Most accurate modern translation?

[Grailhunter]

The first recorded use of the word fornicate in English is in the 14th century in a poem called the Cursor Mundi.

The first English Bibles to use the word fornication was the Bishop’s Bible---Church of England 1568, the Catholic Bible called the Douay-Rheims Bible (early 1600’s) and then the other Protestant Bibles followed suite examples; the Tyndale Bible Geneva Bible and the King James Version of the Bible, 16th and 17th centuries respectively.

So bottom line, marriages in the Bible were formed by the union. This is a biblical and historical fact. Even if the Hebrew families held a marriage celebration, there was no Hebrew word for wed or wedding nor any biblically stated requirement for ceremonies or vows....just the Bridal Chamber where the couple consummated their marriage. Modern Jews still use a symbolic bridal chamber that is more of a canopy.

The fact that it is the union that forms a marriage still exists in civil laws. In most states and countries a couple that does not have sex after the wedding ceremony (consummate) can get their marriage annulled.

Fornication is a well known case study in how man-made terms and phrases that are false usually develop into false beliefs and skew the meaning of the scriptures and perceptions and as in this case can cause sin. The word fornication is one of the reasons why a lot of Christians believe that wedding ceremonies were required in the Old and New Testament.

For example; a man and a woman fall in love and have sex and then from there on remain together, from the biblical perceptive, they are married. But Christians, believing various false beliefs can condemn them because of what they think Fornication means…two people that have not had a wedding ceremony having sex and living together, ergo the term shacking up.

Then people believing they are “living in sin” may make the couple feel unwelcome in church and could turn them away from Christianity. Which are the only sins that occurred here. The sin of gossip, the sin of falsely accusing people of a sin, and the sin of turning them away Christianity. And then calling their children bastards.

Had a preacher tell me that the normal attraction that couples in love feel for each other is lust and so all marriages are formed by lust. That would be completely wrong. God described the process that is correct…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. God designed men and women to be attracted to each other and form marriages and families. No sin occurs in the process that God designed.

Then according to Augustine (circa 354-430 AD) the sex act being sinful passed the sin of Adam and Eve to the babies, calling it original sin. Which is another manmade term that does not appear in the Bible, but has been taught to Christians. Original Sin is another false belief. This produced the belief that babies can go to hell.

It is better explained that Adam and Eve and their offspring promulgated the nature of man to be sinful. Mankind took after Adam and Eve’s character but it was not sex that caused it, no more than a son having his father’s nose. It is not because sex is evil that caused the son’s nose…a trait of his parent.

Fornication is a good study into how man-made terms and phrases that are not in the Bible, can become popular and can introduce false beliefs that can remain for centuries and cause sin, misery, atrocities, and death not to mention, skewing the meaning of the scriptures and the perception of history.

Of course adultery and casual sex is a sin, ie one night stands and or whore mongering, prostitution, which are sins that are mostly defined in the Bible and in general are defined in modern translations as sexual immorality.

 

[rebuilder 454]

So you and I do not need to talk....Your question says it all.....you have no clue.

you apparently can not name your superior greek text.

 

[Wick Stick]

Can you give an example using a verse?

I think so... I haven't had my coffee yet, but let's give it the ol' college try, eh?

Look at the word substance in Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων

We can see the correct meaning from the last half of the verse - it corresponds with the word evidence.

When the KJV was written, substance meant "what stands below," that is, it is something that is observable here in the material world. Sub = below. Stance = something that stands. This is precisely the meaning of the Greek word it translates. ὑπό = below, and στασις = something that stands.

Is that still what the word substance means? Not usually. Today we use this word primarily to refer to something as tangible, and particularly when the composition of the thing is unknown. (From Dictionary.com: that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material).

Is faith something material? No. We cannot go purchase a pound of faith from the grocer. Can faith be observed here in the world, and seen as evidence? Yes.

The original translation was correct at the time, but our modern reading of the word used here fails.

 

[rebuilder 454]

George.....LOL Any thing before the 3rd century. You probably need to look at what they called the Christian texts before the 3rd century....You will learn a few things......

As far as Fornication.....

Fornication
This is a prime example of why we should not make up words and stick them in the Bible, because they cause misunderstandings and false beliefs that can span over a thousand years. The word fornication or a Greek equivalent is not in the scriptures nor is its definition. It is scam that is a reflection of Christianity growing hatred of sex and women after the biblical period.

