Errors in Bible translations...

t3gah said:

Revelation 12:17; 12:3, 7, 9; 13:2; 16:12; 20:2

The references to a mystical/mythical "dragon" in the verses listed above is incorrect in so many bibles including the kjv, nwt, and so on, that I didn't list them all here.

In the book of Genesis 3:4, the true term or word "serpent" and "snake" of many correct translations is what is supposed to be in the book of Revelation in all those spots.

So this mistake is like the "unicorn" thing in all those other verses of the king james bible. Some bad translation of the past is still influencing the many translations of today due to tradition of men.

Click to expand...

But the Koine says δρακων in the places where you say it ought to say serpent or snake in Revelations - that's drakon transliterated and clearly means dragon, not snake. What then, makes you think that the KJV has mistranslated these verses? I'm not one to claim that the KJV is the perfect translation of the Bible, but in this instance there's clearly no error. The Koine says dragon, that's the language that Revelations was written in (not Hebrew) so what makes you think that it's an error to use it? Are you suggesting the author knew so little Greek as to be unable to distinguish between a dragon and a snake?

James

Tegah dude,

Genesis 3 does not tell the tale of a "dragon". It tells of a serpent, correct?
Revelations speaks of a dragon as in a dragon.

Whether it was Satan or not in your beliefs, the two Chapters speak of two different
creatures (or forms of Satan).Serpent and Dragon.

Serpents slither along the ground, dragons do not.

Would Peta step up to save the Unicorns from being eaten? I like tasty animals myself. As far as translations go, this has been a work in progress for quite some time and there is more than one person can read on the subject. As far as a new bible goes, I am worried that it will be too politically correct. Many of the original statements in the Bible are not politically correct nor are they pretty. It is very important to know exactly what they were saying and not try to convert it to our modern thinking.

Bennettresearch said:

As far as a new bible goes, I am worried that it will be too politically correct.

Click to expand...

Like the time they stated they wished to change the Bible to make homosexuality
ok by God.

Hi peeps;

howdy all after a long time. My point would be, I read in a book about the mistake made about the phrase "Son of God", (Uios Theou in greek) while translating it from Hebrew into Greek. As i've read, the Greeks had only one word for "son", while in hebrew (and also in arabic) there are two "sons" used in the language, like, when someone calls on a child he would say "son, come here" he wouldn't use the same word that he uses for his own son, in hebrew. So we have two words for son; one a "spiritual son" and a "bodily son". Any friends who knows what these words would be, i would appreciate their help. Anyway, so, what i mean is that while translating this into greek, the son here was percieved to have a bodily relation with God, because of the lack of words in greek to mean otherwise (i.e. "spiritual son"). Only thus we can understand another phrase "Children of God".

Omer said:

Hi peeps;

howdy all after a long time. My point would be, I read in a book about the mistake made about the phrase "Son of God", (Uios Theou in greek) while translating it from Hebrew into Greek. As i've read, the Greeks had only one word for "son", while in hebrew (and also in arabic) there are two "sons" used in the language, like, when someone calls on a child he would say "son, come here" he wouldn't use the same word that he uses for his own son, in hebrew. So we have two words for son; one a "spiritual son" and a "bodily son". Any friends who knows what these words would be, i would appreciate their help. Anyway, so, what i mean is that while translating this into greek, the son here was percieved to have a bodily relation with God, because of the lack of words in greek to mean otherwise (i.e. "spiritual son"). Only thus we can understand another phrase "Children of God".

Click to expand...

Where is it that you believe the word son was translated from Hebrew into Greek? If it's Old Testament you might have a point but the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew in the first place but Koine (Greek) rendering such a mistranslation impossible. I expect that the title Son of God is far more common in the NT than the OT and so doubt that any such error was made. Also, given that the OT was translated into Greek before Christ by Alexandrian Jews, I suspect that they might have made it very clear if the word son was not to be read as literal and used a different word. I'm certainly unconvinced by the argument.

James

Hi Omer

I read your post, and here are my comments:

FIRST, The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek with the exception of Matthew which was written in Aramaic; therefore, there would have been no translation from Hebrew (Ancient) in to Koine Greek. Only the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew (Ancient) into Koine Greek at Alexander and was known as the Septuagint or LXX, but not the NT.

SECOND, Jesus (Yeshua) was the first of creation, firstborn, per Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

THIRD, Now the Bible says Jesus (Yeshua) is the only begotten of his Father (YHWH) at:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (AV)

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (AV)

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (AV)

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (AV)

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (AV)

Now what does firstborn mean?

