Bible Translations

Why do you need a translation at all?? Just read the actual words. By your statement, translations are wrong and should not be used. Of course, we both know you don't believe that, but that is exactly what you said. The author's "actual words" (to use your phrase) are in Greek and Hebrew. Any translation, by necessity, is an attempt to communicate his thoughts. The thoughts are conveyed in words.

Dynamic equivalence is a necessary part of any translations. Idioms and the like must be dynamic to be communicable. Those who understand translation understand this.

You don't ... and Barker didn't say that. You practiced the typical method of the KJVOs by slightly twisting the words of the original to reflect your own ideas. That is unethical and wrong. Let's look at what Barker actually said in your quote:

Notice how you, without any merit, changed "literal translation" to "text." Talk about doing what you condemn others for. You claim that the NIV changed the words of God. Yet you change the words of others. That is simply wrong.

A literal translation does not always make sense in English. Do us a favor and get out your Hebrew text and translate literally the first couple of phrases of Genesis 37:2. This will take you just a minute. It is very easy Hebrew and you should be able to do it with using any lexicons or anything. Please do this and then we will talk more about this.

 

The Hebrew word Qadesh:

Is a general purpose word which in English functionally means a religious devotee given to the service of worship but not necessarily an occupation as such (but could be).

The context drives the specific meaning and in the Law when it is a forbidden it means as a devotee in one of the Canaanite religions.

In most Canaanite temple worship every individual was required to perform some kind of temple service in their life. For some it was their last such as the sacrifice of the firstborn infant (called “The Happy Day”) where the infant was burned alive and consumed by the priests of Baal (yes eaten).

Other temple duty abominations were practiced in the realm of sexual perversion also too awful too discuss publicly (or even privately for that matter).

While the NIV phrase is too limiting (IMO) the KJV is more so.

But what would work in the light of the contemporary historical reality of what is being forbidden here? The one word (Qadesh) was sufficient for the Hebrews living in the land.

That no Israelite participate in the “religious” abominations of the Canaanite devotees of Baal, Molech, Ashteroth, etc….

IMO, one word or even one phrase is simply not sufficient for 21st century gentile believers (unless they know the details of the Canaanite worship of that day).


HankD

 

The Hebrew word in question was in regards to "sodomite", not "sodomy". The word "sodomy" does not appear in the KJV, and the Hebrew word for "sodomite", as evidenced in Strongs reference that you listed, was not translated to mean homosexual behavior in general.

 

NASB on John 1:18 disagrees with Hebrew 1:5-6 because NASB on John 1:18 said, "begotten God." The reason for this is NASB on John 1:18 denied Jesus IS the Son of God.

KJV on John 1:18 agrees with Hebrew 1:5-6 because the KJV on John 1:18 said, "the only begotten Son."

Therefore the KJV is correct between John 1:18 and John 3:16 -- "only begotten Son."

NASB is incorrect on these passages because of the difference between God and Son. NASB said 2 persons -- begotten God and begotten Son on John 1:18 and 3:16.

The KJV is correct again on John 1:18 reflecting to the "begotten Son" because in John 1:14 the Word is identified with the Son.

P66 and P77 changed from the Begotten Son to the only begotten God. This is a Gnostic perversion! They taught that there were various levels of Spiritual beings (i.e. lesser gods) between God and man.

 

Do you know the meaning of "deny/denies/denied"? If so, please share it. If not, please learn it before using it again in this manner.

 

Do you know the meaning of "deny/denies/denied"? If so, please share it. If not, please learn it before using it again in this manner. </font>[/QUOTE]Please tell me the meaning of these words. Thanks!