This stems indirectly from the Greek word porneia means prostitute or associated with prostitutes. Which was not a negative term in the Greco-Roman culture. But the Christian religion thought differently. The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, a Pagan Language. When the Apostles were writing the New Testament they were tasked with using a Pagan language that did not reflect Christian morals. So the Christians adjusted the words and definitions to convey their thoughts. There are variances to the Greek word porneia that define various sexual activities…. all of which are in the scriptures and all of which Christianity considers sinful.

The false beliefs associated with the word fornication start a long long time ago. If you noticed there was no wedding ceremony or vows in Eden. And then you can read the rest of the Bible and find no requirement for wedding ceremonies or vows. Yep! That is right the Bible does not state a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married in the Old or New Testament. People formed marriages as God described… For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 Neither the Old or New Testament state a requirement for wedding ceremonies. It was about1500 years after the biblical period that Christianity developed a requirement for weddings ceremonies and vows, and that is a fact.

Christianity has lumped a lot of Greek words into the word Fornication as seen in some definitions of the word below, but the word does not appear in any scripture.

Some examples:
noun
πορνεία
prostitution, whoring, harlotry, whoredom,
συνουσία
fornication, coition, intercourse, copulation
From the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11-12 The worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols etc

But Fornication is not a translational error it is man-made word that made its way into the 16th and 17th century translations of the Bible, but still this word did not originate in these Bibles.
When the Greek text was translated into the Latin Vulgate, (circa 404 AD)
the word pornia and its variants were translated to the Latin word fornicatio.
Then translated into the English word fornication and was used in the original Tyndale, Geneva, and King James Version of the Bible.

Like I said, part of the problem was that the New Testament was an attempt to write Christian moral standards using a Pagan language…ie the Greek language that did not have words that reflected Christian standards. The Greeks - Romans did not have the same moral standards that Christians had. For example; If you told a Roman solider that he sinned, it meant that his arrow missed the target….no moral implication. So the Christians writers were taking Greek words and adjusting them to have moral definitions. Why? In the Greco-Roman culture various sexual activities were not considered immoral. It did not matter if it was temple prostitutes or orgies. Married Roman men were free to have sex with who they wanted…female or male. By Christian standards this was a disgusting arrangement. In the Roman culture adultery was not a sin, it was illegal to have sex with someone else’s wife. So Christian writers were tasked with conveying sexual morality from a culture that was without sexual morals and their language reflected the absence of words to describe sexual immorality. Now was all this confusing to the translators of the scriptures, it is a matter of debate.

Like I said,Porneia in the Greek society is mostly a reference to prostitution which was not wrong in their culture. For example pornography, is an ancient Greek word that means writings or paintings of prostitutes and many Roman homes had murals of sex acts and or prostitutes on their walls.
But in the scriptures the Greek word Porneia and its variances appear several times. In all cases the Christian writers were using them as some form of sexual immorality.
Examples:
πορνείας·… porneias … Sexual immorality
πορνείᾳ … porneiai … Sexual immorality in the plural
πορνεῦσαι … To commit sexual immorality involving sexual acts
πορνείαν … Idolatry involving sexual acts
πόρνος … A person that practices sexual immorality
πόρνοι … Refering to as a group of the sexually immoral
πορνεῖαι … inflectional, more or less dirty thoughts

Appearing in these scriptures….
Matthew 5:32, 5:19, Mark 7:21, John 8:4, Acts 15:20, 5:29, 21:25, Romans 1:29* 1st Corinthians 5:1, 5:9, 5:10, 6:13, 6:18, 7:2, 10:8, 2nd Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1st Thessalonians 4:3, Jude 1:7, Revelation 2:14, 2:14, 2:20, 2:21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, 18:19, 19:2

But in no case does it simply apply to two unmarried people having sex, for a very good reason. The New Testament does not have a lot to say about romantic love. But to say that Porneia, is sex outside of wedlock would be inaccurate, since the Bible has no requirements for wedding ceremonies or vows. Marriages were formed by the union and most of the time in early Christianity a lady’s father would chose who they would marry, as was practiced in most Old Testament unions of marriages.

