Bible Translation Study

[Mayflower]

I didn't think this fit in Bible study. But I did want to open a thread to discuss the differences in translations of word for word versus word for thought Bibles, and how to identify when the meaning is changed. I believe the best translation is the one a person applies. But at the same time, it is also a slow fade.

My thing with KJV, is I was raised on it, and I do find it accurate in teaching. My thought though, is even when the people spoke in Hebrew and Greek, it didn't mean "Thee and Thou." It was translated first in the 1600s. I personally like NASB as a good Word for Word translation.

If the Bible changes in meaning though, from even these Word for Words, I would really like some examples and to learn how to identify these things. I like to use multiple translations, because I do not know Greek and Hebrew. I think the Bible translating the Bible is better then commentaries, but only if the same message is being put across. I love to just read The Message translation. It really brings context to passages even if it is just the thought rather then the exact translated Word.

Thoughts?

 

[Mayflower]

@Hidden In Him
@amadeus
@FluffyYellowDuck
@TLHKAJ
@Heart2Soul
@Pearl
@amigo de christo
@Marvelloustime
@WaterSong

Anyhow, maybe we can all compare different versions if there are questions or certain key passages yall are aware of.

 

[DuckieLady]

I didn't think this fit in Bible study. But I did want to open a thread to discuss the differences in translations of word for word versus word for thought Bibles, and how to identify when the meaning is changed. I believe the best translation is the one a person applies. But at the same time, it is also a slow fade.

My thing with KJV, is I was raised on it, and I do find it accurate in teaching. My thought though, is even when the people spoke in Hebrew and Greek, it didn't mean "Thee and Thou." It was translated first in the 1600s. I personally like NASB as a good Word for Word translation.

If the Bible changes in meaning though, from even these Word for Words, I would really like some examples and to learn how to identify these things. I like to use multiple translations, because I do not know Greek and Hebrew. I think the Bible translating the Bible is better then commentaries, but only if the same message is being put across. I love to just read The Message translation. It really brings context to passages even if it is just the thought rather then the exact translated Word.

Thoughts?

I like using the NIV, but I consider it a little off, and a lot of times I have to go back to the KJV and the Geneva 1599. Pilgrims used both the Geneva and the KJV.

There's verses removed in the NIV, The Message Bible, and other newer texts. For example, John 5:4 was removed and takes out the part about the angel. Most of us probably never heard this verse... Most probably don't even know there was an angel there.

"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

There's other verses related to fasting omitted. On occasion, I'll read portions from the apocrypha and other ancient religious texts. I don't consider it to be the inspired word of God, not always, and some even say so themselves. Sometimes the things said are just downright silly and asinine, but they serve some benefit and I feel strong enough in my faith to be able to discern. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who thinks it's wrong or doesn't feel comfortable. I wouldn't recommend it to most people. I have enjoyed reading Paul's letters omitted from scripture even though there's not much there except a lot of bantering back and forth.

The Message Bible has some pretty big flaws as far as some of the interpretations change the meanings of the scriptures, but I think it's probably just fine if you are using it for kind of chilled out and relaxing reading, but not for a complete study. Same for the NIV. Sometimes you just kind of have to hop around.

 

[Mayflower]

I like using the NIV, but I consider it a little off, and a lot of times I have to go back to the KJV and the Geneva 1599. Pilgrims used both the Geneva and the KJV.

There's verses removed in the NIV, The Message Bible, and other newer texts. For example, John 5:4 was removed and takes out the part about the angel. Most of us probably never heard this verse... Most probably don't even know there was an angel there.

"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

There's other verses related to fasting omitted. On occasion, I'll read portions from the apocrypha and other ancient religious texts. I don't consider it to be the inspired word of God, not always, and some even say so themselves. Sometimes the things said are just downright silly and asinine, but they serve some benefit and I feel strong enough in my faith to be able to discern. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who thinks it's wrong or doesn't feel comfortable. I wouldn't recommend it to most people. I have enjoyed reading Paul's letters omitted from scripture even though there's not much there except a lot of bantering back and forth.

The Message Bible has some pretty big flaws as far as some of the interpretations change the meanings of the scriptures, but I think it's probably just fine if you are using it for kind of chilled out and relaxing reading, but not for a complete study. Same for the NIV. Sometimes you just kind of have to hop around.

I know some verses are omitted. I see some NIV versions with a star by it, the part that was omitted, and why. Ill look up an example if there is one online. I own a few versions, but not NIV. I read it online.

 

[Enoch111]

My thought though, is even when the people spoke in Hebrew and Greek, it didn't mean "Thee and Thou."

