Which Bible?

[fredoheaven]

BTW, so what makes you think that NRSV is the best translation?

God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

It is honestly something I haven't studied

Ivan Panin

Yap, just a little skimming on the link but article used KJV quotes. Nice try for the article. but i have to read it more the next time.

God bless

 

[ZEEK]

Ah. I know this is a very serious subject. Some Bibles omit certain verses, and the some of the Bibles twist and distort the correct meaning.

I use BlueletterBible - KJV - and the Greek and Hebrew notes

But for plain reading I like the NSRV. It is English I can understand, and in Romans it correctly translates 'Hellas' as Greek.

It also translates Daniel 9 24-27 well. Basically I find it scores a hit in key areas many times, but of course, no translation, that I know of, is 'infallible'.

Wasn't the Geneva Bible the first proper translation?

 

[John146]

If we really want to take that seriously shouldn't we all be learning to read Greek?
((i want to))
Even the KJV is still a translation out of the native language of the scripture into ours.

But i won't say it's absolutely necessary -- what a good thing, that God has put in each and every one of us a Teacher, His Spirit, yes? See, He cares for us all - even the illiterate, and those who don't speak English

If we had the "original" Scripture of the OT in Hebrew, how were the writers able to translate what Joseph said in Egyptian into Hebrew perfectly? Would there be errors in the translation? Are you claiming even the originals would not be perfect since even they convert words from one language to another?

 

[KJV1611]

if every language is a tool to communicate ideas, then it is the ideas that are the word of God, not the language itself, just as much as what you are reading and hopefully comprehending right now is not the pixels on whatever screen you are looking at, but the message i am communicating to you.

The scriptures then, being written in an human language, all of which were confused at Babel long ago, are not the actual text themselves, but the message of God and His dealings with men - and whatever language your human mind comprehends them in, it is not the language that is key, but the substance of what is written. You can put these paragraphs into any translating tool, and if the tool is not corrupt, and the algorithm used is sound, then the message itself is not distorted, and the transmission of the idea itself remains just as sound.

You KJV-ites fail to recognize that a rose smells just as sweet, and is still a rose, even if you have no name for it, and that the grass and the sky and the seas are comprehended by people of every language, and even by babes and morons who have no language with which to speak of such things. Warm, wet, cold, love, fear, honor, embarrassment, endurance -- all these things transcend human speech -- but does the gospel of our risen Lord not transcend the base communication of mortals?

There is the forest, and there are the trees, but can a man be so stuck focused on the letters

T,

R,​

E,​

&​

E​

... so that he can see none of the actual living things in the glades?

Hi Posthuman! You're right, it is the ideas that are the word of God and not the language itself. There are many different words or phrases that can be used in the English language to convey God's message to us. But man without inspiration from God is in no way capable of choosing those words, neither is the best translating tool.

Also could you show me the gospel in the stars? Can you use the stars or nature to explain how that I'm a sinner and that I need Jesus to save me from my sins?

 

[trofimus]

Wasn't the Geneva Bible the first proper translation?

What do you mean by "proper"?

LXX was the first OT translation to Greek - 2nd century BC.
Jerome's Vulgate (into Latin) - 4th century AD.
Translations into Gothic, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopic - 4th/5th century.
Old Slavonic - 9th century
Old French - 13th century
Old Czech - 1360 AD
Old English - Wycliffe - 1383 (from Vulgate)


If you mean reformation translations:
German - 1522
French - 1535 (not sure, if OT was included)
English - 1537 Matthew Bible (first English translation of whole Bible)
Czech - 1549
Polish - 1563
Geneva - 1599
KJV - 1611

 

[ZEEK]

Sounds interesting. Tell us more

 

[LaurenTM]

my recall is a tad off, it was apparently 4th grade. but, it may have shifted since comprehension is not what it was in public schools in the 70's.

Is the King James Bible harder to read

oh for sure it's shifted...otherwise known as the dumbing down of society

but that study must have been done some time ago

it's 12th grade...big difference!

but Gail is also calling newer translations, New Age translations

seriously?

for sure some are not very good...but some are as good or better

again, I am very familiar with the KJ and I still use it...but KJ only is a cult

period

 

[BeyondET]

Here's something interesting, the first edition of the 1611 KJV printed on rag cotton sheets, stand 17 inch tall, 12 inches wide, 5 1/2 inches thick, spread nearly 30 inches when opened and weighed a whopping 30 pounds. revised in 1769 Baskerville Birmingham revision. to own a copy of the orginal 1611 KJV would cost a small fortune. Only two other exact full size reproductions of the 1611 have ever been done, one was the 350th anniversary Edition, done in 1961 by world publishing and those now sell for well over $3,000 from collectors. The other one was sold by great site.Com from 2003 through 2008, for $1,995.

you can still get the 400th anniversary edition today (1611 - 2011) of the full size KJV at great site. Com the economy binding 295$ and the leather binding for 995$

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

quick question when was the casting stones those without sin cast the first stone story in the gospel first appeared in scripture anybody know?

