You've got the read the Hebrew...

[Adam4Eve]

One phrase that is often mooted by those who wish to manipulate or deceive (e.g. tithing) or even somebody who wants to talk you round to their own interpretation of the Bible is

"You've got to read the Hebrew to truly/fully understand the context/meaning".

To people that say this kind of thing, are you suggesting that God was unsuccessful in translating the Bible to other languages, or that God did so incorrectly or not fully?

 

[LPT]

One phrase that is often mooted by those who wish to manipulate or deceive (e.g. tithing) or even somebody who wants to talk you round to their own interpretation of the Bible is

"You've got to read the Hebrew to truly/fully understand the context/meaning".

To people that say this kind of thing, are you suggesting that God was unsuccessful in translating the Bible to other languages, or that God did so incorrectly or not fully?

It didn’t appear anyone was suggesting that but I do know not all translations are correct.

 

[Adam4Eve]

It didn’t appear anyone was suggesting that but I do know not all translations are correct.

Nobody has suggested this on here in any conversation I've been involved with at least, I was referring to my 'real life' experience.

Has God incorrectly or incompletely translated his word from Hebrew into other languages?
If your answer is "no, it was man's fallibility, then what about the Hebrew versions, or even the original?

 

[LPT]

Nobody has suggested this on here in any conversation I've been involved with at least, I was referring to my 'real life' experience.

Has God incorrectly or incompletely translated his word from Hebrew into other languages?
If your answer is "no, it was man's fallibility, then what about the Hebrew versions, or even the original?

The NIV a is poor translation IMO, and the Koran is based off the OT.

 

[Elene]

One phrase that is often mooted by those who wish to manipulate or deceive (e.g. tithing) or even somebody who wants to talk you round to their own interpretation of the Bible is

"You've got to read the Hebrew to truly/fully understand the context/meaning".

To people that say this kind of thing, are you suggesting that God was unsuccessful in translating the Bible to other languages, or that God did so incorrectly or not fully?

Good question! I dont have the answer and first im going to sleep. Its 00;00 here.

 

[dcontroversal]

I have a question.....do the following two words mean the same thing?

Another
Another

How about the following two words?

Heteros
Allos

Yet the bottom two words which are entirely different, with two different meanings and two different applications are both translated ANOTHER.

Why would one not want to study the words to the fullest extent to get the best possible information so as to make sound, solid conclusions?

 

[Dino246]

One phrase that is often mooted by those who wish to manipulate or deceive (e.g. tithing) or even somebody who wants to talk you round to their own interpretation of the Bible is

"You've got to read the Hebrew to truly/fully understand the context/meaning".

To people that say this kind of thing, are you suggesting that God was unsuccessful in translating the Bible to other languages, or that God did so incorrectly or not fully?

When dealing with technical aspects of the language, or obscure passages, knowledge of the original languages is a definite advantage. However, anyone who is arguing a common issue on the basis of special information only available in the original language is leading you astray. Every major doctrine, and most of the secondary ones, are adequately supported in the various translations. Even common but debatable issues such as tithing are sufficiently clear.

To your question, humans did the translating but they did it prayerfully and carefully. I suspect you would have to look long and hard to find a common translation that was done carelessly or with ill intent (conspiracy theories and cult versions aside).

The NIV a is poor translation IMO, and the Koran is based off the OT.

I have a feeling this is going to turn into a KJV-only argument. I hope not though. The sources I've seen or heard suggest that the OT is based on secondary OT sources such as the rabbinic commentaries... many of which are wacky.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

I have a question.....do the following two words mean the same thing?

Another
Another

How about the following two words?

Heteros
Allos

Yet the bottom two words which are entirely different, with two different meanings and two different applications are both translated ANOTHER.

Why would one not want to study the words to the fullest extent to get the best possible information so as to make sound, solid conclusions?

Right.

I started looking into the Greek / Hebrew when others pointed out to me that there's a difference between the original text and the current translation. I don't look up every single word, but I find that there is benefit in some cases in order to fully understand Scripture. Your comment about heteros and allos is one example.

 

[LPT]

When dealing with technical aspects of the language, or obscure passages, knowledge of the original languages is a definite advantage. However, anyone who is arguing a common issue on the basis of special information only available in the original language is leading you astray. Every major doctrine, and most of the secondary ones, are adequately supported in the various translations. Even common but debatable issues such as tithing are sufficiently clear.

To your question, humans did the translating but they did it prayerfully and carefully. I suspect you would have to look long and hard to find a common translation that was done carelessly or with ill intent (conspiracy theories and cult versions aside).


