Changing the bible

simplyg123 · Dec 12, 2006

Rev 22:17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Rev/22/18.html http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=18&version=KJV#18 http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=18&version=KJV#18

Rev 22:18¶For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

anyone have any comments on this scripture, when we translate the bible are we not taking the words from it. Some tranlations dont just change words, but thoughts

CaliforniaJosiah · Dec 12, 2006

simplyg123 said:
when we translate the bible are we not taking the words from it. Some tranlations dont just change words, but thoughts

Two thoughts...

1. ALL translating "changes" the words - obviously. They change from one language to another. And ALL translating involves at least SOME "interpretation" or "bias" since it's not a totally automatic, objective matter. The same sentence might legitimately be translated into English in a variety of ways - and they each MIGHT convey a slightly different thought.

2. This is a good reason to avoid translations that are denominational specific - where the translater(s) actual admit to a bias, and better to use ones with a broad based ecumenical interdenominational team of translators. AND it should be noted, Biblical scholars (and even most pastors) never use a translation at all. My father (a Protestant minister) is fluent in both ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. While he has a self full of translations, they are all very dusty because he never uses them. He has his Hebrew OT and his Greek NT - and that's all he ever uses. Kinda makes attending his Bible studies sorta interesting; he'll have us open to a chapter and he'll read it - in his Greek text translating as he goes - as fast as we can read the English translation, but of course it's his "on the spot, off the top of his head" translation.

Side note. Dad was my religion teacher for high school (I was homeschooled). When I turned 13, he insisted I stop using these translations for our discussions. Although I could have used websites so much easier (lo if I only knew then what I know now!), he gave me several books so I could go directly to the original Greek. Arguing to me that it's silly to have a study of a text based on some person(s)' translation. It's not nearly as hard to go to the originals as you might think, even for laypersons. But pastors and Bible scholars always use the original Hebrew and Greek.

Thank you.

Pax!

- Josiah

simplyg123 · Dec 12, 2006

thats very interesting, i feel we should stick as close as possible to the originals scriptures, however i dont see anythingwrong with comparing to other tranlations, but if there is a question refer to the original, or KJ because i do not speak greek or hebrew

PaulAckermann · Dec 12, 2006

simplyg123 said:
thats very interesting, i feel we should stick as close as possible to the originals scriptures, however i dont see anythingwrong with comparing to other tranlations, but if there is a question refer to the original, or KJ because i do not speak greek or hebrew

What makes you think the KJ is the closest to the original? Tradition?

simplyg123 · Dec 12, 2006

PaulAckermann said:
What makes you think the KJ is the closest to the original? Tradition?

good question, i dont know, i believe its the oldest, thats a very good question i never thought of that.

Are you related by chance to steve ackermann

lakis · Feb 20, 2007

God has prepared a kingdom with Jesus as it's supreme ruler, do you know that? Do all of you really know that? Or have you missed the Bible's main theme?

Do you know that all who have ever lived will be given an opportunity to live eternally, all, even the ones who have never heard of God, will be given an opportunity. The likes, like the ignorant CHINESE and the INDIANS, etc,. ALL, like the vast ignorant majority of ancient times, they too, along with you and me.

Chickapee · Feb 20, 2007

Changing the bible

Rev 22:17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Rev 22:18¶For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

anyone have any comments on this scripture, when we translate the bible are we not taking the words from it. Some tranlations dont just change words, but thoughts

Hi ya all ,
this may be true , and all I can say is GOD DOES NOT CHANGE HIS SPIRIT and promises , He swore on none greater than HISELF !!!! and thats what we have faith in and BELIEVER and Obey .. THE SPRIITUAL LAW .. every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God .. when you hear His Voice , you will Live ...

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you,

**, and*** now is***,

when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God :

and they *that hear *shall live.

trust God and liveRom 14:8For whether we live,

we live unto the Lord;

and whether we die,

we die unto the Lord:

whether we live therefore, or die, *we are the Lord's**........

Rom 14:9 For to **this end** Christ both died, and rose, and **revived ***, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

that says alot for me .. God bless ,,,C

ScottBot · Feb 20, 2007

simplyg123 said:
good question, i dont know, i believe its the oldest, thats a very good question i never thought of that.

Are you related by chance to steve ackermann

The Douay-Rhiems is the oldest English translation. It predates the Authorized Version by 2 years.

Uphill Battle · Feb 20, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
The Douay-Rhiems is the oldest English translation. It predates the Authorized Version by 2 years.

and happens to be a translation of a translation.

Uphill Battle · Feb 20, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
and happens to be a translation of a translation.

more on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims

picnic · Feb 20, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
The Douay-Rhiems is the oldest English translation. It predates the Authorized Version by 2 years.

There are many English translations older than the Douay-Rheims:

The Coverdale Bible 1535
Matthew's Bible 1537
The Great Bible 1539
The Geneva Bible 1560
The Bishop's Bible 1568

ScottBot · Feb 20, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
and happens to be a translation of a translation.

So was the KJV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Even Erasmus' Textus Receptus wasn't found to be without flaws.

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Authority of the Bible.htm

Uphill Battle · Feb 20, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
So was the KJV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Even Erasmus' Textus Receptus wasn't found to be without flaws.

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Authority of the Bible.htm

I don't use either of those.

ScottBot · Feb 20, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
I don't use either of those.

So we can agree then that there is no "perfect" English translation.

Uphill Battle · Feb 20, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
So we can agree then that there is no "perfect" English translation.

yes sir, full agreement!

I do, however, tend to steer clear of versions/translations that were specifically created to prove a denominational/orginizational standpoint.

ScottBot · Feb 20, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
yes sir, full agreement!

I do, however, tend to steer clear of versions/translations that were specifically created to prove a denominational/orginizational standpoint.

That's why I use the RSV-CE. It was translated by a panel of Catholic, Protestant, and secular linguistic scholars.

Uphill Battle · Feb 20, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
That's why I use the RSV-CE. It was translated by a panel of Catholic, Protestant, and secular linguistic scholars.

would the RSV and the RSV-CE be comparable, line for line?

ScottBot · Feb 20, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
would the RSV and the RSV-CE be comparable, line for line?

Yes, with the exception that the RSV-CE has the books that the non-Catholics consider the "Apocrypha" but Catholics consider to be inspired. Other than that, they are identical.

Uphill Battle · Feb 20, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
Yes, with the exception that the RSV-CE has the books that the non-Catholics consider the "Apocrypha" but Catholics consider to be inspired. Other than that, they are identical.

well, not completely, one RSV I looked at had the She will bruise your head, another has HE will bruise your head...

HomeBound · Feb 20, 2007

How about the Emphatic Diaglott?
Can anyone give feedback on that particular translation?

Changing the bible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PaulAckermann

Guest

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Learning in the meantime

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency