Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I checked out the site ! The pastor you posted and I agree on modern translations.
Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?
- Thread starter Leatherneck0311
- Start date
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Back in the '70s it was the OASV that was supposedly the best one.
Unimportant, of course since they all say the same thing, and the BEST translation will always be the one you'll actually READ.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I believe the Holy Spirit is more than qualified to teach me. I feel no need to “prove myself” , which has zero to do with exposing corrupt translations. I know who I am in Christ , which again has nothing to do with exposing corrupt translations. If one does not know what or why they believe, as many are, they are easily led into error.
one can be confident when they read the Nas/esv/Nkjv that they will not be led into error!
GeneZ
Well-known member
You should hear what he is capable of extracting from the Hebrew and Greek.. and Aramaic where applicable.
God provides for all our needs. According to what we make to be our needs. Pick a favorite book from the KJV and order the lessons to see how rich and powerful the original languages portray and contain. If anyone attempted to make a truly accurate translation it would need to be many volumes and not a book to put on our lap. God is not shallow. The original languages represent His nature.
Teaching from the Hebrew and Greek is not some academic exercise for intellectual eggheads. Matter of fact certain passages (ones that translators tip toe around) contain earthy and vulgar language intended to be for those habitually hardened by their sins to hit them over their head with.. with something that hits home. Gut punches. In the KJV we get a man wearing Shakespearean leotards speaking flowery platitudes. We can never learn the attitude of God that way.
When Communist Russia wanted to ban the Bible? One reason was for containing pornography.. it was not referring to translations. Scholars of ancient languages studied and saw things we are "sheltered" from by a puritanical mentality. Its one reason why perverted people find it easy to confront many Christians and not feel shame. For with translations we haven't a clue as to what God really thinks and how He really dealt with it.
The Bible is for adults, not just children.
GeneZ
Well-known member
Its not about "corrupt translations."
Its about ... Yours is corrupted, too!
Its pathetic what has been launched here. No translation is free from corruption in the format we have them offered. They are only there to be seeds for our curiosity to seek to better understand God's Word. They are more questions than answers. Good questions.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I don’t think that is true.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I am truly sorry that your confidence in God and His promise to preserve His word is so lacking, and I am not your enemy.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I believe the KJV translators did a good job eg.
GeneZ
Well-known member
He has preserved His Word. You're just looking in the wrong place. That is, if you want to know the fullness of His Word.
It takes knowing and having the fullness of His Word to walk in the fullness of Christ.
When Jesus stood in the synagogue and read from the scroll? Was that the King James version he was reading from?
Was it from any modern version?
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
No and no but the same scrolls Jesus read from ended up in the majority texts and that was translated into the KJV.
GeneZ
Well-known member
So does that pastor I showed you! But, he had hours to go into detail, as to what the words conveyed to the hearer at the time of writing.
What the original languages contain has many times a richness and depth that even Shakespeare could not contain in a single book. He would have needed to write in volumes to convey the original intent of the Scriptures.
Remember? Taken from the same exact Greek words... The King James translators gave us - "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit."
The word "ghost" implies someone who is dead. Good and accurate translation?
Considering that the Greeks had no word of ghost? They would use the word... "a shade." Hardly "spirit."
Are the angels now "ghosts?"
Come on. How can anyone believe you? When you keep showing yourself too weak to be honest with us.
The King James translators gave us - "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit." Same Greek words!
Can you be honest? Has denial over come your ability to reason?
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Talk about splitting hairs:
Is There a Difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost?
When one reads the Bible in the King James translation they will find that the third Person of the Trinity is sometimes referred to as the “Holy Spirit” while other times as the “Holy Ghost.” We should not assume that it is referring to two different personages.In Tudor, or Elizabethan, English the words “ghost” and “spirit” meant the same thing. Thus, some ancient translations of Scripture, including the King James Version, have the terms Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost referring to the Spirit of God. Yet there was no difference in meaning at that time.
www. Blue letterBible.com
En Hakkore
Well-known member
This would probably be the area where any future discussion between us would take place as this overstates the text-critical value of LXX, which as a collection of Greek translations (and even a few new compositions in Greek) is uneven. Slavishly literal translations in some books, which are helpful in reconstructing the conjectured Hebrew Vorlagen, give way to paraphrasing in other books. There is also the matter of mixed text types, such as the Old Greek and Kaige sections in Reigns... the former is extremely valuable, the latter not so much since it reflects revision toward a Hebrew text now found in MT. Then there are the obvious secondary elements in LXX such as double translations and large additions to books such as Esther and Daniel. I think it best to leave the evaluation of LXX as a valuable witness to the earliest recoverable forms of some books of the Hebrew Bible.
Agreed... this position ignores entirely the importance of LXX in textual criticism of Israel's sacred writings.
This takes seriously linguistic analyses of the Hebrew both internally and in comparison to epigraphic evidence, but we draw quite different conclusions from it. For example, while you appear to see the Pentateuch -- which aside from a few archaic sections in Genesis 49, Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 33 reflects Hebrew of the kingdom period -- as heavily reworked into this later form of Hebrew whereas I see it as written at this later time. Kudos for acknowledging the linguistic evidence that leads a majority of Hebrew Bible scholars to conclude the Pentateuch was, for the most part, composed much later than the time period ascribed to Moses in the second millennium BCE.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
En Hakkore
Well-known member
For the record and for any reading this thread who didn't see it in the other, your erroneous claims concerning this matter were debunked here. Clearly you don't read Hebrew, but even you should be able to see from basic character recognition that there is no etymological connection between 'Sodom' (סדם) and the word you keep insisting can only be translated 'sodomite' (קדש).
Kind regards,
Jonathan
OldShepherd
Well-known member
In the late 70s I was teaching a high school level Sunday School class. One of the young ladies had a copy of The Living Bible. I asked her to read 1 Samuel 20:30. She opened her Bible turned tomato red, stumbled and stuttered and said "I'm not reading that."
1 Samuel 20:30
30 Saul flew into a rage and told Jonathan, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have chosen Jesse's son to your shame and to the shame of your mother who bore you?
In the earlier TLB it read ess, oh, bee.30 Saul flew into a rage and told Jonathan, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have chosen Jesse's son to your shame and to the shame of your mother who bore you?
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Actually ,it is more akin to common sense.
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Whose "common sense" would that be? You are making claims about English translations of a Hebrew text without knowing a single dagesh lene about the latter... and it shows, reflecting poorly on your position in general and on your specific refusal to acknowledge even some of the most basic and irrefutable of textual and linguistic facts.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Again sodom-sodomy-sodomite it is not rocket science. There was a city given over to homosexuality I.e. Sodom -they committed sodomy ( homosexuals)- homosexuals are labeled by scripture as sodomites not temple prostitutes.