Which is the most accurate?

The most accurate would be to learn fluently the Biblical languages. It is unlikely to happen though since most people would prefer to argue that the KJV is the only word of God or condemn education.

 

Although I myself use the KJV, I am by on means a KJV only person, and feel that those who are, are in error. I think that it is important in doing Textual Criticism, that we compare the readings of other versions, and then, prayerfully to decide, based on the evidence, and not our own preference, which is the original reading.

If you can learn the original languages, then this is an advantage, as the Bible was not written in English, originally. But, here again, choosing the right Hebrew/Greek text is of the utmost importance, as some cannot be trusted. If you have access to different Greek texts, for example, Scrivener, Tischendorf, etc, then you could compare them and be in a better position to judge for yourself the correct reading. It is my own opinion, that the most important "factor", is the Holy Spirit, since He is the real Author of the original Bible, and it is only He who can help us to determine which reading or version is correct

 

It's already been done for us. Take and read! Knowing Hebrew and Greek is a definite plus, though. Just the error of Genesis 1:16 in translating asah as "made" instead of "appoint" shows how necessary it is to know Hebrew.

"Made" is ok if a person doesn't make the mistake of implying that it is a synonym or interchangeable with bara. Asa means "did, form, fashion, appoint, accomplish, make, etc."

God created the sun, moon, and stars in verse one. He appointed them to "govern" the day and night in verse 16.

So knowing Hebrew clears this mess up.

 

I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination but I am an educated man. As such, a careful reading of your post reveals you have shot yourself in the foot.

You said asah means, "did, form, fashion, accomplish, appoint make etc..."

And in the same breath said it is a mistake to translate it as "made".

Obviously it is acceptable as you have said. But you then imply it is not acceptable, (according to your understanding).

But I do get your point. It would be helpful if I knew Hebrew so I could point out the rabid inconsistencies of our modern "scribes" and their biases.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Which is more accurate? A Japanese person learning english and reading the Constitution of the US in english or a translation of the Constitution in Japanese?

Learning and being fluent in a new language is difficult. But when done, original languages are always preferred over translations.

 

Ahhhh, the vagarities of language......

You know, something that has always bothered me...

I have seen (posted on this board) accusations as to various translators being "baby-baptizers", (and I won't go into all the other things)..you get my drift.

I rather think that those translation committees were truly, prayerfully trying to give a faithful rendering to the scripture that they held as holy and sacred.....Understanding that their best efforts could/would be flawed to some extent.

Isn't it wonderful though, how God has used different translations of His word to bring people to Himself?

I think that it is important to study and have at least a rudimentary grasp of the original languages, but in the final analysis...it is the Holy Spirit that opens our eyes to grasp and understand what God would have us understand....(is there anyone here who understands less now than when they were first saved?).

And is it not also a testimony to God's providence, that among all mainstream translations.....The saving grace of Jesus Christ is clearly presented?

Just some food for thought....

 

This "accusation" is a critique in like or similar kind of the accusations against Wescott and Hort based upon their personal theology.

Why not hold the KJVO to one of their own standards of judgment:
That is: The theology of the translators?

HankD

 

Fluently learning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic would be the most accurate. I have not done that, so I use a variety of English translations to get the sense of the scriptures. Since I prefer the traditional texts that the KJV, Geneva, Tyndale's, Bishops, NKJV, ect. is based on I use those the most and reference some of the other MV's (NIV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, ect.) less frequently.

 

Jim,

You don't read to well, do you?

I said "made" is ok "if."

You see, "if" you do not make the mistake of saying that asah and bara are synonyms, which they aren't, or saying that they are interchangeable, which they aren't.

What God creates (bara) he does (asa).

Knowing the general meaning of asa allows for "make" or "made." But since most people don't understant how general the meaning is for "made" in the Hebrew to English translation, it would better be rendered "appoint." Then no one would make the mistake of thinking that God created or "made" the sun, moon, and stars on day four, as though they didn't already exist when he created the "heavens" in verse one.

 

AMen, great answer. For those of us who cannot (or do not wish to) learn the Greek/Hebrew, the alternative is shown clearly above. Otherwise, if we have the capability and time to learn the ancient languages, all the more power to us.

 

Aside from your personal slur;

Ladies and Gentlemen; I offer for your consideration the above quoted illustration where an "expert's" translation is marred by his obviously biased interpretation of what Scripture SHOULD say. (Sarcasm)

FYI; Many good and godly folks have not placed such an interpretation upon your poor example of translational "blunders". FYI; Gen 1:1 should not be interpreted as you would propose and many have written extensively to refute such a careless eisegesis as you here have offered.

All of which is to illustrate that perhaps your "know-it-all" attitude is glaringly inadequate to prove your point. Statements such as; "Since most people don't understand..." and "No one would make the mistake of thinking..."proves my point quite well. I need go no further than this. You have shot yourself in the foot.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I agree that BARA and ASA are not totally synonymous, otherwise there would be no need for one of the two words. Are there any places where it says God made (ASA) man or the heavens & earth, etc.? If so, is there any significance that the author chose ASA over BARA at those places?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Yes, there are.

And no, I don't think its siginificant. Asa is so general in meaning that it can be used in Hebrew to state that God did something, made something, appointed something, fashioned something, formed something, even created something.

Example in English.

Did God create the universe? Yes. God did it.

Did God make the universe? Yes. God made it.

It both examples we understand that God did something, namely, "made" the universe.

It seems to me that create is included in the idea of "asa" but bara is more specialized and limited in meaning than asa.

At least, that's my take on it.

 

Some argue that bara and asa are used in the same sentence or several sentences apart in Genesis 1. They then claim that the words are interchangeable.

I dont' think that's the case.

As soon as God creates (bara) something, he did (asa) it.

How do you get away from that fact. What God creates he does. Of course the two verbs can be in the same sentence or used several sentences apart to describe the creative (bara) work that God does(asa).

 

AMen, great answer. For those of us who cannot (or do not wish to) learn the Greek/Hebrew, the alternative is shown clearly above. Otherwise, if we have the capability and time to learn the ancient languages, all the more power to us. </font>[/QUOTE]They have interlinear Bibles for y'all as well (and for us who are learning the languages in school). They have the original language and under it the literal translation (sometimes with Strongs numbers so you can pull out a lexicon and find alternate renderings of the word) and on the sides of where the original and literal translation is, there is a particular Bible version that you can compare it to.