Should the Bible translation be changed? (Poll)

[Joseph77]

Well now, isn't that a sad commentary about the state of Christianity today. Why do some Christians turn away from the hard teachings?! It's all or nothing with God IMHO.

Why is there , as God Says, such a humongous falling away ? It is written. "Sad commentary" perhaps.
==================================================
p.s. I might have posted where it looks like the original names are all restored, yet
I don't mean necessarily the translations I have seen are all correct perfectly with the "original names",
but rather most with Yahweh's Meaning - His Purpose, as He Guards His Word, being better conveyed, unknown to mankind.

Everything is subject to "scrutiny" (testing to verify by Scripture, as written) - if this was done all along, by all the disciples, there would not be so many false disciples and false groups nor false gospels and false teachings.

Back to OP...this is something I would have to really look into before making a comment on it. It does sound interesting yet, it would have to be pretty well scrutinized, IMO.

 

[Nancy]

Why is there , as God Says, such a humongous falling away ? It is written. "Sad commentary" perhaps.
==================================================
p.s. I might have posted where it looks like the original names are all restored, yet
I don't mean necessarily the translations I have seen are all correct perfectly with the "original names",
but rather most with Yahweh's Meaning - His Purpose, as He Guards His Word, being better conveyed, unknown to mankind.

Everything is subject to "scrutiny" (testing to verify by Scripture, as written) - if this was done all along, by all the disciples, there would not be so many false disciples and false groups nor false gospels and false teachings.

"p.s. I might have posted where it looks like the original names are all restored, yet
I don't mean necessarily the translations I have seen are all correct perfectly with the "original names",
but rather most with Yahweh's Meaning - His Purpose, as He Guards His Word, being better conveyed, unknown to mankind."

Yeah, that crossed my mind, and you just confirmed it. Then I can see now why this bible is not huge, lol.

 

[Scoot]

Back to OP...this is something I would have to really look into before making a comment on it. It does sound interesting yet, it would have to be pretty well scrutinized, IMO.

+1. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Enoch111]

...but rather most with Yahweh's Meaning - His Purpose, as He Guards His Word, being better conveyed, unknown to mankind

People should understand that the Hebrew Tanakh was originally written with only consonants. Vowel markings were added later. So it was just YHWH or YHVH in Hebrew, and the closest pronunciation was Yahweh. What is even more critical is that Jesus is YAH + SHUA. Which means that God Himself is our salvation. This is more critical than all the rest, since many Christians even today do not understand that it is God Himself who is our salvation -- in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Joseph77]

QUOTE="Nancy, post: 795365, member: 7830"]"p.s. I might have posted where it looks like the original names are all restored, yet I don't mean necessarily the translations I have seen are all correct perfectly with the "original names", but rather most with Yahweh's Meaning - His Purpose, as He Guards His Word, being better conveyed, unknown to mankind."
Yeah, that crossed my mind, and you just confirmed it. Then I can see now why this bible is not huge, lol.[/QUOTE
=====================================
Oh, no - using the original names as written originally, does not make it any bigger than a regular size Bible. Yahuweh's Name and Yahushua's Name was in the original something like over 1000 times, well documented online I hope.... (Have not looked recently) ....

Most people on earth, as far as I am aware, don't care. Even so-called religious people.
They don't know the consequences ....

 

[Nancy]

People should understand that the Hebrew Tanakh was originally written with only consonants. Vowel markings were added later. So it was just YHWH or YHVH in Hebrew, and the closest pronunciation was Yahweh. What is even more critical is that Jesus is YAH + SHUA. Which means that God Himself is our salvation. This is more critical than all the rest, since many Christians even today do not understand that it is God Himself who is our salvation -- in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would guess that most of the Christians I know personally do not know these pearls. Several would but, there are some that only want to go so far with Christ and do not seem to desire to seek Him further...very sad, really.

Yes He is! "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"
Most Christians I know would not know this." Psalm 27:1 ...and so many more.

 

[Sabertooth]

Should all names in the Bible be translated?

I am an amateur onomast. Your point is linguistically valid, but culturally problematic (in modern English).

Some cultures (like ancient Hebrew) use their own dictionaries as a source for their baby names.
Others (like modern English) have a pool of names that originate outside of our own dictionary (with some noted exceptions).

That is why we translate words, but transliterate names. Another problem arising from name translation is that not everyone will agree on which synonym will be the most fitting to the original intent. (Synonyms have slightly differing nuances.)

Here are some examples of name translations:

Adam = Clay
Eve = Living
Isaac = Laugher
Rebekah = Captivating
Esau, nicknamed Edom = Hairy, nicknamed Red
Jacob = Underhanded
Jesus = Ransom​

Our society would have to be a lot more flexible than it is in order to adopt those as names.

