new bible translation

[petrek]

I don't know about you. But if I lived my life solely by a book translated from another language, I'd always back new translations that may possibly be more accurate.

Sadly, the fear of change and religion go hand in hand.

That is the worlds way of thinking...ie God doesn't exist. If one believes that the God of the Jews (who created the Universe and everything in it) does exist, one would also believe that HE is capable of providing an accurate copy of His Word throughout the centuries. It makes NO sense to believe that HE can raise you from the dead, but is incapable of providing an accurate copy of His Word (which is NECESSARY for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) to those who Trust in Him.
To believe that the Bible has always only been partially true, and that only now in this century are we finding the errors and correcting them, is to believe in a wordly thought process that can only lead to the further perverting (as the process was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881) of the Word of God, which in turn leads to the destruction of its Eternal Authority.

Dave

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: petrek
That is the worlds way of thinking...ie God doesn't exist.

Most of the world believes in a deity. I am not sure what this has to do with Bible translations.

If one believes that the God of the Jews (who created the Universe and everything in it) does exist, one would also believe that HE is capable of providing an accurate copy of His Word throughout the centuries.

Do you believe G-d provided the original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Torah, or the mostly Greek for the New Testament?

Do you believe G-d must provide a translation to every language? Or is it more likely that G-d can allow people to either learn Hebrew and Greek, or provide themselves with translations?

Do you believe that if there exists only one translation to a given language it must be an accurate translation from G-d?

Do you believe if I find a language where no translation of the Bible exists, and I do my own translation, then it would be the work of G-d?

Do you believe if someone were to have a personal agenda and did a bible translation that promoted that agenda, but they used some means to make it a popular version, that it must be an accurate translation?

Do you see the flaws in your logic?

It makes NO sense to believe that HE can raise you from the dead, but is incapable of providing an accurate copy of His Word (which is NECESSARY for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) to those who Trust in Him.

If you believe G-d provided the original version, is it necessary for G-d to provide additional versions?

To believe that the Bible has always only been partially true, and that only now in this century are we finding the errors and correcting them, is to believe in a wordly thought process that can only lead to the further perverting (as the process was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881) of the Word of God, which in turn leads to the destruction of its Eternal Authority.
Dave

I do not follow what you are saying here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: petrek

I don't know about you. But if I lived my life solely by a book translated from another language, I'd always back new translations that may possibly be more accurate.

Sadly, the fear of change and religion go hand in hand.

That is the worlds way of thinking...ie God doesn't exist. If one believes that the God of the Jews (who created the Universe and everything in it) does exist, one would also believe that HE is capable of providing an accurate copy of His Word throughout the centuries. It makes NO sense to believe that HE can raise you from the dead, but is incapable of providing an accurate copy of His Word (which is NECESSARY for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) to those who Trust in Him.
To believe that the Bible has always only been partially true, and that only now in this century are we finding the errors and correcting them, is to believe in a wordly thought process that can only lead to the further perverting (as the process was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881) of the Word of God, which in turn leads to the destruction of its Eternal Authority.

Dave

You can't destroy what isn't there.

 

[petrek]

Most of the world believes in a deity. I am not sure what this has to do with Bible translations.

If the deity isn't the God of the Bible, then it is a worldly god. Believing God doesn't exist has to do with Bible translations in that the Bible is supposed to be the Word of said God.
However, I was mainly referring to his suggestion that a newer translation of the Bible is likely to be more accurate, even though that suggestion implies that the Word of God is lost and needs to be found...which is a worldly (non-believer) way of viewing the issue.

Do you believe G-d provided the original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Torah, or the mostly Greek for the New Testament?

Yes, God did.

Do you believe G-d must provide a translation to every language? Or is it more likely that G-d can allow people to either learn Hebrew and Greek, or provide themselves with translations?

If any individual who only speaks that language wants to be Saved, yes a partial translation is necessary for Salvation.
If the person is sufficient in both languages, they would have no need to translate for themselves, but if they were a Believer, they would most likely want to translate for their fellow man, who is not knowledgeable in both languages.

Do you believe that if there exists only one translation to a given language it must be an accurate translation from G-d?

Impossible to speculate.

Do you believe if I find a language where no translation of the Bible exists, and I do my own translation, then it would be the work of G-d?

No, based on your post(s) I don't believe you are qualified to provide an accurate translation of the Word of God.

Do you believe if someone were to have a personal agenda and did a bible translation that promoted that agenda, but they used some means to make it a popular version, that it must be an accurate translation?

Ignores reality.

Do you see the flaws in your logic?

I see the flaws in your assumptions as to what I was saying in that paragraph.

If you believe G-d provided the original version, is it necessary for G-d to provide additional versions?