Easton;s Bible Dictionary defines it as follows:

(Gr. Logos), one of the titles of our Lord, found only in the writings of John #Joh 1:1-14 1Jo 1:1 Re 19:13 As such, Christ is the revealer of God. His office is to make God known. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" #Joh 1:18 This title designates the divine nature of Christ. As the Word, he "was in the beginning" and "became flesh." "The Word was with God and "was God," and was the Creator of all things (comp.) #Ps 33:6 107:20 119:89 147:18 Isa 40:8 [source - Easton's Bible Dictionary]

Another Bible Dictionary defines it as follows:

How he is the "only-begotten Son." Jesus' being called the "only-begotten Son" (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God's sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God's sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So "the Word" was Jehovah's "only-begotten Son" in a particular sense, even as Isaac was Abraham's "only-begotten son" in a particular sense (his father already having another son but not by his wife Sarah).-Heb 11:17; Ge 16:15. [source - Insight, Vol 2]

The International Encyclopedia of the Bible defines it as follows:

ONLY BEGOTTEN on'-li be-got-'-'n (monogenes):

Although the English words are found only 6 times in the New Testament, the Greek word appears 9 times, and often in the Septuagint. It is used literally of an only child: "the only son of his mother" (Luke 7:12); "an only daughter" (Luke 8:42); "mine only child" (Luke 9:38); "Isaac .... his only begotten" (Hebrews 11:17). In all other places in the New Testament it refers to Jesus Christ as "the only begotten Son of God" (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9). In these passages, too, it might be translated as "the only son of God"; for the emphasis seems to be on His uniqueness, rather than on His sonship, though both ideas are certainly present. He is the son of God in a sense in which no others are. "Monogenes describes the absolutely unique relation of the Son to the Father in His divine nature; prototokos describes the relation of the Risen Christ in His glorified humanity to man" (Westcott on Hebrews 1:6). Christ's uniqueness as it appears in the above passages consists of two things:

He reveals the Father:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). Men therefore behold His glory, "glory as of the only begotten from the Father" (1:14).

He is the mediator of salvation:

"God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him" (1John 4:9; John 3:16); "He that believeth not (on him) hath been judged already" (John 3:18). Other elements in His uniqueness may be gathered from other passages, as His sinlessness, His authority to forgive sins, His unbroken communion with the Father, and His unique knowledge of Him. To say that it is a uniqueness of nature or essence carries thought no farther, for these terms still need definition, and they can be defined only in terms of His moral consciousness, of His revelation of God, and especially of His intimate union as Son with the Father. [source - International Encyclopedia of the Bible].

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

I feel that a new bible should be written, one that actually wants all people to get along. It would say that if you are a nice person, etc., you will get into "paradise," otherwise you will have to try again.

Hi Delta Yankee

FIRST, You do not write a Bible, the Bible was written and finished almost 2,000 years ago. The Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of the Creator (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today who take transcription and then later typing it out. In other words, it has only one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when most writers/individuals can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.
To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, etc.

SECOND, One poster asked the following on another forum clearly showing an attitude of hate, self interest, and a lust for power in her statement against another poster. It is not that the Bible is NOT WRITTEN right, but many do NOT have the right heart condition.

So tell me if I should stone Amer or make a slave out of him!!!

Click to expand...

Jesus (Yeshua) in speaking of the commandments clearly showed we should be loving of our neighbors which would mean we should not seek to stone them and/or enslave them at Matthew 22:37-40, " Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."(AV).

What is more with respect stoning another he lead by example as shown at John 8:1-11, " 1 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (AV). Speaks for itself does it not?[/quote].

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

The King James Version is the one I prefer, written from the received text. I won't bore you with the details of why as there are many sites that can tell you that.

Joeboonda

DeltaYankee said:

I feel that a new bible should be written, one that actually wants all people to get along. It would say that if you are a nice person, etc., you will get into "paradise," otherwise you will have to try again.

Click to expand...

Ummm, the current Bible does want all people to get along (love thy neighbor, etc.). And it does say you'll get into paradise.

I guess what it doesn't say is you won't get to try again. This is a one time shot.

Hi Joeboonda

The Facts on the KING JAMES VERSION (KJV) or (AV)

Also called the Authorized version, this text dates from 1611. It is

a revision of the Bishop's Bible (which was somewhat based on the

original languages) by a commission appointed by King James I. It

was favourably received by the authorities and authorized to be read

in the churches. It has had an important influence on English

literature. However, it is based on III CE (or later) Byzantine

Greek texts, which have subsequently proven to be fairly unreliable

from a text critical perspective. The New King James Version (NKJV)

updates the language of the KJV while preserving its basic literary

structure. There is also The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21).

None of these versions are recommended for study purposes.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

armageddon said:

how would you know if the bible is "more accurate"? isnt bible translations part opinion because not everyone thinks one word means the same thing??

Click to expand...

Yes and no,
Yes there are certain words that can be translated differently. Let me give you two good examples:
The word 'no' and 'him' are homonyms. pronounced 'Lo' in hebrew.

The NASB, and every other english translation I know of, translates II Kings 8:10 as:
Then Elisha said to him, "Go, say to him, 'You will surely recover,' but the LORD has shown me that he will certainly die."

Although I'm sure Jayhawker has looked at more english translations then I. So I'm sure I'll be corrected if there is a version that puts the correct one.

This is the proper translation:
Then Elisha said to him, "Go, say, 'You will surely not recover,' and the LORD has shown me that he will certainly die."