The evolution of the word Fornicate or Fornication
Fornicate comes from a Latin root word, the term fornix means arch or vaulted ceiling. In Ancient Rome, it was known that prostitutes would wait for their customers out of the hot sun or rain in areas that had cover… vaulted ceilings. The Latin word fornix became a euphemism for brothels and the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel. Meaning a man being serviced by prostitutes.

Of course then St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures used a variant of that….fornicatio and lumped all the Greek variances of porneia under that word.

continued......

But in no case does it simply apply to two unmarried people having sex, for a very good reason.

AHEM;

FORNICA'TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I think so... I haven't had my coffee yet, but let's give it the ol' college try, eh?

Look at the word substance in Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων

We can see the correct meaning from the last half of the verse - it corresponds with the word evidence.

When the KJV was written, substance meant "what stands below," that is, it is something that is observable here in the material world. Sub = below. Stance = something that stands. This is precisely the meaning of the Greek word it translates. ὑπό = below, and στασις = something that stands.

Is that still what the word substance means? Not usually. Today we use this word primarily to refer to something as tangible, and particularly when the composition of the thing is unknown. (From Dictionary.com: that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material).

Is faith something material? No. We cannot go purchase a pound of faith from the grocer. Can faith be observed here in the world, and seen as evidence? Yes.

The original translation was correct at the time, but our modern reading of the word used here fails.

SUB'STANCE, noun [Latin substantia, substo; sub and sto, to stand.]

1. In a general sense, being; something existing by itself; that which really is or exists; equally applicable to matter or spirit. Thus the soul of man is called an immaterial substance a cogitative substance a substance endued with thought. We say, a stone is a hard substance tallow is a soft substance

2. That which supports accidents.

That which subsists by itself is called substance; that which subsists in and by another, is called a mode or manner of being.

3. The essential part; the main or material part. In this epitome, we have the substance of the whole book.

This edition is the same in substance with the Latin.

4. Something real, not imaginary; something solid, not empty.

Heroic virtue did his actions guide,

And he the substance not th' appearance chose.

5. Body; corporeal nature or matter.

The qualities of plants are more various than those of animal substances.

 

[Grailhunter]

you apparently can not name your superior greek text.

My problem with you is that your responses are a defense mechanism for ignorance. Go find this information on your own….you will learn things along the way.

 

[Grailhunter]

AHEM;

FORNICA'TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

Did what I explain in detail go over your head?

 

[rebuilder 454]

The first recorded use of the word fornicate in English is in the 14th century in a poem called the Cursor Mundi.

The first English Bibles to use the word fornication was the Bishop’s Bible---Church of England 1568, the Catholic Bible called the Douay-Rheims Bible (early 1600’s) and then the other Protestant Bibles followed suite examples; the Tyndale Bible Geneva Bible and the King James Version of the Bible, 16th and 17th centuries respectively.

So bottom line, marriages in the Bible were formed by the union. This is a biblical and historical fact. Even if the Hebrew families held a marriage celebration, there was no Hebrew word for wed or wedding nor any biblically stated requirement for ceremonies or vows....just the Bridal Chamber where the couple consummated their marriage. Modern Jews still use a symbolic bridal chamber that is more of a canopy.

The fact that it is the union that forms a marriage still exists in civil laws. In most states and countries a couple that does not have sex after the wedding ceremony (consummate) can get their marriage annulled.

Fornication is a well known case study in how man-made terms and phrases that are false usually develop into false beliefs and skew the meaning of the scriptures and perceptions and as in this case can cause sin. The word fornication is one of the reasons why a lot of Christians believe that wedding ceremonies were required in the Old and New Testament.

For example; a man and a woman fall in love and have sex and then from there on remain together, from the biblical perceptive, they are married. But Christians, believing various false beliefs can condemn them because of what they think Fornication means…two people that have not had a wedding ceremony having sex and living together, ergo the term shacking up.

Then people believing they are “living in sin” may make the couple feel unwelcome in church and could turn them away from Christianity. Which are the only sins that occurred here. The sin of gossip, the sin of falsely accusing people of a sin, and the sin of turning them away Christianity. And then calling their children bastards.

Had a preacher tell me that the normal attraction that couples in love feel for each other is lust and so all marriages are formed by lust. That would be completely wrong. God described the process that is correct…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. God designed men and women to be attracted to each other and form marriages and families. No sin occurs in the process that God designed.