That should be the least of your problems. Please see the King James 2000 Bible. The bottom line is that all English bible translations since 1881 are based upon the most corrupt Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. So you would be comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Mayflower]

That should be the least of your problems. Please see the King James 2000 Bible. The bottom line is that all English bible translations since 1881 are based upon the most corrupt Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. So you would be comparing apples and oranges.

Okay now. This is what I want to understand. How do you know they were corrupt. Which manuscripts are they?

 

[DuckieLady]

I will also include I think everyone should read The Book of Bel and the Dragon. It was cut off from the end book of Daniel. I don't know the reason that they removed it, but if you can look from a objective standpoint and have good discernment, it's fascinating. Maybe even from the standpoint of it being a fairytale, I don't know. But it's interesting.

Basically, there's a false idol and they keep trying to prove the idol is alive because he keeps "eating the food." Daniel says, no, and proves it by putting ashes all over the floor. The king says again, basically, "See he's eating it." Daniel says it's the feet of women and children and then shows the secret doors where they had been entering and taking the food left for the idol.

 

[Mayflower]

This seems like a good article, but I am having to skim, so am taking this one slow.

Why does the NIV Bible omit or have missing verses?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Any english text by defenition would not be perfect. By the mere fact the english language is not perfect. It is truly impossible to translate a word for word in English. Yet when you try to do an expanded or longer type of interpretation (example NIV) then people get mad at that and say it is not pure

I grew up KJV and in my late teens my Dad bought me a NKJV scofield which I have used since. I learned in some passages I need to consult the origional text. As things are not quote clear

Examples are when Jesus asked peter 3 times. DO you love me. When i was first shown in the greek what Jesus literally asked. that passage opened up to a far greater meaning than the english word love could give. It became more powerful ad far as Gods forgiveness.

Another example is Acts 3: 38 repent and be baptized. A passage that I could never come to grasps with even when people asked me. Until I read it in the greek. (this verses in the original olde English KJV actually comes close. As it says repent Ye, A plural form of the word repent. as separated from the singular form be baptized)

 

[Mayflower]

What about the amplified?

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these [others do—with total commitment and devotion]?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].” Jesus said to him, “Feed My lambs.” Again He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me [with total commitment and devotion]?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].” Jesus said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me [with a deep, personal affection for Me, as for a close friend]?” Peter was grieved that He asked him the third time, “Do you [really] love Me [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend]?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.
John 21:15‭-‬17 AMP

 

[Mayflower]

This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21:14‭-‬17 KJV

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.
John 21:15‭-‬17 NIV

 

[Hidden In Him]

I didn't think this fit in Bible study. But I did want to open a thread to discuss the differences in translations of word for word versus word for thought Bibles, and how to identify when the meaning is changed. I believe the best translation is the one a person applies. But at the same time, it is also a slow fade.

My thing with KJV, is I was raised on it, and I do find it accurate in teaching. My thought though, is even when the people spoke in Hebrew and Greek, it didn't mean "Thee and Thou." It was translated first in the 1600s. I personally like NASB as a good Word for Word translation.

If the Bible changes in meaning though, from even these Word for Words, I would really like some examples and to learn how to identify these things. I like to use multiple translations, because I do not know Greek and Hebrew. I think the Bible translating the Bible is better then commentaries, but only if the same message is being put across. I love to just read The Message translation. It really brings context to passages even if it is just the thought rather then the exact translated Word.

Thoughts?

Let's put it this way. I got saved on the Living Bible (a paraphrase, like The Message Bible), I was raised spiritually, i.e. by the Lord, on the King James Bible, and I entered into spiritual maturity through study of the original languages. The idea if you are in the "being raised" stage is to really read a Bible (a genuine transition, like NKJV) that will help you remember verses and passages, preferably one with good cross-referencing in it, so you can find where similar things are said in other verses. KJV bibles are known for this. The NASB and NIV would be good as well, IMO, so long as you stuck with one of them primarily. Again, this is just my suggestion. The idea is that you are trying to commit scripture to memory.

Using multiple translations can in some ways serve like studying commentaries would, only like commentaries, you will get a number of different takes on certain verses, leaving you to have to select which one is correct. This is what led me to study the languages themselves.

So as for choosing a translation, i.e. a genuine translation, pray about it, and then maybe the Lord will lead you on what to decide. But again, I would suggest one with cross-referencing.

Best I can do. For all of us it's a journey.

 

[DuckieLady]

I think whatever version you read, you're going to have to switch versions every once in a while. I don't think there is anything wrong with the AMP but someone else might know something I don't. The most important thing, IMO, is cross referencing, and having a concordance. Sometimes looking at the word provided gives a deeper meaning.