 

[Joseph77]

Adam = Clay
Eve = Living
Isaac = Laugher
Rebekah = Captivating
Esau, nicknamed Edom = Hairy, nicknamed Red
Jacob = Underhanded
Jesus = Ransom

I would not call this translation. No. Rather , it is giving the meaning of a name, entirely different, unless there's some particular school that calls it translation, but then that is for them.

Also, the meaning given above for Jacob looks entirely inaccurate.

Note this , (just found), for comparison - as Jacob was a schemer.... the thought that he was underhanded is not in harmony with all Scripture.

"Jacob—The Righteous Deceiver — Knowing Scripture
knowingscripture.com/articles/jacob-the-righteous-deceiver
Jacob—The Righteous Deceiver. Yes, Jacob was a deceiver. But deception is not always sinful. In this case, Jacob was the righteous deceiver. Along with the help of his mother Rebekah, Jacob deceived his father in order to uphold the covenant. (See also the midwives in Exodus 1 and Rahab in Joshua 2.) "

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello

Could I humbly suggest that the poll is asking the wrong question?

Our Translations are based on the opinions of men and do not consistently convey the scriptural context that God intended them to have.

Some translations have been written around the concept of having a "Christ Focus" and as such these translations had skewered the contextual implications of the translations.

Some translations have been written around the concept of God promising Abraham and his descendants "land" and that that land was within the context of the "Promised Land" and that this land was given to Abraham and his descendants for all time. This context misconstruction of has biased our understanding of God's promises within the OT and has lead to a total misunderstanding, today of God's Prophetic words within the OT.

Those who do not want the translations changed do not recognise the fallibility of the translators and the impact that they have had on the "fallible message content" of their respective translations.

I would humbly suggest that there is a need to honestly relook at the context of the origin source texts and rebuild the message that God had originally conveyed back into our Bible translation so that we have a far better understanding of what God has intended from the very start in His word(s).

Let me give an example from Genesis 13: -

14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are — northward, southward, eastward, and westward; 15 for all the land/earth which you see I give to you and/, {that} I will give to your descendants forever/for a long period of time {which is at a vanishing point of time in the future}. 16 And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. 17 Arise, walk in the land/about the/my earth through its length and its width, for I give it to you/Me to give it to you. "​

The context of this passage when corrected, as shown, gives a very different picture to that, which the present translations give.

That is why I would suggest that our translation should be changed.

However, changing our existing English translation(s) will cause much strife among the brethren of Christ as they resist the changes that will be forced onto us because of the resulting context corrections. Many will claim that the better translations will cause the tearing out of the very foundations of their belief in God.

To be able to change the existing English translations for a translation that better reflects God's intended contextual message for all, would require all the existing "sacred" bibles squirreled away for safe keeping to be collected and burned. However the revolt of the brethren would sadly lead to much conflict if that was to happen.

The introduction of a better translation will require time for the fading of the older translations to happen and the newer better translations to become the accepted norm.

Shalom

 

[Sabertooth]

I would not call this translation. No. Rather , it is giving the meaning of a name, entirely different, unless there's some particular school that calls it translation, but then that is for them.

That is how those names struck the Hebrew ear. "jacob/underhanded" is a word; "Jacob/Underhanded" is a name. That "heel-catcher" is a synonym demonstrates the synonym dilemma. When the Hebrews heard "Jacob," they heard it both literally AND figuratively, just like we do with "Underhanded."

A simple translation of Zipporah (Moses' wife) would have been "Bird," but a Hebrew audience would have heard "little skipping she-bird," so Skipper would have been an alternate translation. Rachel (Jacob's wife) means "traveler" (their word for "ewe"), so either Viatrix or Ewe would have been valid translations.

 

[DNB]

I just purchased a new Inductive NASB study bible and am trying to familiarize myself with it. And, I also ordered another book written and published, author is one of our very own beloved sisters on here. But, I won't out her unless she is okay with that lol.

I just started reading my recently purchased, NIV chronological Bible. What a brilliant concept, reading all the chapters and verses as they happened in time, not as ordered, and varied, as they are in our traditional Bibles. A plethora of explanatory notes within the verses themselves, both historically, and comparing the different verses of the same accounts, how and why the may differ. Wish I had this 30 years ago.

 

[Joseph77]

Oh, I get what you mean and it is basically correct, but Jacob was not according to God "underhanded", no.

That was someone's mistranslation somewhere in the past.

"Underhanded" today carries connotations God did not attribute to Jacob.

 

[Sabertooth]

Oh, I get what you mean and it is basically correct, but Jacob was not according to God "underhanded", no.

