Bible Translation Study

[OzSpen]

This is what the article was saying about the NIV. Alao concerning NASB, I have heard/read this. This is why Id like to understand the documents used in these translations. What I do know is about "Canon" and the different requirements for what went into the Bible.

The controversy relates to which type of MSS.were used, e.g. KJV & Geneva used Byzantine of about 12th ccentury ( date found). The modern translations are based on earlier MSS, Alexandrian text type which is vloser to original documents.

As documents are copied, variants ( typos ).creep in..like words ADDED to KJV, thus making the.modern translations probably more accurate.

Ox

 

[Mayflower]

Interesting! It can get pretty confusing but for myself I wouldn't overthink details too much and study the best you can do with great faith. I don't know if I agree with their theory, based on the same reason @CharismaticLady said. If I could find the oldest texts possible and see them not exist it would be easier ... But that's hard to do.

No two people will ever agree on every detail or semantics. It's too difficult sometimes to make sure that we have 100% of the story right. We can try but everyone's perception is going to be different or flawed somewhere. That's kind of a beautiful part about posts like these is you get to see through different lenses.

The gospel will stay the same either way, regardless of the version you read, and that can't be taken away.


WOW. Now that is a GIFT where God can use you around the world! That would be amazing.

(It is one of my favorites.)

You are spot on here, Fluff.

"In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ( Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself."
John 1:1 AMP

Glad we do not have to be omniscient to have a full life and relationship in Christ Jesus and understand His Word. He teaches and guides us. God bless ya'll.

 

[Mayflower]

Plural ya'll. Singular Temple.

 

[Mayflower]

Interesting! It can get pretty confusing but for myself I wouldn't overthink details too much and study the best you can do with great faith. I don't know if I agree with their theory, based on the same reason @CharismaticLady said. If I could find the oldest texts possible and see them not exist it would be easier ... But that's hard to do.

No two people will ever agree on every detail or semantics. It's too difficult sometimes to make sure that we have 100% of the story right. We can try but everyone's perception is going to be different or flawed somewhere. That's kind of a beautiful part about posts like these is you get to see through different lenses.

The gospel will stay the same either way, regardless of the version you read, and that can't be taken away.


WOW. Now that is a GIFT where God can use you around the world! That would be amazing.

(It is one of my favorites.)

Was a Music Education Major with vocal emphasis. We had to learn 9 songs for the final in different languages. German, Latin, French, Spanish, English, Russian, Hebrew...

Maybe it was seven since I can't remember nine. LOL.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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?

Well you hit the nail on the head when yo spoke of word for word (formal equivalence translations) to word for thought translations (dynamic equivalent translations)

The CEB, Message are examples of horrendous dynamic translations. NIV is a good dynamic translation for ti still tries to keep word for word.'

A believer today has to work harder in this age of apostasy to sort out the wheat frm the weeds in the Christian Bookstores.

 

[Mayflower]

Well you hit the nail on the head when yo spoke of word for word (formal equivalence translations) to word for thought translations (dynamic equivalent translations)

The CEB, Message are examples of horrendous dynamic translations. NIV is a good dynamic translation for ti still tries to keep word for word.'

A believer today has to work harder in this age of apostasy to sort out the wheat frm the weeds in the Christian Bookstores.

Thank you for describing those terms...NIV is one I cross reference quite a bit. Youversion app has a tool to compare versions, which is helpful.

Yall have a good night. Im pretty tired tonight after working.

 

[DuckieLady]

Thank you for describing those terms...NIV is one I cross reference quite a bit. Youversion app has a tool to compare versions, which is helpful.

Yall have a good night. Im pretty tired tonight after working.

Heading out early myself tonight. Gotta get these kids ready for bed.
Have a good night and God bless! Enjoy your rest!

 

[Jay Ross]

I urge you not to use one person paraphrases. They are not translations

Hello Oz, the minister of the church I was attending spoke about how he only believed English Translations that came out of a committee rather than a paraphrase English translation generated by a single person.

I smiled to myself as a committee is just as susceptible to making mistakes as a single person when creating a translation of a text written in another language, whether ancient or modern.

What hinders us from correcting our existing translations is the tradition of the translations themselves.

I provided an example with the Greek word "seismos" where I suggested that it would be better to translate this Greek word as "turmoil" rather than "earthquake" in all of the places where it is found in its many forms in the New Testament.

However, because of the tradition it will be difficult to change peoples understanding and open up some very different understanding as to what is being actually said in the Greek texts from which our translations were derived.

