King James Version Only...?

[RLT63]

It is NOT a flawed example at all. Unborn baby damned by God because of sin of parent.

I don’t know why you are trying to impose your doctrine onto God’s word. You’ve moved the goalposts twice already. Don’t try to move it again.

Going back to the original point in Deuteronomy, the woman made to eat her words would be punished by God if guilty by not having children.

A Biblical hysterectomy versus a Biblical abortion? I’ll have to do a search and see how many versions say anything about a miscarriage. Here is the ESV your go to translation.

Num 5:21 - then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the LORDmake you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell // and your favorite. NLT. Num 5:21 - “At this point the priest must put the woman under oath by saying, ‘May the people know that the LORD’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel[fn] and your abdomen to swell

 

[amigo de christo]

Did you say something about personal attacks? I guess that only applies to others.

I said nothing of the sort . Just that wescott and hort were liars . They lied and invented dung .

 

[RLT63]

Wrong. No translation is a paraphrase. Non-literal translations are called thought translations. I generally prefer such thought translations PRECISELY for their readability.

When petty literalists want to argue what the 3rd word of the 5th verse of the 17th chapter of book 11 - is in the manuscript - why, I turn to the translation that claims to be the most literal in the English language, ESV. Although I’ve read the NASB also makes that claim. And the NRSV is widely respected in that regard also.

Read what I posted from the NLTs own website. Number 694

 

[Wrangler]

Read what I posted from the NLTs own website. Number 694

The NLT doesn’t just translate scripture. It interprets it .

All translations interpret what sense of the original language is appropriate.

The difference between ‘literal’ and ‘thought’ translations is literals do this per word. Thoughts do this to whole verses or paragraphs

 

[Wrangler]

Read what I posted from the NLTs own website. Number 694

But at the same time, its development was immersed in the spirit of a popular paraphrase.

Being a literalist, you must realize being ‘mmersed in the spirit of a popular paraphrase’ does not mean the NLT is a paraphrase translation.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I said nothing of the sort . Just that wescott and hort were liars . They lied and invented dung .

Who told you that amigo? Who told you that Westcott and Hort were liars? Do you have evidence for this, or is it an assumption based on what their detractors told you?

Please show us how and where they lied.....

 

[RLT63]

All translations interpret what sense of the original language is appropriate.

The difference between ‘literal’ and ‘thought’ translations is literals do this per word. Thoughts do this to whole verses or paragraphs

I’m not talking about interpreting the language I’m talking about interpreting the meaning

 

[Jim B]

So he kills unborn children? Were the firstborn in Egypt innocent? And saying God allowed Herod to kill children is like saying he allows all the murders, all the abortions, all the rapes, all the cancer, all the accidents, name it. Where would you have him step in?

Were the firstborn livestock in Egypt innocent? I won't tell God what He should do and not do and I don't think you should either. He allows what He allows. Period.

 

[Jim B]

I said nothing of the sort . Just that wescott and hort were liars . They lied and invented dung .

Of course! They were "liars" -- not. "They lied and invented dung"? Can't you see the truth at all or are you so tragically blinded?

 

[RLT63]

Being a literalist, you must realize being ‘mmersed in the spirit of a popular paraphrase’ does not mean the NLT is a paraphrase translation.

Read the rest of the quote. You selected only the part that suits you. - The result is a beautiful hybrid of the accuracy and reliability of a large-scale translation and the beauty and clarity of a literary paraphrase

 

[RLT63]

Of course! They were "liars" -- not. "They lied and invented dung"? Can't you see the truth at all or are you so tragically blinded?

Are you making a case in support of Westcott and Hort?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Are you making a case in support of Westcott and Hort?

We would like evidence for this assertion that they were not accurate in their assessment of the texts....and deliberately misled people.
Is it too much to ask for proof that such men were liars? It occurs to me that the ones making the loudest accusation may well be the biggest liars, themselves. How would you know?

 

[RLT63]

We would like evidence for this assertion that they were not accurate in their assessment of the texts....and deliberately misled people.
Is it too much to ask for proof that such men were liars? It occurs to me that the ones making the loudest accusation may well be the biggest liars, themselves. How would you know?

I don’t know anything about them lying and a lot of the stuff about Westcott is actually about another person with the same last name who was an occultist but the two documents that they favored because they were older leave much to be desired, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. I posted a link to my study on these documents earlier in the thread and I’m not going to rehash everything I will just say these are not the best manuscripts and I’m done arguing about it. Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

 

[RLT63]

Were the firstborn livestock in Egypt innocent? I won't tell God what He should do and not do and I don't think you should either. He allows what He allows. Period.

