ARE ALL BIBLE TRANSLATIONS TRUSTWORTHY?

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't need to tell them. They already know it if they really know Hebrew well. If they only know Yiddish....that's another story.

The crux is the VERB based language versus English which is noun based.

So yuo think yourself a Hebrew Expert? what is your training??

I rely on biblical Hebrew speakers and those who have bachelors, masters and doctorates in the language. And I suspect you misunderstand how Hebrew is a metaphoric language.

 

[JohnDB]

So yuo think yourself a Hebrew Expert? what is your training??

I rely on biblical Hebrew speakers and those who have bachelors, masters and doctorates in the language. And I suspect you misunderstand how Hebrew is a metaphoric language.

You are invited to believe anything you want. (You will anyway...you believe nobody but you is right)

I have done extensive studies from a plethora of experts....not just one or two. And even though they are Jewish there is a concensus.
Biblical Hebrew is not the same as modern Hebrew....because Hebrew, like English, is a living language. Meaning it changes slightly and subtley over time....like the thousands of years since the Tenakh was written. English from 500 years ago is different from modern English and used differently depending upon which continent its spoken on. Australian English is not the same as the English spoken in South Africa, and again different from what is spoken in England...and Americans speak differently from them all.

So exactly how is it you are so correct and I'm so wrong again? Which I'm sure you will come up with because you can never be wrong.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You are invited to believe anything you want. (You will anyway...you believe nobody but you is right)

I have done extensive studies from a plethora of experts....not just one or two. And even though they are Jewish there is a concensus.
Biblical Hebrew is not the same as modern Hebrew....because Hebrew, like English, is a living language. Meaning it changes slightly and subtley over time....like the thousands of years since the Tenakh was written. English from 500 years ago is different from modern English and used differently depending upon which continent its spoken on. Australian English is not the same as the English spoken in South Africa, and again different from what is spoken in England...and Americans speak differently from them all.

So exactly how is it you are so correct and I'm so wrong again? Which I'm sure you will come up with because you can never be wrong.

First off you shouldn't tell me what I believe or not. but your statement is a bold lie!

Second I know Biblical Hebrew died and was resurrected only in modern times as a spoken language. I also is very aware language changes over time.

And once again lying about me (I am wrong often, your bitterness is glaring), I said I am not surew you know what Hebrew metaphic language is for it is not the same as how we think 0of metaphoric usage.

so instead of your arrogance, how about just having a simple discussion.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

To JOhn DB

First off you shouldn't tell me what I believe or not. but your statement is a bold lie!

Second I know Biblical Hebrew died and was resurrected only in modern times as a spoken language. I also is very aware language changes over time.

And once again lying about me (I am wrong often, your bitterness is glaring), I said I am not surew you know what Hebrew metaphic language is for it is not the same as how we think 0of metaphoric usage.

so instead of your arrogance, how about just having a simple discussion.

,

I take it by you rlaugh avatar, a real discussion doesn't interest you.

 

[JohnDB]

First off you shouldn't tell me what I believe or not. but your statement is a bold lie!

Second I know Biblical Hebrew died and was resurrected only in modern times as a spoken language. I also is very aware language changes over time.

And once again lying about me (I am wrong often, your bitterness is glaring), I said I am not surew you know what Hebrew metaphic language is for it is not the same as how we think 0of metaphoric usage.

so instead of your arrogance, how about just having a simple discussion.

You have made abundantly clear already that is NOT what you want to do.

You have a completely separate agenda that I do not wish to participate in.

However....
Anyone who wishes to see what I have discussed can look for themselves to see the absolute literal meaning of Hebrew vocabulary and then look at how it's customarily translated....this is something usually not listed in most evangelical dictionaries or translation guides....but more along the lines of a scholar's textbook of Hebrew.

Hebrew is very much a VERB based, metaphoric language....kinda wild and very unique among languages IMHO.

Look up the word surrounding "learn".
It's literal Hebrew word means subjugation....being a subject to its authority. Putting yourself under its subjugation.

And maybe you will find yourself learning something today.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You have made abundantly clear already that is NOT what you want to do.

You have a completely separate agenda that I do not wish to participate in.

YOu suck at mind reading. don't make it a career

Look up the word surrounding "learn".
It's literal Hebrew word means subjugation....being a subject to its authority. Putting yourself under its subjugation.

And maybe you will find yourself learning something today

Already knew that. what else do you wish to teach me.

How much expertise in Hebrew do you have?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

However....
Anyone who wishes to see what I have discussed can look for themselves to see the absolute literal meaning of Hebrew vocabulary and then look at how it's customarily translated....this is something usually not listed in most evangelical dictionaries or translation guides....but more along the lines of a scholar's textbook of Hebrew.

Of which I have three series of scholars texbooks on Biblical Hebrew. how about you?

 

[JohnDB]

Of which I have three series of scholars texbooks on Biblical Hebrew. how about you?

Have you read them? Or do you just own them?
I'm thinking the latter.