If you go to Free eBooks | Project Gutenberg you might find some really good resources there. It just gives you a different understanding on things you wouldn't have thought of yourself. I prefer the historical books because they lean so much towards Christ. (But since you're being busy mommy with little ones it would probably be something you get to do every once in a while, but you can transfer them to Kindle if you have one.) I recommend the Martin Luther and especially Andrew Murray if you want a deep, deep Bible Study.

Plus you might run across Luther's ranting about his frustrations towards the pope in his commentaries... and they're kind of humorous.

Lots of Christian stories on there for kids, too. Good for bedtime reading. Though maybe check them out first if you do that, because some can be a bit dark. (They weren't as protective back then when it came to that stuff.)

@Mayflower Your baby is adorable. Thought your little girl might like to see my kitty. (Your older child... Realized I needed to clarify that... probably came up confusing.) After I witnessed the "incident" I said, "God it's been less than ten minutes, I know you have time to do this, if you're going to do it, let it be only one and make it a white one that will love me."

I ended up with one and named her Ayn because the name site said the Finnish version meant "The only one." (I'm 1/3rd Finnish .. Hence my weird name.) The Hebrew version means " "He (God) has favored me."

 

[Jay Ross]

I like using the NIV, but I consider it a little off, and a lot of times I have to go back to the KJV and the Geneva 1599. Pilgrims used both the Geneva and the KJV.

There's verses removed in the NIV, The Message Bible, and other newer texts. For example, John 5:4 was removed and takes out the part about the angel. Most of us probably never heard this verse... Most probably don't even know there was an angel there.

"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

There's other verses related to fasting omitted. On occasion, I'll read portions from the apocrypha and other ancient religious texts. I don't consider it to be the inspired word of God, not always, and some even say so themselves. Sometimes the things said are just downright silly and asinine, but they serve some benefit and I feel strong enough in my faith to be able to discern. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who thinks it's wrong or doesn't feel comfortable. I wouldn't recommend it to most people. I have enjoyed reading Paul's letters omitted from scripture even though there's not much there except a lot of bantering back and forth.

The Message Bible has some pretty big flaws as far as some of the interpretations change the meanings of the scriptures, but I think it's probably just fine if you are using it for kind of chilled out and relaxing reading, but not for a complete study. Same for the NIV. Sometimes you just kind of have to hop around.

Perhaps this may from PC Study Bible may help: -



Where the <XXXX> numbers represent the Greek Root words for the particular source Greek Texts and <9999> indicates that the Greek text is missing from the primary source Greek text for the translation.

What is of concern to me with respect to our English Translations is where wrong English words are used for a particular Greek word such that the context of the translated text is very different to the Source text being translated.

One such English word is the word, "earthquake," from the Greek Root word <G4578> which I believe is better understood if the English word "turmoil" is used instead.

Here is a list of where the <G4578> is found in the New testament and where the word "turmoil" would be better in our English translations: -



Here is the interlinear of Matthew 27:54: -



When we read the Matthew account of Jesus dying, we read of the earthquake in verse 51, which torn the veil in the temple from top to bottom, but the centurion was watching the turmoil in the people in and around Jerusalem because of all the events that happened on that day.

Matthew 27:45-54: - Jesus Dies on the Cross
(Mark 15:33-41; Luke 23:44-49; John 19:28-30)

45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!" 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.

49 The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."

50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"​

An error introduced into our English Translations is multiplied a number of times and gives the wrong impression of the actual context of the Source language documents.

Shalom

 

[marks]

"Thee and Thou."

One thing on this . . . Greek uses plural and singular pronouns, while modern English does not. In the KJV, Thee and Thou translate the Greek "plural you", while You and Your translate the singular Greek.

Much love!

 

[DuckieLady]

Perhaps this may from PC Study Bible may help: -

View attachment 13400

Where the <XXXX> numbers represent the Greek Root words for the particular source Greek Texts and <9999> indicates that the Greek text is missing from the primary source Greek text for the translation.

What is of concern to me with respect to our English Translations is where wrong English words are used for a particular Greek word such that the context of the translated text is very different to the Source text being translated.

One such English word is the word, "earthquake," from the Greek Root word <G4578> which I believe is better understood if the English word "turmoil" is used instead.