In Matthew 8:12, we find: -

Matthew 8:24: - 24 And suddenly a great tempest/great turmoil arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep.​

If all of the occurrences of the same Greek word was translated in the same manner as in: - Matthew 8:24, 28:2, Acts 16:26, Revelation 6:12, 11:13, 11:19, 16:18, 16:18, then Matt 8 12 should have been translated as

Matthew 8:24: - 24 And suddenly a great tempest/great earthquake arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep.​

For sailors who cross bars and sail in confined waters, they know that the wind plus the reflected waves can cause standing waves to occur such that they will swamp their small craft and sink it. This is the turmoil that occurs in the waves that the disciples were afraid of while Jesus was asleep in the bottom of the boat.

In other passages where G:4578 occurs, the earth shaking and rocks being split is also described and this is a great description of an actual earthquake, but in the example I gave, the centurion saw the turmoil in the people around him and felt the earth shaking, and the sun being blotted out such that there was darkness, said, "Surely this man was the Son of God." The earthquake was only of a short duration, while the turmoil that the centurion saw occurred over many hours during the crucifixion of Christ.

I would say look at what is said

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

what’s your thoughts

You have presented the usual argument given against changing the word "earthquake" to "turmoil" because the tradition has been set in the translations given over many centuries.

The question I have in what is translated in Matt 28:2: -

Matt 28:2: - 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

is How does an Angel, coming down out of heaven cause "a great earthquake." On the other hand, the people at the tomb, would have been in "great turmoil" when confronted with an Angel descending from heaven, and they would have probably run away in fear.

An earthquake was not needed to roll the stone away as we are told that the Angel was the one who rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb.

Can I rest my case with you on this point of understanding.

Shalom

 

[OzSpen]

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

?” 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

My understanding is Amp os recombination of literal translation + mini word study. I conside to use a dymamic equivalence translation to gain.a similar meanong,.e.g.
ERV, CEV, NIRV, NLT.

 

[OzSpen]

Hello Oz, the minister of the church I was attending spoke about how he only believed English Translations that came out of a committee rather than a paraphrase English translation generated by a single person.

I smiled to myself as a committee is just as susceptible to making mistakes as a single person when creating a translation of a text written in another language, whether ancient or modern.

What hinders us from correcting our existing translations is the tradition of the translations themselves.

I provided an example with the Greek word "seismos" where I suggested that it would be better to translate this Greek word as "turmoil" rather than "earthquake" in all of the places where it is found in its many forms in the New Testament.

However, because of the tradition it will be difficult to change peoples understanding and open up some very different understanding as to what is being actually said in the Greek texts from which our translations were derived.

In Matthew 8:12, we find: -

Matthew 8:24: - 24 And suddenly a great tempest/great turmoil arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep.​

If all of the occurrences of the same Greek word was translated in the same manner as in: - Matthew 8:24, 28:2, Acts 16:26, Revelation 6:12, 11:13, 11:19, 16:18, 16:18, then Matt 8 12 should have been translated as

Matthew 8:24: - 24 And suddenly a great tempest/great earthquake arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep.​

For sailors who cross bars and sail in confined waters, they know that the wind plus the reflected waves can cause standing waves to occur such that they will swamp their small craft and sink it. This is the turmoil that occurs in the waves that the disciples were afraid of while Jesus was asleep in the bottom of the boat.

In other passages where G:4578 occurs, the earth shaking and rocks being split is also described and this is a great description of an actual earthquake, but in the example I gave, the centurion saw the turmoil in the people around him and felt the earth shaking, and the sun being blotted out such that there was darkness, said, "Surely this man was the Son of God." The earthquake was only of a short duration, while the turmoil that the centurion saw occurred over many hours during the crucifixion of Christ.



You have presented the usual argument given against changing the word "earthquake" to "turmoil" because the tradition has been set in the translations given over many centuries.

The question I have in what is translated in Matt 28:2: -

Matt 28:2: - 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

is How does an Angel, come down out of heaven cause "a great earthquake." On the other hand, the people at the tomb, would have been in "great turmoil" when confronted with an Angel descending from heaven, and they would have probably run away in fear.

An earthquake was not needed to roll the stone away as we are told that the Angel was the one who rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb.

Can I rest my case with you on this point of understanding.

Shalom

Jay,

I appreciate the study you have done to reach your conclusion. If l were back.in the college classroom teaching Greek 2 l would give the class of 30 an assignment to examine whether yoir interpretation are correct

I'm confident 30 samples of exegesis would give better than that from.1 student. I'd rather read the ESV for accuracy any day for accuracy than Kenneth Taylor's Living .Bible.

That Bible was translated for a purpose, that his young children could undetstand tjr
Bjble.

Oz

 

[Truther]

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?

Modern translations are forced by copyright law to be different from all the others by about 50,000 words.

Stick to the KJV.

God word is not represented by copyright lawyers.

 

[Truther]

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

NOAA had a seismograph in Jerusalem in those days?

Anyway, there definitely was an earthquake though.