Then according to Augustine (circa 354-430 AD) the sex act being sinful passed the sin of Adam and Eve to the babies, calling it original sin. Which is another manmade term that does not appear in the Bible, but has been taught to Christians. Original Sin is another false belief. This produced the belief that babies can go to hell.

It is better explained that Adam and Eve and their offspring promulgated the nature of man to be sinful. Mankind took after Adam and Eve’s character but it was not sex that caused it, no more than a son having his father’s nose. It is not because sex is evil that caused the son’s nose…a trait of his parent.

Fornication is a good study into how man-made terms and phrases that are not in the Bible, can become popular and can introduce false beliefs that can remain for centuries and cause sin, misery, atrocities, and death not to mention, skewing the meaning of the scriptures and the perception of history.

Of course adultery and casual sex is a sin, ie one night stands and or whore mongering, prostitution, which are sins that are mostly defined in the Bible and in general are defined in modern translations as sexual immorality.

You have proven you have no case at all trying to make the word "fornicate" into some milestone that leads millions down a path of sin, that they would not have taken, had they only known "fornicate" is your theory of a bad translation.

You need to do better than that. You have actually proven the word is a good translation.
No foul at all.

 

[rebuilder 454]

My problem with you is that your responses are a defense mechanism for ignorance. Go find this information on your own….you will learn things along the way.

..still can not say what your superior text is?????
Hmmmmmm

Just humor this dummy.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Did what I explain in detail go over your head?

websters;
FORNICA'TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons

Any questions?

 

[rebuilder 454]

Questions to the superior minds here;
These supposed texts that are superior to the textus receptus, can any of you name them?

 

[Peterlag]

I think so... I haven't had my coffee yet, but let's give it the ol' college try, eh?

Look at the word substance in Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων

We can see the correct meaning from the last half of the verse - it corresponds with the word evidence.

When the KJV was written, substance meant "what stands below," that is, it is something that is observable here in the material world. Sub = below. Stance = something that stands. This is precisely the meaning of the Greek word it translates. ὑπό = below, and στασις = something that stands.

Is that still what the word substance means? Not usually. Today we use this word primarily to refer to something as tangible, and particularly when the composition of the thing is unknown. (From Dictionary.com: that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material).

Is faith something material? No. We cannot go purchase a pound of faith from the grocer. Can faith be observed here in the world, and seen as evidence? Yes.

The original translation was correct at the time, but our modern reading of the word used here fails.

What I have done from my first Bible class is go back to the old English and study those meanings. I have read books years ago studying the figures of speech and orientalisms of the Bible to understand the Bible's customs, manners, and idioms to uncover great truths concerning scriptures that perplex the Westerner’s mind simply because they lack an understanding of the peculiar expressions and traditions underlying the scriptural passage. What the new Bibles have done is change the meanings to fit what their church already believes.

 

[marks]

Questions to the superior minds here;
These supposed texts that are superior to the textus receptus, can any of you name them?

I would answer The Majority Manuscript, which is nearly identical to the TR.

Much love!

 

[rebuilder 454]

What I have done from my first Bible class is go back to the old English and study those meanings. I have read books years ago studying the figures of speech and orientalisms of the Bible to understand the Bible's customs, manners, and idioms to uncover great truths concerning scriptures that perplex the Westerner’s mind simply because they lack an understanding of the peculiar expressions and traditions underlying the scriptural passage. What the new Bibles have done is change the meanings to fit what their church already believes.

YES
It stands to reason that they are drawn to the inferior texts that leave out entire verses. They actually like and defend those modern bibles.
Actually brag about the omissions.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I would answer The Majority Manuscript, which is nearly identical to the TR.

Much love!

yes, but they are alluding to "older texts" therefore "better"...(even though they are corrupted.)

A simple question, they can not answer.
Tells me right there they do not know what they are talking about.

 

[Grailhunter]

..still can not say what your superior text is?????
Hmmmmmm

Just humor this dummy.

I gave you a name….George. Because you are looking for a name that means you do not have an understanding of the topic. Some of the oldest Christian writings are complete texts and some are fragments. The primary point is that newer more accurate translations do not use newer or Catholic texts.

What Are the Earliest Manuscripts of the New Testament?

Some of the larger categories are…..

Alexandrian – Taken to be the best by most scholars. The Alexandrian text is quoted by Clement in the late 1st century CE,

Egyptian texts range from the 2nd and 3rd century

 

[Grailhunter]

websters;
FORNICA'TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons

Any questions?

