelNKJV Grade LevelGen. 14.45.14.75.15.2Mal. 14.64.85.15.44.6Matt. 16.716.46.811.810.3Rev. 17.57.17.76.47.7Grade Level Average5.88.46.17.26.9

Baptistrw · Feb 16, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

As I said, that's misleading. All that's saying is the KJV uses less words per sentence and less syllables. That doesn't necessarily make anything easier to read or understand. The sentence structure of the KJV is backwards in some places, the grammar is distorted, and a large majority of the words have changed meaning. That's not easier to read by any standard, unless you have an 1828 dictionary or are familiar with Elizabethan English. The KJV is a good Bible, it's accurate translated in the broad scope, but I wouldn't consider it as the only "correct" English Bible as some do. Because that's simply not the case.

Thaddaeus · Feb 16, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

I guess we would have to agree anybody can say anything but here is my source on the reading level you can argue with them
Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand?"In the last days. . .men shall be HEADY, HIGHMINDED" II Timothy 3:4
At the intersection of Bible Boulevard, Madi$on Avenue and Wall $treet, there are many crooked turns of the truth. Advertising campaigns create a cloud of confusion, calling the KJV "obscure, confusing and sometimes incomprehensible." While they crown the NIV's "clarity and ease of reading" and the NASB's "contemporary English." Christians are coerced by full color ads written to color the plain facts by advertising, not English majors.
The Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator betrays the strictly black and white nature of the issue showing the new version's true colors. The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete phrases ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.) Grade Level Average
KJB Grade Level 5.8 NIV Grade Level 8.4 NASV Grade Level 6.1 TEV Grade Level 7.2 NKJV Grade Level 6.9 Gen. 14.45.14.75.15.2Mal. 14.64.85.15.44.6Matt. 16.716.46.811.810.3Rev. 17.57.17.76.47.7

sorry the chart didn'T come out right . here is the web site http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html

Slepsog4 · Feb 16, 2009

Keith,

What makes you think that website you referenced is authoritative and not biased? I have major serious doubts about this so-called test. There is just know way it could be accurate without some serious cherry picking of passages, if it is possible at all.

Elizabethan English is NOT readily understandable to the average person today. That does not mean it cannot be understood with a bit of study and reflection. The average news paper and other copy is written at about a 5th-6th grade level. What most people read for simple information or entertainment is not written like a textbook for serious technical matters.

The NT was originally written in koine Greek which refers to its common vocabulary. It does not contain a "specialized" vocabulary for only the initiated. The Greek is static, frozen in time. English is not so. English has continued to develop and modify. The average person is going to pick up the Bible and expect to be able to read it with understanding at the level of English he or she already knows.

Why should they be required to regress 400 years to learn 17th Century literary English? Do you use any of these words today in your normal conversation they way they were in the KJV (1611):

superfluity
let
wit
wot
wist
thee, thou, thy, thine
ye
emerods
rereward
verbs that end -eth
concupiscense
anon
wither
etc..

Thaddaeus · Feb 16, 2009

Slepsog4 said:

thats what i am saying; anybody can say anything I am just showing thee where my source was. Are thou saying that thy source is above being bais, and are thee saying that thou don't use the word let any more and actually I do use some of those words still. the thee's and the thou's simplify the language for thee , thou , thy. thine are singular and the ye you your are pural. let's us know who is being spoken to wither an individual or a group. today's langauge we have to add to you as in the south we say ya'll in the north I been told they say you guys I have even heard yous all so yeah our language is so much easlier to understand> NOT

Narn · Feb 16, 2009

Don't get me wrong I like the KJV I was raised on it and since I can make decisions for my self I switched to the KJV. I really do not understand why Christians put this stumbling block out into the road that we must only have the King James. The King James was a good Translation but we are 200 years down the road from the last update. Instead of making the Bible say what you want it to say get why don't we get back to Witnessing and winning the world for Jesus.
And lets do it with a Bible in our language not a language thats old but if you want to continue to use it then that is ok but don't say your way is the only way or someone is misleading people cause its just not right.

Which translation?

ryan

Guest

ryan

Guest

ryan

Guest

Baptistrw

Guest

Slepsog4

Guest

Charles

Guest

Slepsog4

Guest

Baptistrw

Guest

dodolah

Guest

Thaddaeus

Banned

Baptistrw

Guest

Thaddaeus

Banned

MahogonySnail

Banned

Baptistrw

Guest

Thaddaeus

Banned

Baptistrw

Guest

Thaddaeus

Banned

Slepsog4

Guest

Thaddaeus

Banned

Narn

Guest