Changing the bible

[ScottBot]

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

Never heard of it.

I do enjoy the Cotton Patch Version for entertainment purposes only.

 

[PaulAckermann]

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

The book of the Bible was not compiled yet. All the NT gospels and letters were not compiled into one book until AD 405.

So when John wrote this, he obviously only had the book of Revelation in mind, not the book of the Bible.

As far as I know, there is no church, group, organization, or cult that has added anything to the Book of Revelation,

 

[Uphill Battle]

Never heard of it.

I do enjoy the Cotton Patch Version for entertainment purposes only.

much like I enjoy the message... written in contemporary conversational english, although I wouldn't use it for study!

 

[billwald]

Rev. was written before there was a NT Bible. Any statement in Rev. could only apply to itself.

 

[elsbeth]

The book of the Bible was not compiled yet. All the NT gospels and letters were not compiled into one book until AD 405.

So when John wrote this, he obviously only had the book of Revelation in mind, not the book of the Bible.

As far as I know, there is no church, group, organization, or cult that has added anything to the Book of Revelation,

Glad to see someone saying this.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Rev. was written before there was a NT Bible. Any statement in Rev. could only apply to itself.

The Mind of God that wrote Revelation had already written the rest of the Scriptures and would apply therefore to all. Your logic would hold water but since it concerns the Word of God it holds little water. Either you hold to the Bible as the Word of God or the word of men. If the former is true, your logic is of no import. And if you hold to the later view, your logic holds even less import.

Cheers,
Cosmic

 

[elsbeth]

The Mind of God that wrote Revelation had already written the rest of the Scriptures and would apply therefore to all.

This is the classic argument used by so many people. The Bible says X, but of course we know that it REALLY MEANS Y.
John was writing his book. You have no evidence that he (or God) meant those statements to apply to the entire Bible, not just to the book he was writing. And yet you state it as if it is a fact. Sometimes I think that I, who say that I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, often take the Bible MORE LITERALLY than do those who so adamantly defend inerrancy. If it says X, then it MEANS X.

 

[freespiritchurch]

The first complete English translation of the Bible is the "Wycliffe Bible," which was finished around 1388--a long time before the Douay-Rheims. In modern English, three major versions--the Great Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishop's Bible--were produced before the King James or the Douay-Rheims.

Alan

 

[jsimms615]

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.htmlhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=18&version=KJV#18http://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

These are warnings against those who would carelessly alert the Word of scripture. It isn't really against making translations. It is important to keep in mind when making a translation though to try and be as accurate as possible using the oldest sources possible.

 

[Jerrysch]

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

I think this would be soley based upon the translator. Take for instance the misTranslation known as the New World translation the favored one of the Jehovah's Witnesses. That so called translation was developed to support the JW doctrine, they have read their doctrine into the Scriptures ansd come up with a translation which supports thier doctrine, and yet it does not represent the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which they claim to have drawn this translation.

The translator's intention is indeed important in the translation process, and yet there are translators whose sole intent is to represent the word of God from its original languages into the language of the target audiance.

 

[Jerrysch]

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

If older made something better... I'd be the smartest perosn on my block.... Older doesn't make it better, the fact that languages change indicates that about every 10 years we need new translations.

 

[Jerrysch]

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

Well, I think there are some very good ones, some are more accurate than others but sometimes we don't need all the accuracy. But if you really need accuracy go to the Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Jerrysch]

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

Feed back from its text;

John 1:1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
John 1:2 This was in a beginning with the God.
John 1:3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, that has been done.
John 1:4 In it life was, and the life was the light of the men;
John 1:5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not apprehended.
John 1:6 Was a man having been sent from God, a name to him John;​

The highlited text is most revieling, they indicate that Jesus was not God but a god.

Upon further examination, this appears to be a J. W. translation, if you google Emphatic Diaglott the first listed will take you to this translation, if you go to the main page of the web site you will go to http://www.heraldmag.org\/

Which is a JW web site, be warned they do not present Biblical Christianity.

 

[Jerrysch]

The book of the Bible was not compiled yet. All the NT gospels and letters were not compiled into one book until AD 405.

So when John wrote this, he obviously only had the book of Revelation in mind, not the book of the Bible.

As far as I know, there is no church, group, organization, or cult that has added anything to the Book of Revelation,

There have been many who have taken away.

 

[Jerrysch]

The Mind of God that wrote Revelation had already written the rest of the Scriptures and would apply therefore to all. Your logic would hold water but since it concerns the Word of God it holds little water. Either you hold to the Bible as the Word of God or the word of men. If the former is true, your logic is of no import. And if you hold to the later view, your logic holds even less import.

Cheers,
Cosmic

True, true, and the Scripture did not need to be bound up together to make it the word of God, it was the word of God the moment that the Holy Spirit inspired it, and the people to which the letter was written discovered this character of what was written (that it was indeed inspired of God) right off, that is right away. It didn't take 100'ds of years to figure this out.

 

[Jerrysch]

This is the classic argument used by so many people. The Bible says X, but of course we know that it REALLY MEANS Y.
John was writing his book. You have no evidence that he (or God) meant those statements to apply to the entire Bible, not just to the book he was writing. And yet you state it as if it is a fact. Sometimes I think that I, who say that I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, often take the Bible MORE LITERALLY than do those who so adamantly defend inerrancy. If it says X, then it MEANS X.

The whole issue here is taking away or adding to the word of God. Any way you look at it it is not something God will take lightly. His word is His word, it is not to be taken lightly, it is not to be "adjusted" that would be like changing a person's will after s/he wrote and sealed it up.

 

[oldsage]

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

Well, Wycliff is the first English Translation it was done in the 1380's. It is an English translation of Jerome's Vulgate. Then came Tyndale's NT in 1526 and the whole bible by 1536. He coined new words like "Jehovah", "Passover", "Atonement", and "Scapegoat". the DR NT was finished in 1582 and the OT by 1609.

Chris

 

[plmarquette]

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

No... the translation of Wycliffe in the 1500's followed by Tyndale, then the bishop's bible, cromwells bible, the great bible, etc. all predate both the KJV and the DRV

 

[SummaScriptura]

The "Jefferson Bible" by Thomas Jefferson, removes the whole problem by removing the verses of warning at cited at the start of this thread.