Bible Traslated Correctly

[Jayhawker Soule]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the King James Version is regarded as the most accurate translation currently.

By whom? Based on what criteria?

The KJV was, in my opinion, a remarkable achievement, but not so much so as to render post-1611 philology irrelevant.

 

[Gaura Priya]

By whom? Based on what criteria?

The KJV was, in my opinion, a remarkable achievement, but not so much so as to render post-1611 philology irrelevant.

Archaic language, obsolete vocabulary, insertions in which modern manuscripts don't even have, ("for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory...") etc.

 

[Riverwolf]

With the entire internet at your disposal, you mean to say you cannot find one factoid to disprove my statement and instead resort to this?

Weak soup.:sleep:

You're not the first to make that argument; it's been done hundreds of times over. We're kind of sick of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Archaic language, obsolete vocabulary, insertions in which modern manuscripts don't even have, ("for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory...") etc.

Your point?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Rubbish.

Don't you mean robbish?

 

[Gaura Priya]

Your point?

I have a bias against the King James Bible as the most accurate in this time period? :flirt:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a bias against the King James Bible ...

... and it shows.

 

[JacobEzra.]

If you want to read something old, read Duay-Rheims. Go original :yes: lol

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Pharisees and Sadducees had the original unaltered texts in their own language ...

Rubbish.

Don't you mean robbish?

More like roovish or ravvish. The consonant is a fricative and the rest depends on which diacritical sign is presumed. The problem, of course, is that in your case we're dealing with the ideosyncratic presumption of a Greek reading Willie Nelson fan who thinks a Maccabee is a charity spelling contest run by the Ronald McDonald House.

 

[espo35]

You're not the first to make that argument; it's been done hundreds of times over. We're kind of sick of it.

"You seriously need to recheck your "fact" for accuracy and truth."~ Mestemia


In what way does the above sentence reflect what your post said?


So, as a moderator, are you telling me that it is ok to be rude as long as I am "sick" of someone making a valid point which has been made before?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My facts are dead-nuts on. Try Googling "Bible inconsistencies", you'll hit hundreds of lists compiled by nay-sayers chock full of miniscule nothings, the combined import of which would fit rather neatly into the vest pocket of a tse-tse fly.

<yawn> silly blather </yawn>

 

[darkstar]

With the entire internet at your disposal, you mean to say you cannot find one factoid to disprove my statement and instead resort to this?

Weak soup.:sleep:

Funny, I stated two HUGE differences based on translation back on page 2 that you conveniently ignored. There are plenty of translations that have serious implications.

FYI citing a Google search as your source of argument is cutting your legs out from under you. You realize that Google orders links based on 2 factors. Popularity and how much they're paid to put the links up on the top of the list right?
Do a little digging, maybe actually listen to ACTUAL linguists and scholars. Take an advanced religious studies course (not talking about at a church or a college focusing on teaching the bible, but looking at religions historically and academically) and you'll find out all kinds of stuff about all religions.

 

[Spirited]

I was wondering about this after i read in an artical about the Mormons believing the bible should be translated currently (had a problem with this). i would think that everyone in the world would want this. so if there is a translation that states: "if you see a flying pig with yellow and pink strips and white feather wings you will be saved?" would that be acceptable with all Christians? or is the translation important out side of Believing Christ is our savor?

or in other words whatever is put into the bible is what God wants regardless if it is true or not?

and yes i have seen other post and forums on this but not really answering the question.

Well, as someone who has studied theological translation briefly (yes that's a subject), I understand the problems that can occur. First of all, the English Bible isn't translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible, it's translated from the Latin version. So that is already "going down the rabbit hole" a bit if you will. Secondly, figurative speech that made sense to everyone back then is often completely lost on us today (the fruit of the Garden of Eden has been much debated as an example).

So the problem is not always simply getting more concise and exact language, like translating fruit to avocado, but rather, finding out what "avocado" figuratively meant back then.

 

[McBell]

With the entire internet at your disposal, you mean to say you cannot find one factoid to disprove my statement and instead resort to this?

Weak soup.:sleep:

You have already shown that you are not interested in truth or facts with your ignoring of post #12.

Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

So, as a moderator, are you telling me that it is ok to be a rude as_wipe as long as I am "sick" of someone making a valid point which has been made before?

Interesting how you would flat out ignore a post that point blank shows you are flat out wrong then whine about someone being rude.

 

[sojourner]

Well, as someone who has studied theological translation briefly (yes that's a subject), I understand the problems that can occur. First of all, the English Bible isn't translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible, it's translated from the Latin version. So that is already "going down the rabbit hole" a bit if you will. Secondly, figurative speech that made sense to everyone back then is often completely lost on us today (the fruit of the Garden of Eden has been much debated as an example).

So the problem is not always simply getting more concise and exact language, like translating fruit to avocado, but rather, finding out what "avocado" figuratively meant back then.

That's not entirely true. While the Vulgate is one important source, other texts, such as the LXX and MT, as well as Qumran documents and other ancient codices and fragments are also considered. Translation is a much larger project than simply "translating the Latin.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's not entirely true. While the Vulgate is one important source, other texts, such as the LXX and MT, as well as Qumran documents and other ancient codices and fragments are also considered. Translation is a much larger project than simply "translating the Latin.

Do you read Latin?

 

[espo35]

Actually there are several HUGE issues with translation that many linguists and theology scholars have brought up.
One is that it says "God separated Heaven and earth, instead of Created" another is the commonly disputed "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" which in the Hebrew has been said to more accurately describe a person who poisons others or uses magic to harm others. Not a practitioner of magic itself.

These are "HUGE issues"???? I don't agree. But of course, a subjective word like "Huge" is one often used by "linguists and theology scholars....".

There are many more things that linguists and other scholars have brought up that has been possibly translated wrong, but I won't list them all here.
Btw, there are also translation issues with the Edda (my religious myths) and almost ANY translated text. Which is why I just shake my head when I encounter people that take any religious text as 100% word of God/Gods

Where did I ever say anything about 100% word of God?

 

[espo35]

Interesting how you would flat out ignore a post that point blank shows you are flat out wrong then whine about someone being rude.

YOU didn't make the post which refuted my statement.... YOU just peeped "you're wrong" with nary a single bit of supporting fact.

Maybe you were just being lazy, not rude?

If that's the case, I will gladly post an updated opinion of you.

 

[espo35]

<yawn> silly blather </yawn>

And....

YOU didn't make the post which refuted my statement.... YOU just peeped "you're wrong" with nary a single bit of supporting fact.

Maybe you were just being lazy, not rude?

If that's the case, I will gladly post an updated opinion of you.