Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My thoughts? It's either poorly translated by people relatively unfamiliar with Koine or deliberately mistranslated to support an agenda. I know which one I believe, but I'll let you decide for yourself.dan said:What are your thoughts? Do you like it? Do you dislike it? Why? How? When?!?!
i like it because its not clouded by the traditions of mandan said:What are your thoughts? Do you like it? Do you dislike it? Why? How? When?!?!
Same is true for me....Terrywoodenpic said:I have not seen it, and not likely to. I already have too many versions.
Franz, Frederick who was probably the only one of the 6 "translators" to have actually translated.IacobPersul said:My thoughts? It's either poorly translated by people relatively unfamiliar with Koine or deliberately mistranslated to support an agenda. I know which one I believe, but I'll let you decide for yourself.
James
More of a paraphrase of the KJV 1611, but with some interesting changes.Aqualung said:I don't particularly mind it. It is not my favourite Bible (My favourite bing the LDS KJV because of the foot-notes and becuase KJV English is just enjoyable and funny), and it isn't a particularly interesting version. I guess it's pretty accurate to the old texts, though.
Is this the JW version? If it is then it's most likely full of JW traditions...i like it because its not clouded by the traditions of man
what traditions would that be ?Victor said:Is this the JW version? If it is then it's most likely full of JW traditions...
~Victor
Steve said:Heres another example...
Heb. 1:8 - This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as "...God is your throne..." The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as "...Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!
this eg and more from here
And this link shows clearly the bias when translating the Greek word "proskuneo" - here
yes i agree its always best to not take others word for it , its best to discover the truth for ourselvesdhiannian said:More of a paraphrase of the KJV 1611, but with some interesting changes.
Even more peculiar, these changes often countradict themselves in other parts.
Check it out.
Don't take anyone elses word for it, compare, that's when you discover the truth.
http://www.carm.org/jw/heb1_8.htm Deals specifically with your points just raised.may said:Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression "God, thy God," showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads "Your divine throne." (NE says, "Your throne is like Gods throne." JP [verse 7]: "Thy throne given of God.") Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit "upon Jehovahs throne." (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the "throne," or Source and Upholder of Christs kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: "The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock."The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26............so as can be seen the NWT is a very accurate translation always wanting the pure word of truth to be made known
I am obviously in good company, Scott1, Terry; The truth is that I am fairly new to the Bible.Scott1 said:Same is true for me....
maybe ,you may find that rather than muddying the waters it will become clearerand then end up as pure water of truthmichel said:I am obviously in good company, Scott1, Terry; The truth is that I am fairly new to the Bible.
From what I know. The KJV is the 'accepted' version and base for us to work on - I am not going to muddy the waters by trying another 'brand'