Livestock were possessions of the Egyptians. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Wrangler, are you one of those people who say God is a baby killer because women and children died in the flood of Genesis?

 

[RLT63]

It is NOT a flawed example at all. Unborn baby damned by God because of sin of parent.

I don’t know why you are trying to impose your doctrine onto God’s word. You’ve moved the goalposts twice already. Don’t try to move it again.

Going back to the original point in Deuteronomy, the woman made to eat her words would be punished by God if guilty by not having children.

It’s Numbers not Deuteronomy (pay attention) and your favorite translation makes the case for infertility not a miscarriage. Num 5:21 - “At this point the priest must put the woman under oath by saying, ‘May the people know that the LORD’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel[fn] and your abdomen to swell. NLT

 

[RLT63]

Simply your opinion.

The NLT is not a paraphrase. It's emphasis is on the most accurate meaning of the sources. From the introduction: "The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning and content of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. The challenge for our translators was to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today’s readers as the original texts did to readers and listeners in the ancient biblical world. The resulting translation is easy to read and understand, while also accurately communicating the meaning and content of the original biblical texts."

You're clearly not aware that there is a spectrum of translation philosophy ranging from a word-for-word translation (an impossibility) to a meaning-for-meaning translation. Obviously the NLT conforms more to the latter than the former. Each translation has a specific goal in mind, and the NLT has clearly achieved their stated purpose.

The ALT is a word for word translation. ( Which you say is impossible), I use it as a reference. . The Analytical-Literal Translation: Third Edition (ALT3) is the most accurate translation of the New Testament available. Its name reflects its main features. "Literal" refers to ALT3 being a word for word translation. All words in the original Greek text are translated. The original grammar is retained as much as possible. Words added for clarity are bracketed. "Analytical" refers to the detailed "analysis" done on the grammar of the text, which is then translated in a way that brings out "nuances" often missed in other translations. "Analytical" also refers to aids included within the text which enable the reader to "analyze" and understand the text. ALT3 is based on the most up-to-date and accurate Greek Text, the Byzantine Majority Text: Second Edition

 

[RLT63]

You obviously believe only what you believe and reject sound scholarship, That's an excellent example of a closed mind!

Again, what do scholars who have devoted their careers to Bible translation know? Certainly less than you, correct? The "plain reading " is in your mind only. Guess whom I believe, you or qualified scholars?

Again I don’t care who you believe.

 

[Wrangler]

I’m not talking about interpreting the language I’m talking about interpreting the meaning

You keep moving the goalposts.

 

[Wrangler]

Read the rest of the quote. You selected only the part that suits you. - The result is a beautiful hybrid of the accuracy and reliability of a large-scale translation and the beauty and clarity of a literary paraphrase

Tales of Translation: Thought-for-Thought Translations - Bible Study Tips

Thought-for-thought translators examine the whole sentence and do their best to move it over as an easily understood unit....

www.biblestudytools.com

I know literalists used the term 'paraphrase' as a pejorative. The non-literal translation process is properly called thought translation. I know this because I've read the introductions to my thought translation Bibles. Here is where the reliance on literal translations breakdown; the book is highly figurative. For instance, "a rolling stone gathers no moss" may be translated into a different language. However, there is a meaning of the idiom beyond the literal words of the expression.

I find literal translations an inferior translation, a bit sophomoric.

That's my opinion and I'm not going to change it; certainly not based on your petty criticisms. Yabut the NLT website says ...

 

[Wrangler]

Read the rest of the quote. You selected only the part that suits you. - The result is a beautiful hybrid of the accuracy and reliability of a large-scale translation and the beauty and clarity of a literary paraphrase

Tales of Translation: Thought-for-Thought Translations - Bible Study Tips

Thought-for-thought translators examine the whole sentence and do their best to move it over as an easily understood unit....

www.biblestudytools.com

I know literalists used the term 'paraphrase' as a pejorative. The non-literal translation process is properly called thought translation. I know this because I've read the introductions to my thought translation Bibles. Here is where the reliance on literal translations breakdown; the book is highly figurative. For instance, "a rolling stone gathers no moss" may be translated into a different language. However, there is a meaning of the idiom beyond the literal words of the expression.

I find literal translations an inferior translation, a bit sophomoric.

That's my opinion and I'm not going to change it; certainly not based on your petty criticisms. Yabut the NLT website says ...