Translating the Bible

[Blammo]

Excuse me, I rephrase:

Bro Blammo: What confusion is called you when you ONLY
have two different versions?

BTW, I don't recall having been in a Baptist church where
everybody* read aloud at the same time.

*note: even if 'everybody' is only ten people.

The Version Dilemma (two propositions, only one of which can
be correct):

1. God is limited to one and only one English Version.

2. God uses the Holy Spirit to enhanse God's words
when they are read from different versions in a language
in which the user is familiar).

Which lemma (axiom) would Jesus use?

You may have misunderstood me. That could be why we are now discussing the meaning of "confusion", and why you seem to think I am arguing for one version of the Bible. (It is true that I am perfectly happy with one English Version)

I do have two English Versions. How did you know that?

I have been in a Baptist church where everyone read a passage aloud at the same time. (I think there were about 50 of us)

"The Version Dilemma": There may be other propositions. Both of the ones you listed could possibly be wrong. However, I think I agree with number two.

Now, what I was trying to say earlier: Why do we need yet one more English version of the Bible?

 

[AVBunyan]

AVBunyan: // ... the text of my King James Bible is my final authority ... //
I doubt it I suspect that you, like I and the rest of us, have
a final authority WHAT YOU THINK the Bible says.

Let me repeat - my final authority is the text of a King James Bible - I may not understand it all and misunderstand many verses but that doesn't mean the text is wrong - God just hasn't shown it to me or I haven't studied it enough.

The fault is not in the King James Bible but in the reader, like myself.

Ed - when I say the AV is my final authority either you believe me or not.

God bless

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: //Ed - when I say the AV is my final authority
either you believe me or not.//

Actually, being 'modern minded' I believe both these choices and
more

Which of the following does your 'AV' say?

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

... and he went into the city.

I ask so I can use one of my three KJVs to read
your 'AV', the one you use as a Final Authority.

BTW, I believe all three of these KJVs
to contain the inerrant word of God.
I also believe the HCSB = Christian Standard
Bible /Holman, 2003/, to contain the inerrant word
of God. If there appears to be a signifant difference
between any two of them; it means I (or you and/or I)
don't understand - not that God goofed in any
way shape or form.

 

[AVBunyan]

AVBunyan: //Ed - when I say the AV is my final authority
either you believe me or not.//

Actually, being 'modern minded' I believe both these choices and
more

Which of the following does your 'AV' say?


2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

... and she went into the city.

I ask so I can use one of my three KJVs to read
your 'AV', the one you use as a Final Authority.

The above - every Bible I checked in my house says the above.

I don't panic over "goofs"or when a Publisher takes liberties - I can compare enough to know when this happens - I, by faith, take the book in my hands to be inspired. I have found Cambridge bibles to be pretty consistent.

Ed - Do you believe your Holman is inspired or any others inspired today?

If you want to believe your Holman is without error in Mark 1:3 then I could not talk you of it.

God bless

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyon: //Ed - Do you believe your Holman is inspired
or any others inspired today?//

No, the HCSB is NOT inspired, it is an English Version
made from non-inspired original language manuscripts.
Only the Original Autographs were inspired. The
KJVs likewise are English Versions
made from non-inspired original language manuscripts.

To not document (via translator margin notes)
that the English Translations/Versions are
made from non-inspired original language manuscripts
means omitting known truth.
Bibles which omit known truth are not as honest as
are those which include the translator magin notes.

BTW, I believe all three of these KJVs
to contain the inerrant word of God.
I also believe the HCSB = Christian Standard
Bible /Holman, 2003/, to contain the inerrant word
of God. If there appears to be a signifant difference
between any two of them; it means I (or you and/or I)
don't understand - not that God goofed in any
way shape or form.
This belief is axiomatic.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Blammo: //I do have two English Versions. How did you know that?//

I have the Spiritual gift of Discernment.

Mark 1:3 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ :
A voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way for the Lord; make His paths straight!"

-Ed,
a voice of one crying out in the cyber-wilderness:
"Ease Modify the path to the Lord!"

Mark 1:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
The voice of one crying in the wildernesse,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

I see no difference between the meaning of the two
scriptures: HCSB & KJV1611 Edition.

Does somebody know of any denomination whatsoever
that bases any doctrine (even a minor one) on the
difference between 'a' and 'the' in this scripture?

In fact, the HCSB didn't come out until 2003 (I didn't get my full
HCSB until 2004); the KJV has been around since 1611.
All the big sects of the 20th century were founded in the 19th
Century (1801-1900) using the KJVs:

Christian Science
Mormons (AKA: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)
Adventist Churches
Jehovah's witnesses
etc.

 

[av1611jim]

All the big sects of the 20th century were founded in the 19th
Century (1801-1900) using the KJVs:

Christian Science
Mormons (AKA: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)
Adventist Churches
Jehovah's witnesses
etc.

And this is relevant how?

All that silly statement proves is that Hell-bound false prophets have adulterated God's Most Holy Book.