According to what is, yes.

I do not follow what you are saying here.

Whenever a new Version of the Bible comes out that contradicts a previous Version of the Bible, the once trusted Authority of the Word of God is perverted and destroyed for some. As it is unreasonable to expect men to trust a "Biblical doctrine" when the next "better", "more reliable" Version, may very well dispell the accuracy of that doctrine. This is the situation we find ourselves in since the creation of the New Greek Text by Westcott and Hort in 1881 using the obviously corrupt Aleph, B, C, and D codex's.

Dave

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: petrek

Most of the world believes in a deity. I am not sure what this has to do with Bible translations.

If the deity isn't the God of the Bible, then it is a worldly god. Believing God doesn't exist has to do with Bible translations in that the Bible is supposed to be the Word of said God.
However, I was mainly referring to his suggestion that a newer translation of the Bible is likely to be more accurate, even though that suggestion implies that the Word of God is lost and needs to be found...which is a worldly (non-believer) way of viewing the issue.

Do you believe G-d provided the original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Torah, or the mostly Greek for the New Testament?

Yes, God did.

Do you believe G-d must provide a translation to every language? Or is it more likely that G-d can allow people to either learn Hebrew and Greek, or provide themselves with translations?

If any individual who only speaks that language wants to be Saved, yes a partial translation is necessary for Salvation.
If the person is sufficient in both languages, they would have no need to translate for themselves, but if they were a Believer, they would most likely want to translate for their fellow man, who is not knowledgeable in both languages.

Do you believe that if there exists only one translation to a given language it must be an accurate translation from G-d?

Impossible to speculate.

Do you believe if I find a language where no translation of the Bible exists, and I do my own translation, then it would be the work of G-d?

No, based on your post(s) I don't believe you are qualified to provide an accurate translation of the Word of God.

Do you believe if someone were to have a personal agenda and did a bible translation that promoted that agenda, but they used some means to make it a popular version, that it must be an accurate translation?

Ignores reality.

Do you see the flaws in your logic?

I see the flaws in your assumptions as to what I was saying in that paragraph.

If you believe G-d provided the original version, is it necessary for G-d to provide additional versions?

According to what is, yes.

I do not follow what you are saying here.

Whenever a new Version of the Bible comes out that contradicts a previous Version of the Bible, the once trusted Authority of the Word of God is perverted and destroyed for some. As it is unreasonable to expect men to trust a "Biblical doctrine" when the next "better", "more reliable" Version, may very well dispell the accuracy of that doctrine. This is the situation we find ourselves in since the creation of the New Greek Text by Westcott and Hort in 1881 using the obviously corrupt Aleph, B, C, and D codex's.

Dave

Even the people who heard the original words had no idea what they meant. You can transfer data to people but you cannot transfer the state of consciousness wrom which the understanding comes. To understand God you have to have God consciousness. Ane then, of course, the words aren't necessary.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: petrek

I don't know about you. But if I lived my life solely by a book translated from another language, I'd always back new translations that may possibly be more accurate.

Sadly, the fear of change and religion go hand in hand.

That is the worlds way of thinking...ie God doesn't exist. If one believes that the God of the Jews (who created the Universe and everything in it) does exist, one would also believe that HE is capable of providing an accurate copy of His Word throughout the centuries. It makes NO sense to believe that HE can raise you from the dead, but is incapable of providing an accurate copy of His Word (which is NECESSARY for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) to those who Trust in Him.

The question though is which Bible?

If there was only one set of books, and one accepted translation of that set of books, then you'd have a point, but major branch of Christianity has its own set of books and different sects within each branch have their own favorite translations.

To believe that the Bible has always only been partially true, and that only now in this century are we finding the errors and correcting them, is to believe in a wordly thought process that can only lead to the further perverting (as the process was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881) of the Word of God, which in turn leads to the destruction of its Eternal Authority.

Dave

Of course, the Churches predate and is responsible for creating the Bibles, so to assume that any Bible has greater authority than the Church who created it is a fallacy, a fact which the vast majority of the world's Christians acknowledge, though one which American fundamentalists have trouble accepting.

 

[petrek]

cant wait till certain quotes are shown to be out of context and meaningless...

i read an article last year about a better translation of the story of sodom ... turns out... the king james verison... which every homophob quotes ... makes it seem that sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality because king j makes all angels take a male form... the other, supposedly more accurate translation... points to the crime being rape... not sodomy...

Genesis 19:5 :: New International Version (NIV)
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."


Genesis 19:5 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
and they called to Lot and said to him, "(1) Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."


Genesis 19:5 :: Amplified Bible (AMP)
And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them.


Genesis 19:5 :: New Living Translation (NLT)
They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them."


