new bible translation

[jhu]

apparently, this translation will be a more pure translation of the the original hebrew. so this raises the question (that's right, it does not beg the question), why do people keep reading the king james version if it isn't as well translated?

 

[EagleKeeper]

First link is flawed

King James is backed by the Vatican. That version describes the biblical stories in the way that they feel most comfortable and were best equiped to translate at the time.

 

[Vic]

The KJV is outside of copyright protections, unlike most other translations, so it can be copied freely. Also, it is a pretty accurate translation so long as you are relatively fluent in Elizabethan (Shakespearean) English.

 

[her209]

People should just learn to read Hebrew.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, Chaldean, and Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek with some Aramaic.

 

[LtPage1]

who cares? how different could it possibly be?

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
King James is backed by the Vatican.

I thought it was authorized by England, not the Vatican? Link?

 

[Gen Stonewall]

And where the King James translation of Genesis had the earth begin "without form and void," the new translation of the Hebrew Bible says that the earth was "welter and waste."

I wonder if this would bring validity to the Gap-Reconstruction hypothesis (link in my signature). Of course, this assumes two things:

1. The originators of the hypothesis have interpreted the Bible and geology accurately.
2. This new translation is accurate.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Thinking about this, I'm skeptical about one man translating the Bible, especially when he doesn't even seem to believe that the Bible was penned by God. For now I'll stick with the well-respected translations we already have today.

 

[Infohawk]

Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

I don't even have a reasonable reproach for that, just a :disgust:

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
who cares? how different could it possibly be?

It can be the difference between condemning male homosexuality or condemning male prostitution. Those who claim the Bible is against homosexuality translate it as "sodomite" rather than male prostitute. This example is Deuteronomy XXIII 17 in KJV and XXIII 18 in the Soncino Pentateuch. Obviously there are differences between the Jewish and Christian translations, as they are not even numbered the same verse.

The King James Bible says, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. "

The Revised Standard Bible says, "There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel."

The Soncino Pentateuch translates the Hebrew as "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

I do not know official phonetics, but how I would spell out the Hebrew phonetically is (My Hebrew is definitely not fluent):

Lo Ti-yeh Ka-day-sha Mi-beh-note Yisrael Veh-lo Yi-yeh Ka-day-sh Mi-beh-nay Yisrael.

Ka-day-sha is translated above as "harlot" for the daughters
Ka-day-sh is translated as "sodomite" for men.

Obviously this translation is flawed as they are the same word, just the masculine (with out the final a) and feminine form (with the final a) (Or note vs. nay distinguishing gender for plural daughters vs. sons).

This example shows how an English translator who wants the Bible to condemn homosexuality does so.

This is just one example I just looked up myself. The Revised Standard Bible is actually more accurate to the Hebrew than the Soncino Pentateuch in this verse. Although I am not sure about the use of the word "cult". I do not have a Hebrew-English dictionary handy.

I hope my example illustrates the point. There are many websites that give lists of which verses they think are flawed in the KJV. Unfortunately, I could not find one with examples where I agree with the corrections.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

I don't even have a reasonable reproach for that

Of course you don't... otherwise you wouldn't be what you are.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

1 Timothy 6: 17-19

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

I'm not sure what you mean by "killing in His name", but Jesus wasn't a pacifist. Afterall, he told his disciples to buy swords.

Luke 22:36

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

I'm not sure what you mean by "killing in His name", but Jesus wasn't a pacifist. Afterall, he told his disciples to buy swords.

Luke 22:36

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it.

Good answer, though now we're way off topic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is it still crystal clear that Jesus thought people should give away all their wealth and that he didn't think killing in his name is okay?

I'm not sure what you mean by "killing in His name", but Jesus wasn't a pacifist. Afterall, he told his disciples to buy swords.

Luke 22:36

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it.

True, but see what happens in vs 49-51.
Striking for self defense may be ok, but striking out of fear or anger is not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dszd0g

Originally posted by: LtPage1
who cares? how different could it possibly be?