 

[Blammo]

Ed-

What is my middle name? I'll give you a hint: (It starts with an E)

You have guessed well that one of my English versions is the KJV. The other one I have, (the dusty one), is the NASV. All three of my KJVs are read often. Just as you have said: "God uses the Holy Spirit to enhance God's words". So why do I need any other version of the Bible than the KJV? It's good enough for me, you read whatever you want, and let me love my Bible. It's okay, you really don't need to make me question my Bible. (Really)

 

[rbell]

I still hear those doggone crickets.

 

[tinytim]

I still hear those doggone crickets.

A can of RAID will get rid of them!

 

[AVBunyan]

AVBunyon: //Ed - Do you believe your Holman is inspired
or any others inspired today?//

Only the Original Autographs were inspired.

Ed - would you be so kind as to show me chapter and verse for the above please.

Can you prove the above?

Kind regards

 

[Marcia]

Ed - I believe the text - footnotes are footnotes - Whatever the translators put in as footnotes matters little or nothing to me - especially when ithose footnotes you are referring to disagrees with the text.

What matters to me is the text - the text of my King James Bible is my final authority - not the footnotes.

God bless

Did you not read what I posted near the bottom of p.4? The text in Daniel you referred to was in Aramaic and means. "son of the gods." The minister was seeing a divine being - he was a pagan - he didn't know about Christ or the Messiah or anything like that. He was a pagan. And so he stated what he thought he was seeing.

The translators of the King James mistranslated this because they thought it was Jesus and so they changed it to Son of God.

It does not bother me in the least what a pagan thought the figure was. The Aramaic means, "son of the gods" and that's what the pagan guy said.

 

[tinytim]

Did you not read what I posted near the bottom of p.4? The text in Daniel you referred to was in Aramaic and means. "son of the gods." The minister was seeing a divine being - he was a pagan - he didn't know about Christ or the Messiah or anything like that. He was a pagan. And so he stated what he thought he was seeing.

The translators of the King James mistranslated this because they thought it was Jesus and so they changed it to Son of God.

It does not bother me in the least what a pagan thought the figure was. The Aramaic means, "son of the gods" and that's what the pagan guy said.

That is what I posted earlier too... It is nice to see agreement.

 

[Marcia]

That is what I posted earlier too... It is nice to see agreement.

Yes, I saw your post on this on the next page -- it was good for me to see that! :wavey:

 

[AVBunyan]

The translators of the King James mistranslated this because they thought it was Jesus and so they changed it to Son of God.

So then, how do you determine that the KJV translators blew it?

Who was in the fire - Jesus or a son of the gods?

Finally, Marcia - what is your final authority for all that you believe?

Thank you

 

[Ed Edwards]

Did you not read what I posted near the bottom of p.4? The text in Daniel you referred to was in Aramaic and means. "son of the gods." The minister was seeing a divine being - he was a pagan - he didn't know about Christ or the Messiah or anything like that. He was a pagan. And so he stated what he thought he was seeing.

The translators of the King James mistranslated this because they thought it was Jesus and so they changed it to Son of God.

It does not bother me in the least what a pagan thought the figure was. The Aramaic means, "son of the gods" and that's what the pagan guy said.

Amen, Sister Marcia -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Yes, you 'won' the debat several pages back

AVBunyon: // Who was in the fire - Jesus or a son of the gods?//

Yes. The pagan King saw it as a 'son of the gods'; I saw it as being Jesus.

 

[Marcia]

So then, how do you determine that the KJV translators blew it?

Because we can read the Aramaic words of the text (part of Daniel was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew).

Who was in the fire - Jesus or a son of the gods?

Probably Jesus (the text is not clear) but the pagan thought it was a "son of the gods" or "divine being" - his view of some kind of heavenly being. He was not a worshiper of God much less knew about the Messiah.

Finally, Marcia - what is your final authority for all that you believe?

The final authority to determine doctrine and the truth about God and Christ is the Bible. I was saved, at quite a late age compared to when most people are saved, while reading the Bible when the HS opened my understanding through God's word. I was reading Matthew 8, but the Lord had already been drawing me out of the New Age for the previous 4 months (to being saved) in supernatural ways.

I recognize that translations are not inerrant though the original texts are. Yet we can determine what the original texts are by the thousands of copies of manuscripts. There is only slight variation among them, and even with copyist errors and mistranslations, the various Bibles all teach the same thing. I'm sure that a Bible in French, German, Russian, Chinese, etc. has variations from the others but people are still saved by reading God's word in those languages.

 

[tinytim]

So then, how do you determine that the KJV translators blew it?

Who was in the fire - Jesus or a son of the gods?

Finally, Marcia - what is your final authority for all that you believe?

Thank you

Can you prove the king was talking about Jesus?
Maybe he thought it was an angel.... maybe it was... he did call it that in verse 28!
All the king knew was the 4th man was divine...not human....
a messenger from the gods...

You know this is a classic example of how a verse in the KJV has been misapplied because of sloppy translation and now causes confusion.

Oh, and even though you didn't ask me... my final authority is the Bible.... not just a 17th century translation of the Bible, but The Bible... what God inspired...... found in the preserved texts that translators use to make translations...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread it totally off topic.