Genesis 19:5 :: King James Version (KJV)
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


Genesis 19:5 :: New Life Version (NLV)
They called to Lot, saying, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we may lie with them."


Genesis 19:5 :: Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
They called out to Lot and said, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!"[1]


Genesis 19:5 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."


Genesis 19:5 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."


Genesis 19:5 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
And they called unto Lot and said unto him, "Where are the men who came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."


Genesis 19:5 :: American Standard Version (ASV)
and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


Genesis 19:5 :: Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
and they call unto Lot and say to him, `Where [are] the men who have come in unto thee to-night? bring them out unto us, and we know them.'


Genesis 19:5 :: Darby Translation (DARBY)
And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men that have come in to thee to-night? bring them out to us that we may know them.


Genesis 19:5 :: New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
They called out to Lot. They said, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us. We want to have sex with them."


Genesis 19:5 :: New International Version - UK (NIV-UK)
They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: petrek

cant wait till certain quotes are shown to be out of context and meaningless...
i read an article last year about a better translation of the story of sodom ... turns out... the king james verison... which every homophob quotes ... makes it seem that sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality because king j makes all angels take a male form... the other, supposedly more accurate translation... points to the crime being rape... not sodomy...

Genesis 19:5 :: New International Version (NIV)
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Genesis 19:5 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."

Read all of Genesis 19:

[Prior to Genesis 19 is Abraham asking G-d if G-d needs to destroy the entire city]

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, "My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the street." But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we many know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have no known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow come to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door." But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.

Then the men said to Lot, "Have you any one lese here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any one you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it." So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

Revised Standard Edition

The translation is pretty much the same in my Pentateuch. Lot met two lords at the gates of Sodom and invited them into his house and fed them. The men of Sodom, surround the house, and order Lot to send the visitors/angels out of the house. They are acting as a mob and telling Lot to send out the angels. Lot offers up his daughters to appease the mob and protect his guests, but they refuse. The angels make the men near the door temporarily blind and drag Lot back into his house. The angels tell Lot to leave the city and take his family with them, because they are about to destroy the city.

I do not agree with the offering up of the daughters, my Pentateuch comments "The duty of protecting a guest is sacred in the East. As soon as a stranger had touched the tent-rope, he could claim guest-right. But the price which Lot was preparted to pay is unthinkable in our eyes."

By "this fellow comes to sojourn" the Pentateuch explains "this newcomer presumes to judge our actions, and interfere with our customs."

The translations above where a mob surrounds a house and then tells Lot to send them out to have sex with does not make a lot of sense. Even if it did, this would be considered rape by a mob and not consentual sex.

Even just a little later (Genesis 19:31 through 19:36) when it talks about Lot's daughters getting Lot drunk, the Bible says that they lay with him, not that they knew him. Some scholars say that Lot's daughters thought that after the destruction of Sodom they thought the whole world was destroyed and that they needed to preserve the human race, this does not hold up as they had recently left Zoar. Their behavior does not seem deserving of the angels saving them.

I did find it amusing that in this case the KJV did more accurately translate that verse. But petrek, you just did a good job illustrating the difference a translation can make.

 

[IAteYourMother]

The translations of the bible doesn't invalidate God and his teachings. It's a compilation of documents by people. What God teaches us and all was brought to us through prophets, but as we don't have a verbatim copy of what exactly they said, we can't have a single correct copy. Each translation tries to make that fuzziness less

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
The translations of the bible doesn't invalidate God and his teachings. It's a compilation of documents by people. What God teaches us and all was brought to us through prophets, but as we don't have a verbatim copy of what exactly they said, we can't have a single correct copy. Each translation tries to make that fuzziness less

Nobody who dies to himself will need to have the Bible clarified. In a man without self there is only the universe, instant by instant created.

 

[petrek]

Revised Standard Edition

The translation is pretty much the same in my Pentateuch. Lot met two lords at the gates of Sodom and invited them into his house and fed them. The men of Sodom, surround the house, and order Lot to send the visitors/angels out of the house. They are acting as a mob and telling Lot to send out the angels. Lot offers up his daughters to appease the mob and protect his guests, but they refuse. The angels make the men near the door temporarily blind and drag Lot back into his house. The angels tell Lot to leave the city and take his family with them, because they are about to destroy the city.

I do not agree with the offering up of the daughters, my Pentateuch comments "The duty of protecting a guest is sacred in the East. As soon as a stranger had touched the tent-rope, he could claim guest-right. But the price which Lot was preparted to pay is unthinkable in our eyes."

By "this fellow comes to sojourn" the Pentateuch explains "this newcomer presumes to judge our actions, and interfere with our customs."