It can be the difference between condemning male homosexuality or condemning male prostitution. Those who claim the Bible is against homosexuality translate it as "sodomite" rather than male prostitute. This example is Deuteronomy XXIII 17 in KJV and XXIII 18 in the Soncino Pentateuch. Obviously there are differences between the Jewish and Christian translations, as they are not even numbered the same verse.

The King James Bible says, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. "

The Revised Standard Bible says, "There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel."

The Soncino Pentateuch translates the Hebrew as "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

I do not know official phonetics, but how I would spell out the Hebrew phonetically is (My Hebrew is definitely not fluent):

Lo Ti-yeh Ka-day-sha Mi-beh-note Yisrael Veh-lo Yi-yeh Ka-day-sh Mi-beh-nay Yisrael.

Ka-day-sha is translated above as "harlot" for the daughters
Ka-day-sh is translated as "sodomite" for men.

Obviously this translation is flawed as they are the same word, just the masculine (with out the final a) and feminine form (with the final a) (Or note vs. nay distinguishing gender for plural daughters vs. sons).

This example shows how an English translator who wants the Bible to condemn homosexuality does so.

This is just one example I just looked up myself. The Revised Standard Bible is actually more accurate to the Hebrew than the Soncino Pentateuch in this verse. Although I am not sure about the use of the word "cult". I do not have a Hebrew-English dictionary handy.

I hope my example illustrates the point. There are many websites that give lists of which verses they think are flawed in the KJV. Unfortunately, I could not find one with examples where I agree with the corrections.

Do you have access to a New International Version to see what it says? I know that at the time it was being written, the NIV was touted as the new definitive translation, committed to producing the most accurate English translation ever. Perhaps it didn't live up to that goal since Alter presumably rejects it.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Vic
The KJV is outside of copyright protections, unlike most other translations, so it can be copied freely. Also, it is a pretty accurate translation so long as you are relatively fluent in Elizabethan (Shakespearean) English.

lil something you might be interested in

"...a Greek text from which the King James Version of 1611 was translated, but which is a text now rejected by true scholars because of the many mistakes, additions and omissions which mark it, so that the King James Version has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors."

 

[Moonbeam]

If self defense is OK then why didn't the Disciples defend Jesus from crucifixion?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If self defense is OK then why didn't the Disciples defend Jesus from crucifixion?

because jesus was accused of crimes against his people. they demanded his head. even traded barnabas the rapist's place for him. he had no choice but to become a martyr.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If self defense is OK then why didn't the Disciples defend Jesus from crucifixion?

Jesus and some of His disciples are at the garden of Gethsemane. Judas betrayed Jesus and told the Roman soldiers were Jesus was. One of Jesus' disciples tried to defend Jesus by attacking the soliders. Jesus said to him:

"Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Sciptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"

Jesus knew that his crucifixion must take place in order to fulfill the prophecies and bring a New Covenant to the world.

Edit: Matthew 26: 52-54

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
First link is flawed

King James is backed by the Vatican. That version describes the biblical stories in the way that they feel most comfortable and were best equiped to translate at the time.

The Douay-Rheims is the official version of the Catholic church, I believe. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

 

[petrek]

Some good reads on the subject: The King James Version Defended, by Edward F. Hills; Which Bible & True or False?, by David Otis Fuller; The Revision Revised, by Dean J.W. Burgon.

You can also check out this website http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm

Until such a time, if ever, God (not man's preference) deems it necessary to update the language of the KJV (using the same underlying Texts & Scholarship) I see absolutely NO reason to stop using it. It has proven itself over 4 centuries as the trustworthy Bible in the English language.
Is the King James Version perfect? Absolutely not. Is it entirely trustworthy in matters of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness? Absolutely, it is Infallible.

Dave

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Thinking about this, I'm skeptical about one man translating the Bible, especially when he doesn't even seem to believe that the Bible was penned by God. For now I'll stick with the well-respected translations we already have today.

The bible wasn't penned by god. It was written by men like you and me who said they were inspired by god. Their works were submitted to the Early Roman Catholic church and of those thousands of submitted works a few were selected and put together to form the early bible. There are many works that should have been included but were selectively left out for various reasons. If you read the bible and think that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth you have just lied to yourself.