 

http://www.dictionary.com

 

NASB on John 1:18 disagrees with Hebrew 1:5-6 because NASB on John 1:18 said, "begotten God." The reason for this is NASB on John 1:18 denied Jesus IS the Son of God. </font>[/QUOTE]You are mistaken. The NASB does *not* deny that Jesus is the Son of God, as these and *many* other verses from the NASB clearly attest:

NASB Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

NASB Mark 15:39 When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

NASB Hebrews 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

No, the NASB speaks of *one* person, Jesus, who is "begotten" (Jn. 1:14) "the Son of God" (Mk. 1:1), and (3) "God" (Jn. 1:1) -- in other words, *all* of these.

P66 reads μονογηνες θεος ("only-begotten God") while P75 (not P77, which contains a few verses from Matthew 23) reads ο μονογηνες θεος ("the only-begotten, God"). Both are completely orthodox in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole, but were *misinterpreted* by Gnostic heretics who would also misinterpret Heb. 1:5-6 KJV in the same way.

 

Begotten : A relationship.

The word "begotten" describes the relationship between the Father and the Son (Logos).

The Son (Logos) is eternally begotten of the Father (The relationship between the sun and a sunbeam).

The Holy Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Father and the Son.

The processional relationship is still disputed between the Latin and Greek Orthodox Churches.

I believe the Latin doctrine is "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" while the Greek is "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" Not sure who is who here but it's a hairsplit (IMO).

HankD

 

In my previous post, the word should be spelled μονογενης. My mistake!

 

Why'nt John in NASB? NASB omitted names of Jesus in the New Testament 210 times! Am I mistaken?

 

Yes, you are.

 

Yes, you are. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right to say that I am mistaken because I used the corrupted Bible version -- NASB for 10 years.

I realized that I made a mistake because I know nothing about what's behind these modern versions.

When I read the NASB, the Holy Spirit showed me something. I looked up the KJV and the NASB and noticed something. I did not understand why they are different. That's what I investigated them. Until I found the factual reason reflecting manuscript evidences, I use the KJV hereafter.

 

That should have given you enough time to count then, and see that it didn't omit the name of Jesus 210 times. Maybe you need more time.

 

You know, it puzzles me why askjo complains that other translations mess up when it comes to the name "Jesus", when the KJV mistakingly places the name "Jesus" in Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8. I challenge any KJVO preacher or teacher to preach or teach......

Act 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Act 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

.....Without going back to the original language (If KJV has no errors, then you have no need to "correct" the text. If God preserved his word in the KJV only, then the name Jesus has to be correct in the above passage.)and please teach or preach it within context!! Jesus didn't lead the Children of Israel "into the possession of the Gentiles", Joshua did!!!!!

 

Jesus is the Greek mode of writing the name Joshua. Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Joshua .

 

Jesus is the Greek mode of writing the name Joshua. Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Joshua . </font>[/QUOTE]I know Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Joshua, what i'm trying to point out is the fact that the KJV is wrong here, the translators should have used "Joshua" instead of "Jesus", Using "Jesus" in this passage could cause confusion if you absolutely beleived that every word in the KJV was inerrant.

 

Which did you use? Did you use a corrupted version or the NASB?? You said two different things here and it is confusing.

The Holy Spirit has shown me that you are wrong. The Holy Spirit would not lead you into error. When a spirit of untruth speaks, it is not the Holy Spirit.

The reasons these versions are slightly different is because of the different approach to the text. There is, as we have shown so many times, no difference in doctrine. This morning, I will stand and proclaim the precious word of God from the NASB. It will be a glorious day and we will worship God together. God will honor his word because he promised to.

 

Thats a lie..Have you no shame??

From which one?? The first edition of the NASb,or it's "update"?? remember,"things that are different are not the same".According to you and your ilk,it cannot both be the word of God;which one is it?? Why the double standard??

 

The only thing wrong here is you and the people that taught you this nonsense.You see,the Greek word here(in every Greek text,in every Greek edition)says "Iesou".Here,every "bible"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)on the market refused to consistently translate the word for Jesus.The word "Joshua" is found in NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT ever seen by man.The word is "Jesus,"exactly as you find it in the highly accurate and 110% trustworthy King James 1611,Authorized version.