 

[Rockerduck]

Back to the OP. The manuscripts that the modern translations use are just two, the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was discarded in a trash bin as a bad copy. Both codex's do not agree. Westcott and Hort combined the two into one. Westcott and Hort created another Greek translation known as Critical text and the Critical text is flawed. Yet, because the Codex's were oldest, modern translators used it. Why? Money, that's why. Modern translators can claim a new work and patent it. This makes a modern translation a for profit book, and the owners receive royalties. Westcott and Hort hated the textus receptus, they also dabbled into the occult.
Only the KJV and NKJV use textus receptus.
Bible studies are difficult now, with all the translations people are bringing to read.

 

[marks]

Any serious student of scripture is unconcerned with which translation is used.

I certainly would not agree with that! While I always think of the NIV related to this question . . . would you study from the Message? The Cabbage Patch Bible?

Much love!

 

[JohnDB]

I certainly would not agree with that! While I always think of the NIV related to this question . . . would you study from the Message? The Cabbage Patch Bible?

Much love!

Both of those are actually decent translations....people are uncomfortable with using them.
Paraphrased instead of w-f-w....but in truth no English language Translation is going to be a real word-for-word translation anyway because of the nature of the Donor languages. And a serious student of scripture learns the original language because they want to know exactly what God has said....not glossed over or summarized....but they hang on every single word as it was originally said.

English? It's there to remind me of what was said in passages I've already studied at some point. I'm familiar with the consistent work of the translators....and I can think back to original language.

Which is why I'm currently using TS2009 as my regular translation....it there to help remind me of more. I'm getting old and slower than I used to be.
You'll get there too one day.

 

[Jack]

Unbelievers are so busy attacking the Christian Bible they don't see it coming to pass right under their noses!

 

[JohnDB]

Unbelievers are so busy attacking the Christian Bible they don't see it coming to pass right under their noses!

Scriptures are a miracle in themselves.
5500 years old with 40 authors written over 3000 years in 4 different languages on 2 continents....
And in perfect agreement.

We cant get two people on this forum to agree as much as scriptures do.

That's why I say it's a miracle.

 

[Jack]

Scriptures are a miracle in themselves.
5500 years old with 40 authors written over 3000 years in 4 different languages on 2 continents....
And in perfect agreement.

We cant get two people on this forum to agree as much as scriptures do.

That's why I say it's a miracle.

Truly a miracle!!!

 

[marks]

Both of those are actually decent translations....people are uncomfortable with using them.

Not for me. The NIV rates among the worst. And the Message isn't a Bible at all in my opinion.

You'll get there too one day.

I recommend the King James version. For me, it's the most like reading the Greek itself. I'm not familiar enough with Hebrew. But that's why we have the LXX. We get to have the meaning of the Hebrew translated before the languange was lost.

Much love!

 

[JohnDB]

Not for me. The NIV rates among the worst. And the Message isn't a Bible at all in my opinion.

I recommend the King James version. For me, it's the most like reading the Greek itself. I'm not familiar enough with Hebrew. But that's why we have the LXX. We get to have the meaning of the Hebrew translated before the languange was lost.

Much love!

Greek and Early Latin both have a logical system to them....even if they are overly idiomatic at times.
Hebrew is more unique in that it is verb based and metaphoric (despite the only one person who disagrees).
The metaphors arent that difficult and the alphabet in it's original form was more pictographic than what we see today.

Now the LXX has several differing copies....The Jews picked it up for a while and focused on making it more accurate or copying it more precisely like they did with the Hebrew/Aramaic....but it got denigrated and abandoned. However....the LXX was what the writing New Testament Authors used for scripture citations, translation and allusions regularly throughout their gospels and letters.

Its unique style of translation is readily apparent in the New Testament making citations from the Old Testament much easier....which guides some concordance references. (Not all concordance are the same, some are thought for thought and some are key word)

 

[NayborBear]

NO!
Ezekiel 13 (KJV)
20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will
tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

(NIV)
20 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds and I will tear them from your arms; I will set free the people that you ensnare like birds.

If y'all cannot "see" this as (only) part of the "Great Apostasy?"
RAIN ON YA!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Have you read them? Or do you just own them?
I'm thinking the latter.

Well we have all seen how bad you rthinking is towards others.

but know I use them often. How about you? what training have you had?

I studied a semester in biblical greek and sat under a biblical hebrew speaker (bachelors at Hebrew U. in Israel and now full speaker and writer in biblical hebrew) So how about yoiu?

 

[MonoBiblical]

Well we have all seen how bad you rthinking is towards others.

but know I use them often. How about you? what training have you had?

I studied a semester in biblical greek and sat under a biblical hebrew speaker (bachelors at Hebrew U. in Israel and now full speaker and writer in biblical hebrew) So how about yoiu?

I study it all the time, and I don't think there is one translation that is trustworthy.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I study it all the time, and I don't think there is one translation that is trustworthy.

Well learning the original languages are best and using series like Keil and Delitzsch 10 volume OT and Littles 10 volume NT in the original languages are about the best.

I use the KJV and have done so for over 40 years. It is a matter of being comfortable with it. there are many excellent translations out there that do not promote any false teachings. But we all need to remember that when we translate from one language to another, things lose theier impact.