How can all of these Bible versions mean exactly the same thing?

GreekOrthodox · Jan 4, 2022

ChristianForCats said:
Personal development and getting closer to God. The church I was saved at uses the NIV and I learned all about Christianity with the NIV, so it is the only translation I am really familiar with. But after people here started telling me it is good to have more than one version, I started using Bible Hub to compare them.

You can always look for a parallel Bible where they have 2 to 4 versions printed by column. The other thing I normally advise is a good study guide which can help explain the context of a book or passage. I used to have a really nice atlas so you could see what the Judean desert or what a typical NT village might look like. So for example the woman at the well, " Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. When a Samaritan woman came to draw water..." We know that the Jews and the Samaritans didnt get along, but something that we naturally wouldnt know is that noon was not the normal time to draw water, but early morning. The women would come to get water for the day, share some gossip, maybe trade recipes, and if there was a Starbucks around, get their latte

However, this woman is an outcast even in an outcast society and now living with a man. This context changes the story. So a study guide that can help explain some of these things can be really helpful.

Norbert L · Jan 4, 2022

How can all of these Bible versions mean exactly the same thing?

Christianity doesn't make the claim that all the copies and copies of copies of the original manuscripts are exactly written word for word either. Even the DSS show that the Masoretic OT text is different from what they found in those caves.

ChristianForCats said:
Because the Bible is God's Word, there should be no differences that can lead to various interpretations of verses.

Practically speaking this is completely non-workable. Who gets to decide which translation is the correct one?

We don't have the original manuscripts. Dr. Daniel Wallace is among the most informed Christian apologists whose life work is dedicated to this subject. There are numerous videos available on YouTube where he defends the known accuracy of the scriptures. Here's a short one, about 5 minutes. If it peaks your interest, there are plenty more that are of an hour and more.

coffee4u · Jan 4, 2022

ChristianForCats said:
Because the Bible is God's Word, there should be no differences that can lead to various interpretations of verses.

Actually its the original Hebrew and Greek that is God's word, but people have done their best to translate it into English and other languages. But some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation.

GreekOrthodox · Jan 5, 2022

ChristianForCats said:
Because the Bible is God's Word, there should be no differences that can lead to various interpretations of verses.

Translating from one language to another is not as simple as you might think. For example, if you have to translate an idiom such as "It is raining cats and dogs", a literal translation might leave a reader to think that animals are falling from the sky. If you decide to translate the thought, you could say, "It is raining hard", or "It is pouring rain".

“So avoid using the word ‘very’ because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women - and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays.” - Dead Poets Society

pescador · Jan 5, 2022

coffee4u said:
Actually its the original Hebrew and Greek that is God's word, but people have done their best to translate it into English and other languages. But some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation.

And your basis for saying this is ..? If you think about it, all translations are the result of people's intepretation. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and modern English. The ancient sources (plural) must be interpreted into the destination language. And most versions are the result of committees, not single individuals, to prevent bias.

TedT · Jan 5, 2022

Bible Hub is a great tool:
- lists the verse in all major translations
- provides interlinear Hebrew and Greek to English
- provides an in depth interpretation for the Hebrew and Greek words thru Strong's Concordance and other tools
- provides a synopsis of various commentators of what they have decided the verse means....

yet all this erudite study has not healed the Church divisions nor the blasphemies about GOD that a theology needs to accept to to make the theology work.

This leads us to consider the flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from the verse without any input from their mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion in a bright light by hearing GOD's voice. Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions and world view.

pescador · Jan 5, 2022

TedT said:
Bible Hub is a great tool:
- lists the verse in all major translations
- provides interlinear Hebrew and Greek to English
- provides an in depth interpretation for the Hebrew and Greek words thru Strong's Concordance and other tools
- provides a synopsis of various commentators of what they have decided the verse means....

yet all this erudite study has not healed the Church divisions nor the blasphemies about GOD that a theology needs to accept to to make the theology work.

This leads us to consider the flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from the verse without any input from their mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion in a bright light by hearing GOD's voice. Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions and world view.

Flam flim: Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

Of course it is impossible to read Scripture without going through a mental process, which is why we have different translations, commentaries, etc. That is altogether different than reading to reinforce one's previously-held doctrine. Again, it is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.

coffee4u · Jan 5, 2022

pescador said:
And your basis for saying this is ..? If you think about it, all translations are the result of people's intepretation. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the ancient languages and modern English. The ancient sources (plural) must be interpreted into the destination language. And most versions are the result of committees, not single individuals, to prevent bias.