I have a feeling this is going to turn into a KJV-only argument. I hope not though. The sources I've seen or heard suggest that the OT is based on secondary OT sources such as the rabbinic commentaries... many of which are wacky.

I hope it doesn’t either, but I see many poor wording or flat out human theory tossed into Bible verses from a few modern translations, like the NIV saying Jesus began his ministry around 30 yrs old, the truth is that is not known exactly so it’s a added concept from the translators of the NIV, it stuff like that, that is misleading.

 

[Adam4Eve]

When dealing with technical aspects of the language, or obscure passages, knowledge of the original languages is a definite advantage. However, anyone who is arguing a common issue on the basis of special information only available in the original language is leading you astray. Every major doctrine, and most of the secondary ones, are adequately supported in the various translations. Even common but debatable issues such as tithing are sufficiently clear.

To your question, humans did the translating but they did it prayerfully and carefully. I suspect you would have to look long and hard to find a common translation that was done carelessly or with ill intent (conspiracy theories and cult versions aside).


I have a feeling this is going to turn into a KJV-only argument. I hope not though. The sources I've seen or heard suggest that the OT is based on secondary OT sources such as the rabbinic commentaries... many of which are wacky.

Quite right.

The question, which I strongly suspect future posters will completely ignore in favour of discussing their own preferred version of the Bible, does not relate to what version you happen to prefer.
So yes, thanks for pointing that out.

Interesting point actually because if somebody claims that their preferred version more accurately represents the word of God, then they are implying that God incorrectly or inaccurately translated the Bible for all to read.

 

[dcontroversal]

Right.

I started looking into the Greek / Hebrew when others pointed out to me that there's a difference between the original text and the current translation. I don't look up every single word, but I find that there is benefit in some cases in order to fully understand Scripture. Your comment about heteros and allos is one example.

Amen I hear ya....one Psalm had three different words translated the same in the first two verses.....I personally study every word from any given text just so I am making informed decisions about my beliefs.......plus...Greek verb tense is not always brought across in the English

 

[LPT]

Quite right.

The question, which I strongly suspect future posters will completely ignore in favour of discussing their own preferred version of the Bible, does not relate to what version you happen to prefer.
So yes, thanks for pointing that out.

Interesting point actually because if somebody claims that their preferred version more accurately represents the word of God, then they are implying that God incorrectly or inaccurately translated the Bible for all to read.

Or God didn’t give them authority to do so.

 

[Dino246]

I hope it doesn’t either, but I see many poor wording or flat out human theory tossed into Bible verses from a few modern translations, like the NIV saying Jesus began his ministry around 30 yrs old, the truth is that is not known exactly so it’s a added concept from the translators of the NIV, it stuff like that, that is misleading.

Respectfully, you need to do your homework before tossing out such criticisms.

Luke 3:23 in the King James version says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,".

 

[LPT]

If someone translates old scrolls, books, papers etc from one language to another doesn’t mean then they are implying that God incorrectly or inaccurately translated the Bible for all to read. that sounds kind of preposterous.

 

[Adam4Eve]

If someone translates old scrolls, books, papers etc from one language to another doesn’t mean then they are implying that God incorrectly or inaccurately translated the Bible for all to read. that sounds kind of preposterous.

Not preposterous at all.
The Bible says that God translated his word into other languages so that it is available for all to read, does it not?

 

[LPT]

Respectfully, you need to do your homework before tossing out such criticisms.

Luke 3:23 in the King James version says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,".

I have now let’s look at what the NIV says.

Luke 3:23
New International Version
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

O yea I guess someone forgot they were all amazed about his understandings even at a tender age of twelve he was about his fathers house then and he was about his fathers house at age 20 so no that is wrong translation he didn’t start his ministry at the age of 30 what did he do from 12 to 30 twiddle his thumbs???...

 

[LPT]

Not preposterous at all.
The Bible says that God translated his word into other languages so that it is available for all to read, does it not?

Yea just because someone translates something doesn’t mean it’s God approved. I think you might want read how your applying your notion

 

[dcontroversal]

Not preposterous at all.
The Bible says that God translated his word into other languages so that it is available for all to read, does it not?

Quote scripture and verse...2 witnesses please!

 

[dcontroversal]

I have a question.....do the following two words mean the same thing?

Another
Another

How about the following two words?

Heteros
Allos

Yet the bottom two words which are entirely different, with two different meanings and two different applications are both translated ANOTHER.

Why would one not want to study the words to the fullest extent to get the best possible information so as to make sound, solid conclusions?

Still waiting for an answer to the above!

 

[Adam4Eve]

All of this is irrelevant to the question I asked.