Never said that that fornication simply applied to two single people having sex. The KJV uses the word for all sorts of sexual misconduct even though it is not an actual biblical word.

Nelson Bible Dictionary…..
1. Sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage.

Webster’s
fornication. noun. for·ni·ca·tion ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən. : consensual sexual intercourse between a single man and a single woman who are not married to each other.

Fornication–now more commonly referred to as premarital sex–is when two unmarried individuals engage in sexual intercourse.

Christianity.com
A concise definition of fornication is "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other," including pre-marital and adulterous relations.

Cambridge Dictionary defines fornication as "the action of having sex with someone who you are not married to."

Do you need smoke signals?

 

[marks]

yes, but they are alluding to "older texts" therefore "better"...(even though they are corrupted.)

A simple question, they can not answer.
Tells me right there they do not know what they are talking about.

It's interesting that people won't be open about what they think, and won't clarify the things they assert. When I studied concerning these "older is better" manuscripts, I learned that the 3 oldest that some seem to love so much have roughly a 75% agreement between them. That doesn't give me much confidence! Meanwhile the MMS collection shows what, like, 99.5% agreement across thousands of manuscripts and portions?

One of these "older is better" manuscripts shows 10 correctors, corrections of corrections, again, if I'm remembering right. It was some years ago I was looking at this. Again, not to confidence inspiring. And then there was the Wescott/Hort influence. I'm good with the TR, or MMS.

Much love!

 

[Aunty Jane]

As I expected Aunty Jane, a considered response. I have discovered over the years that Strong's is more a report of how the KJV translators used the original words rather than straight language definitions.

That is one of the things that I like most about Strongs…..it will betray its dedication to doctrine rather than accurately convey the truth in many instances. It’s at those times when I see clearly where Christendom gets support for her errors. That is also confirmation of the truth for me. Like God’s use of the nation of Israel…..we can learn more from her errors and the consequences of her disobedience, than from anything good that she did in her sad and sorry history.

What did Adam and Eve teach us right from the beginning about the value of obedience, and the dire consequences of disobedience….and how it doesn’t just affect ourselves?

I also use Thayer's, Easton's, and Smith's. There are differences that I use for my thoughts.

I also have other resources that I trust….these are from my teachers who are very well versed in the scriptures and whose teachings have guided me these 50 odd years. Like the Beroeans, I like to confirm everything for myself and my research always agrees with what they have provided in their own research.

The one thing that must always result is scriptural harmony…..nothing can contradict itself in God’s word, and translation is open to verbal trickery.…inference and suggestion is often used to confirm doctrine which is out of harmony with the rest of the Scriptures, which is why I always go back to the original languages to see how the Hebrew Bible is read and translated in the Jewish Tanakh, as well as Greek Interlinears.

In truth, I have been seeing the benefit of the posts from several people here, and yours are definitely one of them.

I also enjoy your thoughtful and honest posts, especially considering your background.

 

[Spyder]

That is one of the things that I like most about Strongs…..it will betray its dedication to doctrine rather than accurately convey the truth in many instances. It’s at those times when I see clearly where Christendom gets support for her errors. That is also confirmation of the truth for me. Like God’s use of the nation of Israel…..we can learn more from her errors and the consequences of her disobedience, than from anything good that she did in her sad and sorry history.

What did Adam and Eve teach us right from the beginning about the value of obediences, and the dire consequences of disobedience….and how it doesn’t just affect ourselves?

I also have other resources that I trust….these are from my teachers who are very well versed in the scriptures and whose teachings have guided me these 50 odd years. Like the Beroeans, I like to confirm everything for myself and my research always agrees with what they have provided in their own research.

The one thing that must always result is scriptural harmony…..nothing can contradict itself in God’s word, and translation is open to verbal trickery.…inference and suggestion is often used to confirm doctrine which is out of harmony with the rest of the Scriptures, which is why I always go back to the original languages to see how the Hebrew Bible is read and translated in the Jewish Tanakh, as well as Greek Interlinears.

I also enjoy your thoughtful and honest posts, especially considering your background.

I absolutely use the requirement for scriptural harmony when searching for truth. I typically become suspicious when translators choose words which interrupt the harmony. That causes the deep dive into passages and then await the truth from God regarding scripture.