That was someone's mistranslation somewhere in the past.

"Underhanded" today carries connotations God did not attribute to Jacob.

He was "underhanded" to Esau, Isaac & Laban, but later, God gave him a new name, Israel [God's Prince].

 

[Nancy]

I just started reading my recently purchased, NIV chronological Bible. What a brilliant concept, reading all the chapters and verses as they happened in time, not as ordered, and varied, as they are in our traditional Bibles. A plethora of explanatory notes within the verses themselves, both historically, and comparing the different verses of the same accounts, how and why the may differ. Wish I had this 30 years ago.

It was a toss up between the Chronological Bible or the one I got, lol. I still would love a Chronological bible...one day, God willing!!! 'Oh my favorite niece, whatcha gonna get for your Auntie for Christmas '?

 

[Joseph77]

He was "underhanded" to Esau, Isaac & Laban, but later, God gave him a new name, Israel [God's Prince].

Close , but no cigar. Underhanded carries with it connotations not stated by God.

 

[Jay Ross]

I just started reading my recently purchased, NIV chronological Bible. What a brilliant concept, reading all the chapters and verses as they happened in time, not as ordered, and varied, as they are in our traditional Bibles. A plethora of explanatory notes within the verses themselves, both historically, and comparing the different verses of the same accounts, how and why the may differ. Wish I had this 30 years ago.

I put the book of Genesis into chronological order around ten years ago, but the friends I gave it to found it very difficult to read as it was a verse here and a verse there and had lost its story telling structure.

One of the benefits of having put the bible verses into chronological order meant that I had to address many of the fallacies that have creep into the "acceptable" understanding of Christians where one portion of the Bible is invalidated by another because of lack of understanding of the "norms" of days gone past. One example is the forced change of the accepted year in which Abraham was born with respect to Terah because of a misunderstanding of what Stephen said in Acts 7, when he stated that Abraham left Haran after his Father had died, but the Genesis 11 account suggest that Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years old and if we look at the patriarchal chronology we will discover that it was Noah who Stephen had referred to as dying before Abraham had left Haran. Noah died when Abraham was around 59 years old, and Terah died around 60 years after Abraham had left Haran.

Another example is how old Joseph was when his brothers went down to Egypt to get grain. The traditional understanding is that he was around 38 years old, but if you consider the Book of Genesis in Chronological order, it suggests that Joseph has to have been closer to around 55 years of age so that Hezron could be born before Jacob goes down to Egypt.

But so much of our traditional understandings are based on flawed understanding that have been accepted as being true.

Shalom

 

[Sabertooth]

Underhanded carries with it connotations not stated by God.

Even though Jacob had God's favor, it still required [blessed?] treachery to "steal" Isaac's blessing for the firstborn, Esau.

Restated using name translation,
Even though Underhanded had God's favor, it still required [blessed?] treachery to "steal" Laugher's blessing for the firstborn, Hairy.

 

[Joseph77]

Even though Jacob had God's favor, it still required [blessed?] treachery to "steal" Isaac's blessing for the firstborn, Esau.

Restated using name translation,
Even though Underhanded had God's favor, it still required [blessed?] treachery to "steal" Laugher's blessing for the firstborn, Hairy.

Wrong words for you to use still. You are conveying a wrong and a different meaning than God does throughout Scripture,
no matter where you got it from, it is apparently still wrong.
i.e. your source is now underhanded.

 

[Joseph77]

(likewise using 'treachery', but that's for later --- it appears directly incorrect)

 

[Nancy]

I am an amateur onomast. Your point is linguistically valid, but culturally problematic (in modern English).

Some cultures (like ancient Hebrew) use their own dictionaries as a source for their baby names.
Others (like modern English) have a pool of names that originate outside of our own dictionary (with some noted exceptions).

That is why we translate words, but transliterate names. Another problem arising from name translation is that not everyone will agree on which synonym will be the most fitting to the original intent. (Synonyms have slightly differing nuances.)

Here are some examples of name translations:

Adam = Clay
Eve = Living
Isaac = Laugher
Rebekah = Captivating
Esau, nicknamed Edom = Hairy, nicknamed Red
Jacob = Underhanded
Jesus = Ransom​

Our society would have to be a lot more flexible than it is in order to adopt those as names.

And we still have several names that have different meanings. Here's a screen shot (if it works, lol) of the genealogy from Adam to Noah...


Now here the meanings used by this teacher. Some say it's bunk but, I really like this man's teaching...he has passed a couple years now

Now, read the bottom right column and tell me if you see anything there.

PS...you can go one further, GOD! Which can simply mean "The God" in Hebrew, then the paragraph read on the right lower shot would start with "The God man..."