There is a big difference in meaning between the two.

Also, there are some problems with translations that translate the same word wrong in one place to further their interpretation. The word Lamo, means them. The word Lo, as I said above, means him.

When people start translating Lamo (plural) as him, we have a problem with translation which isn't based on how a word can be translated, just pure ignorance.

iris89 said:

Hi Delta Yankee

FIRST, You do not write a Bible, the Bible was written and finished almost 2,000 years ago. The Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of the Creator (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today who take transcription and then later typing it out. In other words, it has only one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is not something in which I can believe. There were over 200 different documents considered to go into the first bible, most of which were not included. Why these inconsistent books (and I DO NOT use that word lightly) were chosen, I don't know.


My feelings have always been if this was THE most important book, then god wouldn't have allowed ANY inconsistencies. Each would show the same story as the others, not one that's "closer than most."

DeltaYankee said:

Unfortunately, that is not something in which I can believe. There were over 200 different documents considered to go into the first bible, most of which were not included. Why these inconsistent books (and I DO NOT use that word lightly) were chosen, I don't know.


My feelings have always been if this was THE most important book, then god wouldn't have allowed ANY inconsistencies. Each would show the same story as the others, not one that's "closer than most."

Click to expand...

I'd like to know what the 200 documents were. Do you have a list?

Hi Everyone

The subject of Bible canon is much too complex to even give a cursory coverage on a BB forum such as this. There are many very thick books on the subject that are boring to read, but if you want an accurate but relatively short abstract coverage on the subject, go to the following site and you will find some.

Bible Data and Bible Canon

http://www.network54.com/Forum/388559

For a list of these books that were NOT included, read "A Lost Book of the Bible" on page two of this site.

Also for specific details on Bible canon, read "Details on Bible Canon" on page 2 - 4 articles.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

iris89 said:

Hi Everyone

The subject of Bible canon is much too complex to even give a cursory coverage on a BB forum such as this. There are many very thick books on the subject that are boring to read, but if you want an accurate but relatively short abstract coverage on the subject, go to the following site and you will find some.

Bible Data and Bible Canon

http://www.network54.com/Forum/388559

For a list of these books that were NOT included, read "A Lost Book of the Bible" on page two of this site.

Also for specific details on Bible canon, read "Details on Bible Canon" on page 2 - 4 articles.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that this list A Lost Book of the Bible is rathern inept. You list people instead of books.

There are pretty good reasons why these people are not in the NT:

Apelles (a student of Marcion), Bardesanes, Basilides, Isidore, Julius Cassianus, Justin Martyr (a Christian in the second century), Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar Serapion, Marcion, Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic Emperor of Rome), Melchizedek, Melito of Sardis, Muratorian Canon (I can't believe that this is listed - its a canon), Origen, Pantaenus, Papias, Passion Narrative, Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs , Philostratus, Pistis Sophia, Pliny the Younger (famous second century Roman), Polycarp to the Philippians, Polycrates of Ephesus, Ptolemy (opponent of Julius Caesar), Quadratus of Athens, Rhodon (late Christian Bishop), Suetonius (Roman historian), Tacitus, Tatian's Address to the Greeks, Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Theophilus of Caesarea, Valentinus, Victor I

iris89 said:

Hi Everyone

The subject of Bible canon is much too complex to even give a cursory coverage on a BB forum such as this. There are many very thick books on the subject that are boring to read, but if you want an accurate but relatively short abstract coverage on the subject, go to the following site and you will find some.

Bible Data and Bible Canon

http://www.network54.com/Forum/388559

For a list of these books that were NOT included, read "A Lost Book of the Bible" on page two of this site.

Also for specific details on Bible canon, read "Details on Bible Canon" on page 2 - 4 articles.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Click to expand...

I prefer Richard Carrier's Version on NT,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
and
Gerald Larue on OT:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml

I do not believe you have read any of the above?

t3gah said:

I remember finding out about these when I was reading my Tanakh. Anyway, the mistakes are in the King James Version bible. They mistakenly thought a term re'em meant 'single horn cow' which in medievel times they rendered as "unicorn" the mythical animal.

Click to expand...

Actually, re'em means a wild ox, what they used to refer to as an aurochs. I don't think it has anything to do with having one or two horns.

But your point is entirely accurate and well-taken. Most translations are riddled with errors. And, unfortunately, translations like the JPS Tanakh, which have relatively few errors, are incredibly dry: they strip the power out of the text by rendering poetry into prose, and even they still tend to translate idiom over-literally.

Robert Alter's translation of the Torah is generally better than JPS's, although he still tends to render poetry into prose. The best translation of Torah that I have ever seen is Everett Fox's Five Books of Moses: brilliant, breathtaking, and remarkably error-free. If there were a whole Tanakh translated like that, it would be invaluable.

But as things stand, there's really no replacement for just learning Hebrew and reading the original.


**EDIT: whoops, just saw this was a thread resurrection...sorry...**