 

[hornetguy]

If God is behind the translation then there is zero potential for ambiguity. Ambiguity comes in when people read 4 or 5 different versions and decide for themselves which word they want it to be. No truth can ever come from that method, the truth will always be up to the readers biases and preconceived ideas.

Naah....that's simply wrong.

The best way to study is to compare two or three different translations... you get a more in depth idea of the thought being expressed... especially if you use a Greek English interlinear....

otherwise, you'd just believe in unicorns...

 

[BeyondET]

Ah. I know this is a very serious subject. Some Bibles omit certain verses, and the some of the Bibles twist and distort the correct meaning.

I use BlueletterBible - KJV - and the Greek and Hebrew notes

But for plain reading I like the NSRV. It is English I can understand, and in Romans it correctly translates 'Hellas' as Greek.

It also translates Daniel 9 24-27 well. Basically I find it scores a hit in key areas many times, but of course, no translation, that I know of, is 'infallible'.

Wasn't the Geneva Bible the first proper translation?

the Geneva was probably the most popular in its day, when the first settlers came to America they where using the Geneva bible.

 

[PrynceNY]

Bible hub is a good site to use when comparing translations, I use it often

 

[hornetguy]

What is the difference? One is to love in a social or moral sense and the other is to be a friend or have affection for. Again I can't tell any difference between the two loves.

ἀγαπάωagapáō, ag-ap-ah'-o; perhaps from ἄγαν ágan (much) (or compare H5689); to love (in a social or moral sense):—(be-)love(-ed). Compare G5368.

φιλέωphiléō, fil-eh'-o; from G5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while G25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as G2309 and G1014, or as G2372 and G3563respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specially, to kiss (as a mark of tenderness):—kiss, love.

You have simply defeated your own argument against "translations".....

YOU cannot see the difference between agape and phileo love, because you are reading English TRANSLATIONS of those words.

There IS a difference... a big difference.... hence the need for two words.. The people that spoke Koine Greek knew, and understood the difference, but you, reading a TRANSLATION of those words, cannot see the difference...

Go check some other Greek English dictionaries, and see if you can learn the difference....

 

[BeyondET]

Naah....that's simply wrong.

The best way to study is to compare two or three different translations... you get a more in depth idea of the thought being expressed... especially if you use a Greek English interlinear....

otherwise, you'd just believe in unicorns...

i agree the best way to understand translations is too look up earlier translations in different languages, I highly recommend using a interlinear bible.

 

[hornetguy]

It is really my desire and a prayer that there will be also a pure Bible for the Filipino people but it isn’t happening yet.

So, are you afraid that all of those Filipino Christians are not truly saved? And that they are at risk of damnation because they haven't been able to read the "pure" words of God?

How silly is that argument?

 

[BeyondET]

King James commissioned 50 or so scholars to collect all the known translations and possibly some original material from English,Greek,Hebrew,Aramaic translations and from these collections the 1611 KJV was produced. Though I scratch my head about how someone can name a bible after himself AKA King James did he want his name imortalized or was he prideful? IMO should of named the bible (the scholars bible) for it was those scholars who really did the task.

 

[John146]

Naah....that's simply wrong.

The best way to study is to compare two or three different translations... you get a more in depth idea of the thought being expressed... especially if you use a Greek English interlinear....

otherwise, you'd just believe in unicorns...

Then you get to decide what God has said. You can be the final authority.

 

[John146]

So, are you afraid that all of those Filipino Christians are not truly saved? And that they are at risk of damnation because they haven't been able to read the "pure" words of God?

How silly is that argument?

What's silly is you having to go there with your argument. The gospel can be preached in any language. We're talking about the pure words of God that have been preserved for all generations.

 

[BeyondET]

Then you get to decide what God has said. You can be the final authority.

What does this statement have to do with Hornetguy mentioning looking up earlier translation?

 

[hornetguy]

Then you get to decide what God has said. You can be the final authority.

Yes.... I get to decide... being led by the Holy Spirit. It's not "making up doctrine".... it's prayerful study of the words of God.. again, guided by the Spirit.