Here is a list of where the <G4578> is found in the New testament and where the word "turmoil" would be better in our English translations: -

View attachment 13401

Here is the interlinear of Matthew 27:54: -

View attachment 13402

When we read the Matthew account of Jesus dying, we read of the earthquake in verse 51, which torn the veil in the temple from top to bottom, but the centurion was watching the turmoil in the people in and around Jerusalem because of all the events that happened on that day.

Matthew 27:45-54: - Jesus Dies on the Cross
(Mark 15:33-41; Luke 23:44-49; John 19:28-30)

45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!" 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.

49 The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."

50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"​

An error introduced into our English Translations is multiplied a number of times and gives the wrong impression of the actual context of the Source language documents.

Shalom

Never saw this software but I just downloaded it and I'm about to take a look at it.

Thanks for sharing! Interesting one on that scripture you posted, I will need to see if I can find them if anyone wants them, but there are written (I believe) to Pontius Pilate and around the world at that time stating both the eclipse (which was supposed to be technically impossible) and the "problem" of the raising of the dead and miracles at that time.

And as for that earthquake, you can find the record for the on the NOAA government website for the date April 3, 33 AD. It believe it was an 8.2 earthquake stating "Near Jerusalem" and also listed under that record is "At the crucifixion."

It makes atheists panic and they have done everything they can to disprove it, but it's literally right on NOAA.

edit: Sorry for my edits I'm multitasking

 

[Jay Ross]

And as for that earthquake, you can find the record for the on the NOAA government website for the date April 3, 33 AD. It believe it was an 8.2 earthquake stating "Near Jerusalem" and also listed under that record is "At the crucifixion."

An interesting claim of the date for the crucifixion as the actual day Christ was born is still debated. I have seen a seven year spread as to the year in which Christ was born. How close to Jerusalem was the earthquake's epicentre is not given as a 8.2 earthquake would probably levelled Jerusalem not shaken it such that the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. There is evidence of fractured rocks on steps near the temple mould, but as the Governmental and historical records of that time do not indicate such a large earthquake as claimed, occurred, I am happy with the account only in Matthew that the ground was shaken and rocks were split. This could have been as a result of an 8.2 earthquake some distant from Jerusalem as we see occurring today.

Shalom

 

[DuckieLady]

An interesting claim of the date for the crucifixion as the actual day Christ was born is still debated. I have seen a seven year spread as to the year in which Christ was born. How close to Jerusalem was the earthquake's epicentre is not given as a 8.2 earthquake would probably levelled Jerusalem not shaken it such that the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. There is evidence of fractured rocks on steps near the temple mould, but as the Governmental and historical records of that time do not indicate such a large earthquake as claimed, occurred, I am happy with the account only in Matthew that the ground was shaken and rocks were split. This could have been as a result of an 8.2 earthquake some distant from Jerusalem as we see occurring today.

Shalom

Kind of makes me want to watch videos of the biggest earthquakes today and see what happens.

But I have a feeling if I do I won't sleep well.

I change my mind I'm going to

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What about the amplified?

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these [others do—with total commitment and devotion]?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].” Jesus said to him, “Feed My lambs.” Again He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me [with total commitment and devotion]?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].” Jesus said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me [with a deep, personal affection for Me, as for a close friend]?” Peter was grieved that He asked him the third time, “Do you [really] love Me [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend]?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.
John 21:15‭-‬17 AMP

Yes, but sadly, I bet most people will claim they added to the word,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Perhaps this may from PC Study Bible may help: -

View attachment 13400

Where the <XXXX> numbers represent the Greek Root words for the particular source Greek Texts and <9999> indicates that the Greek text is missing from the primary source Greek text for the translation.

What is of concern to me with respect to our English Translations is where wrong English words are used for a particular Greek word such that the context of the translated text is very different to the Source text being translated.

One such English word is the word, "earthquake," from the Greek Root word <G4578> which I believe is better understood if the English word "turmoil" is used instead.

Here is a list of where the <G4578> is found in the New testament and where the word "turmoil" would be better in our English translations: -

View attachment 13401

Here is the interlinear of Matthew 27:54: -

View attachment 13402

When we read the Matthew account of Jesus dying, we read of the earthquake in verse 51, which torn the veil in the temple from top to bottom, but the centurion was watching the turmoil in the people in and around Jerusalem because of all the events that happened on that day.

Matthew 27:45-54: - Jesus Dies on the Cross
(Mark 15:33-41; Luke 23:44-49; John 19:28-30)

45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!" 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.

49 The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."

50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"​

An error introduced into our English Translations is multiplied a number of times and gives the wrong impression of the actual context of the Source language documents.

Shalom

I would say look at what is said

rocks split and graves opened are signs of an earthquake not turmoil

what’s your thoughts