There is a difference to the dedication and care they took, very painstakingly to translate the earlier versions, verses a Bible that is a copy of a copy and isn't a translation at all.
This verse here and the very incorrect word 'miscarriage' is only one example.
Not every Bible is a translation but rather a modernized English form from a translation.

pescador · Jan 6, 2022

coffee4u said:
There is a difference to the dedication and care they took, very painstakingly to translate the earlier versions, verses a Bible that is a copy of a copy and isn't a translation at all.
This verse here and the very incorrect word 'miscarriage' is only one example.
Not every Bible is a translation but rather a modernized English form from a translation.

=> Every Bible is a translation <=

What do you mean by your last sentence? What specifically is "a modernized English form from a translation"?

"Miscarriage"? What on Earth are you talking about?

coffee4u · Jan 6, 2022

pescador said:
=> Every Bible is a translation <=

What do you mean by your last sentence? What specifically is "a modernized English form from a translation"?

Most Bibles are translated from the Hebrew and Greek by a committee of scholars.

Some modern Bibles took an already translated Bible and updated the text to be more modern and understandable. So it was a copy of a copy. As with all things that are a copy one should be more careful with it and double check it more.

"Miscarriage"? What on Earth are you talking about?

Did you not read over the original posters post?

The CEV version of the verse they were asking about uses the word 'miscarriage' which is patently wrong.

CEV) Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.

Which is why I pointed that out and why its a good idea to use older versions alongside of a modern version like that.

I am perplexed by your questioning.

GodLovesCats · Jan 6, 2022

pescador said:
=> Every Bible is a translation <=

What do you mean by your last sentence? What specifically is "a modernized English form from a translation"?

Instead of thee and thy, they have you and your. Instead of smite and smote, they have strike and stuck. Instead of spake, they have spoke. The letters "eth" at the ends of words are replaced with the letters s - as they should be, of course. I could go on about this, but you get the picture.

Extra commas in the wrong places are removed or replaced by periods. The punctuation difference is very important in many verses because the location of a comma or period affects the meaning and context.

Even word order was different in ancient British English. It is ridiculous how many verses were not written in a noun/pronoun-verb/adverb-adjective-noun/pronoun style. It is like reading a foreign language.

"Miscarriage"? What on Earth are you talking about?

I showed you in the OP one Bible version uses the word miscarriage.

Bible Highlighter · Jan 10, 2022

Norbert L said:
Christianity doesn't make the claim that all the copies and copies of copies of the original manuscripts are exactly written word for word either. Even the DSS show that the Masoretic OT text is different from what they found in those caves.
Practically speaking this is completely non-workable. Who gets to decide which translation is the correct one?

We don't have the original manuscripts. Dr. Daniel Wallace is among the most informed Christian apologists whose life work is dedicated to this subject. There are numerous videos available on YouTube where he defends the known accuracy of the scriptures. Here's a short one, about 5 minutes. If it peaks your interest, there are plenty more that are of an hour and more.

I don’t think Dan Wallace is informed at all. He does not appear to be certain about God’s Word at all.

"WE DO NOT HAVE NOW IN ANY OF OUR CRITICAL GREEK TEXTS OR IN ANY TRANSLATIONS EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTHORS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WROTE. EVEN IF WE DID, WE WOULD NOT KNOW IT. THERE ARE MANY, MANY PLACES IN WHICH THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS UNCERTAIN."

Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry. Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii. Quote by Dan Wallace.

What Dan Wallace really believes about the truth of the Scriptures in his own words -

"SCHOLARS ARE NOT SURE OF THE EXACT WORDS OF JESUS. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn't always record Jesus' words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means "the very words," and the latter means "the very voice." That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one's judgment and skews the facts. IN TRUTH, THOUGH RED-LETTER EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE MAY GIVE COMFORT TO BELIEVERS THAT THEY HAVE THE VERY WORDS OF JESUS IN EVERY INSTANCE, THIS IS A FALSE COMFORT." (Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation").

In other words, he sounds pretty clueless about the accuracy of God’s Word.

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

Norbert L · Jan 10, 2022

Bible Highlighter said:
I don’t think Dan Wallace is informed at all.

His credentials speak for themselves.

Daniel B. Wallace

That blog leaves me with the impression that writer doesn't like him much either. Don't know why.

Bible Highlighter · Jan 10, 2022

Norbert L said:
His credentials speak for themselves.

Daniel B. Wallace

That blog leaves me with the impression that writer doesn't like him much either. Don't know why.

Earthly credentials do not mean anything to God. Please go back, and carefully and slowlly read Wallace’s own words that were quoted in post #32. They are words that are enough to disqualify himself. God never commends a lack of faith in His words. Yet, that is what Wallace is boasting about using different words.