The translations above where a mob surrounds a house and then tells Lot to send them out to have sex with does not make a lot of sense. Even if it did, this would be considered rape by a mob and not consentual sex.

Even just a little later (Genesis 19:31 through 19:36) when it talks about Lot's daughters getting Lot drunk, the Bible says that they lay with him, not that they knew him. Some scholars say that Lot's daughters thought that after the destruction of Sodom they thought the whole world was destroyed and that they needed to preserve the human race, this does not hold up as they had recently left Zoar. Their behavior does not seem deserving of the angels saving them.

I did find it amusing that in this case the KJV did more accurately translate that verse. But petrek, you just did a good job illustrating the difference a translation can make.

I think you missed the reason why I posted the various translations. I did so to expose SirStev0's baseless accusation against the KJV (something I cleared up with him, but still felt needed to be addressed in this thread).

"But petrek, you just did a good job illustrating the difference a translation can make."

Which is why so called Christians have to stop treating the Word of God like a personal Bible Commentary. If you feel capable of writing a Bible Commentary, then do so, but don't write a Bible Commentary and call it the Word of God, when it's only your interpretation of His word.
Furthermore, considering the English "Bibles" translated since 1881 (except for the NKJV and perhaps 1 or 2 other translations, which pale in comparison to the Scholarship of the KJV) are based on the corrupted Westcott and Hort Greek Text that they admit was intended to deceive Believers, it's not surprising that you can find differing doctrines depending on which Version of the "Word of God" you happen to be using.

I only use the KJV in matters of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, because I know it wasn't based on the intentionally deceitful Greek Text of Westcott and Hort.

Dave

 

[petrek]

"The question though is which Bible?

If there was only one set of books, and one accepted translation of that set of books, then you'd have a point, but major branch of Christianity has its own set of books and different sects within each branch have their own favorite translations. "


A quick review of the History of the English Bible will lead people to realize that a few people had translated the Word of God into the English language for the edification of all men, but that it was a 47 person combined effort that resulted in the King James Bible. The King James Bible was then used and trusted faithfully up until Westcott and Hort purposely set about to deceive Believers by creating a New Greek Text from obviously corrupt manuscripts in 1881.


"Of course, the Churches predate and is responsible for creating the Bibles, so to assume that any Bible has greater authority than the Church who created it is a fallacy, a fact which the vast majority of the world's Christians acknowledge, though one which American fundamentalists have trouble accepting."

No.


Dave

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
The translations of the bible doesn't invalidate God and his teachings. It's a compilation of documents by people. What God teaches us and all was brought to us through prophets, but as we don't have a verbatim copy of what exactly they said, we can't have a single correct copy. Each translation tries to make that fuzziness less

Nobody who dies to himself will need to have the Bible clarified. In a man without self there is only the universe, instant by instant created.

Come again?

 

[RSaylors]

Isn't the basic faith and life we need to live written in our hearts? aren?t the various dogmatic views of any church, be they based on tainted Greek text or not, completely unimportant as long as humbleness unto the Lord by accepting Jesus and treating your fellow man as yourself are the most basic tenants?

I have faith that the word of God has been left here for man to live by, but I also have faith that even a poorly translated version of the bible will serve this intent if my heart is in the right spirit. it seems also to me that even Jesus saying it himself wouldn?t help a man who?s heart is in the wrong spirit.

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
The translations of the bible doesn't invalidate God and his teachings. It's a compilation of documents by people. What God teaches us and all was brought to us through prophets, but as we don't have a verbatim copy of what exactly they said, we can't have a single correct copy. Each translation tries to make that fuzziness less

Nobody who dies to himself will need to have the Bible clarified. In a man without self there is only the universe, instant by instant created.

Come again?

Peyote will do that to you, won't it? Moonie says you can find God simply by losing your connection to "self". Moonie leaves out that to work towards being a more perfect being is the most honorable of all things you can do as a person. He may or may not understand that living a life humbly dedicated to Christ is how you can be sure you're on the narrow spiritual road that allows the universe to cleanse and perfect the self.


Jude:

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.
11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm--shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted--twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

Death to self is one thing, pollution of God's temple in an attempt to kill yourself is quite another. A humble death to self is a step on a long journey towards allowing God to work is Holy will in you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Peyote will do that to you, won't it? Moonie says you can find God simply by losing your connection to "self". Moonie leaves out that to work towards being a more perfect being is the most honorable of all things you can do as a person. He may or may not understand that living a life humbly dedicated to Christ is how you can be sure you're on the narrow spiritual road that allows the universe to cleanse and perfect the self.

Ah yes, now that I walk the narrow path I can flatter myself with honor and relish in my egotism that my works are good. I and only me and those select few like me know the real path. My specialness is its own reward. And to think that I thought that I died.