 

[Jay Ross]

Jay,

I appreciate the study you have done to reach your conclusion. If l were back.in the college classroom teaching Greek 2 l would give the class of 30 an assignment to examine whether yoir interpretation are correct

I'm confident 30 samples of exegesis would give better than that from.1 student. I'd rather read the ESV for accuracy any day for accuracy than Kenneth Taylor's Living .Bible.

That Bible was translated for a purpose, that his young children could undetstand tjr
Bjble.

Oz

Yes, Oz, the ESV is a reasonable translations, even with its faults, but I will ask you the same question that I asked above: -

How does an Angel, coming down out of heaven cause "a great earthquake."

If an Angel coming down out of heaven does not create a great earthquake, then what is being described as happening in Matt 28:2?

I await your learned reply.

Shalom.

PS: - If angels appearing to people, as recorded in the scriptures, on earth result in earthquakes as per Matt 28:2, why then are the visitations of these angels with other people since the beginning of time, not associated was an earthquake in those appearances with other people? Would not that be a significant event? Why then are there no other recordings in the Scriptures of an earthquake occurring when an angel appears to these other people as they would have come from God in heaven to deliver God's messages to them?

 

[Truther]

This seems like a good article, but I am having to skim, so am taking this one slow.View attachment 13395

Why does the NIV Bible omit or have missing verses?

Because it is a new age, last days Bible translation, to accommodate the antichrist.

 

[Truther]

Yes, Oz, the ESV is a reasonable translations, even with its faults, but I will ask you the same question that I asked above: -

How does an Angel, coming down out of heaven cause "a great earthquake."

If an Angel coming down out of heaven does not create a great earthquake, then what is being described as happening in Matt 28:2?

I await your learned reply.

Shalom.

PS: - If angels appearing to people, as recorded in the scriptures, on earth result in earthquakes as per Matt 28:2, why then are the visitations of these angels with other people since the beginning of time, not associated was an earthquake in those appearances with other people? Would not that be a significant event? Why then are there no other recordings in the Scriptures of an earthquake occurring when an angel appears to these other people as they would have come from God in heaven to deliver God's messages to them?

Is the pure word of God reasonable, even with faults?

The ESV is a commentary of the pure KJV.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Modern translations are forced by copyright law to be different from all the others by about 50,000 words.

Stick to the KJV.

God word is not represented by copyright lawyers.

I trust William Tynsdale which the KJV is from.

 

[Jay Ross]

Is the pure word of God reasonable, even with faults?

The ESV is a commentary of the pure KJV.

The present translations are the best means for us to find out as much as we can about God and Christ and the relationship that we should have with God.

However, for example, the Story of the Minas, i.e. the secular version told to the crowds accompanying Christ on the road up from Jericho towards Jerusalem, and the Talents, i.e. the religious version told by Jesus to His disciples on the way back to Bethany after a day of teaching in the Temple, are both all about Satan and his faithful servants who will do his bidding while he is locked up in the Bottomless pit for 1,000 years from the start of the Millennium Age, which incidental is a little longer longer than 1,000 years when we add on the length of the Little while period tacked onto the end of the 1,000 years that Satan is locked up in the Bottomless Pit.

Satan is giving money, that he has been able to accumulate to himself, to his servants even now, so that they can oppress the people of the earth during the first 1,000 years of the Millennium Age. Sadly, many Christians have brought the lie of Satan that these two parables are not about him, Satan, but that they are about Christ. Many Christians have accepted the lie that they have to work very hard to being in the Kingdom of God.

From my studies, I would suggest that many of the flaws in the English Translations are associated with the prophetic portions of the scriptures with respect to the End Time.

From where I sit, the flaws in the present translations do get in the way of our relationship with God if we cannot recognise the faults/flaws in all of the English paraphrases that present exist.

Shalom

 

[OzSpen]

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

 

[Brakelite]

Do ya'll see this ridiculousness here with this 8.0

Feel like I'm watching Cloverfield IRL

NO THANK YOU

How is that not big enough? I'm going to have to take 2MG of melatonin tonight instead of 1MG

Currently we're all so focused on covid as a prophetic indicator, has anyone noticed the last months figures for earthquakes? There have been a series of deep very serious earthquakes all around the Pacific and through Indonesia. So deep the damage was minimal... But concerning nevertheless. The prophetic indicator on the second coming will soon be running concurrently, with intensity and increasing frequency. We are going to be witnessing some serious crisis throughout the globe in the immediate future. Spiritual sleeping is not an option.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Scripture is clear that it is our PAST sins that are cleansed. If you commit willful sin after being sanctified, what further sacrifice is there? 2 Peter 1:9; Hebrews 10:26-31

As for present and future sins, we don't commit willful sins of lawlessness in the present or future. Those who are born again of the Spirit know this by experience, and are living proof that the word of God is truth. 1 John 3:9.

That’s right you only commit oopsie sins,

pharisee at heart,