Norbert L · Jan 11, 2022

Bible Highlighter said:
Earthly credentials do not mean anything to God. Please go back, and carefully and slowlly read Wallace’s own words that were quoted in post #32. They are words that are enough to disqualify himself. God never commends a lack of faith in His words. Yet, that is what Wallace is boasting about using different words.

Credentials didn't stop Jesus from making Paul His chosen apostle, so that isn't a disqualifier.

Bible Highlighter said:
In other words, he sounds pretty clueless about the accuracy of God’s Word.

I have read those quotes and likewise your opinion of him is different from numerous other Christians who don't share your view. This too does not discredit the substance of the apologetic he is uses in the books quotes are taken from.

pescador · Jan 11, 2022

coffee4u said:
Actually its the original Hebrew and Greek that is God's word, but people have done their best to translate it into English and other languages. But some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation.

Aside from the very few paraphrase Bibles such as The Message and the New Living Translation that might be described as personal interpretation, the great majority of "modern" translations are excellent renditions of the earliest and best source documents.

pescador · Jan 11, 2022

coffee4u said:
Most Bibles are translated from the Hebrew and Greek by a committee of scholars.

Some modern Bibles took an already translated Bible and updated the text to be more modern and understandable. So it was a copy of a copy. As with all things that are a copy one should be more careful with it and double check it more.

Did you not read over the original posters post?

The CEV version of the verse they were asking about uses the word 'miscarriage' which is patently wrong.

Which is why I pointed that out and why its a good idea to use older versions alongside of a modern version like that.

I am perplexed by your questioning.

I am perplexed by your response. You make generalized statements such as "some modern Bibles took an already translated Bible and updated the text to be more modern and understandable." By this do you mean the NKJV or the NRSV or ..?

The best new translations are ones that have been created using the best source texts and the best knowledge of how to communicate the ancient languages into the destination language, including 21st Century English.

The only reason to use older versions alongside of a modern version is academic.

Bible Highlighter · Jan 11, 2022

Norbert L said:
Credentials didn't stop Jesus from making Paul His chosen apostle, so that isn't a disqualifier.
I have read those quotes and likewise your opinion of him is different from numerous other Christians who don't share your view. This too does not discredit the substance of the apologetic he is uses in the books quotes are taken from.

The quotes I posted are from Wallace and his quotes simply makes it appear like we don’t have any true and trustworthy Word of God. That’s how it reads to me. This is exactly what Modern Scholarship proposes. Modern Scholarship says: There is no perfect Bible in any language today and only the perfect Word of God existed in the originals of which we do not have. So then it’s faith in what the scholar says so as to help you to understand the Bible instead of just believing God words. For how do you determine what is true, or false in your Bible if there is no perfect and settled Word of God? Can you really trust yourself or another to determine what God actually said? This is the problem I have with Modern Scholarship. There is no Word of God. It’s just some semblance of God’s words. This is not what the Bible even teaches. So this approach to God’s Word is not even biblical.

Bible Highlighter · Jan 11, 2022

pescador said:
I am perplexed by your response. You make generalized statements such as "some modern Bibles took an already translated Bible and updated the text to be more modern and understandable." By this do you mean the NKJV or the NRSV or ..?

The best new translations are ones that have been created using the best source texts and the best knowledge of how to communicate the ancient languages into the destination language, including 21st Century English.

The only reason to use older versions alongside of a modern version is academic.

How do you know they are the best source texts?
Is it by faith?
Is not believing the Bible by faith?
But instead it sounds like you are believing the scholar when he makes the discovery of what he BELIEVES is the best source texts.
Faith then becomes like this ever changing message or words by God.
Your Bible today will not be the one 500 years from now.
For the NIV and NASB has had several revisions and the changes on particular words were major and done in an extensive way.
This is not the case with the KJB.

pescador · Jan 11, 2022

Bible Highlighter said:
How do you know they are the best source texts?
Is it by faith?
Is not believing the Bible by faith?
But instead it sounds like you are believing the scholar when he makes the discovery of what he BELIEVES is the best source texts.
Faith then becomes like this ever changing message or words by God.
Your Bible today will not be the one 500 years from now.
For the NIV and NASB has had several revisions and the changes on particular words were major and done in an extensive way.
This is not the case with the KJB.

How do you know the KJB used the best source texts? FYI, The KJV has been revised many times since the first edition of 1611, so it's obvious that the translators weren't/aren't rigid in their thinking. Where in the KJV does it say it is the perfect, infallible translation (keeping in mind that their sources weren't as extensive as those we have today)? If someone makes that claim they are disagreeing with the early translators claimed about their work.

How can all of these Bible versions mean exactly the same thing?

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalti Chrysostom

Wise old man

Member since Job 38:7

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Wise old man

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Wise old man

Similar threads