1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question (about the bible versions)

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by criticizer, Oct 15, 2005.

  1. Dentonz

    Dentonz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    234
    Ratings:
    +27
    Hello, I believe the best translation is the one you will read. You can not gain any knowledge of the word unless you read it.

    And the differences between the faiths you mentioned are all man made. If you want to know what God wants you to do; read his word. The Bible says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Don't try to follow religion, find your relationship with Jesus Christ.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    We can debate how many angels can dance on the head of a needle, but why?

    As Detonz said, the best version is the one you read. The english translations are just THAT. Like any translation, there will be idiosyncrasies and the like. So what? God is more than powerful to work through all these to change a man's heart: that he might seek and subsequently FIND the living God.

    BTW, as you look at the various sects, realise that there are many of us who don't belong to ANY of them: we are merely Christians. We will not ascribe to any other label.
     
  3. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    The Greek already made a translation from Hebrew for the OT, and there is no clear indication whether the NT was written in Hebrew, Aramic, or Greek. So before Catholic stopped other people from translating, and stuck to the Latin version, and all priests must study Latin, is not trying to maintain the original meaning of the scripture, but is more like the monopoly of the Catholic church so that not many will question how those chosen to be priests interprete the scripture.
     
  4. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    Jews, not Greeks, translated the OT into Koine, producing the Septuagint, though this was done at the request of the (Greek) Ptolemaic Pharaoh. There's also a lot of evidence that the NT was, in fact, written in Koine. I'm told by various Greek priests (my Greek knowledge being nowhere near good enough to see this) that you can see when reading some of the texts that the author was not a native Greek speaker but someone for whom Koine was a second language and, given the status of Koine as the lingua franca of the eastern mediterranean even before the Roman Empire, it certainly would have made more sense to use it than, say, Aramaic. It's also worth noting that the Aramaic Pe****ta is a more recent translation from Koine rather than an older text. The undivided Catholic Church did not exclusively use Latin, this was a post-Schism Roman Catholic idea. In the east, missionary activities generally began by translating the Bible into the local language and, apart from a reasonably brief peculiar period when the Romanians used Slavonic, the Scriptures and the Liturgy have always been in the vernacular.

    James
     
  5. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    Thansk for the clarification.
     
  6. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
  7. Storm Moon

    Storm Moon † Spiritual Warrior †

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    116
    Ratings:
    +14
    Wasn't the King James Version re-written and altered according to King Jame's belief system?
     
  8. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Mostly,

    the KJV uses an obsolete dialect of English. Why study scripture that is written in a language that you can not comprehend!
     
  9. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    So go and learn the obsolete dialect of English to fully comprehend the Bible. Remember early priests have to study Latin in order to be able to understand the bible fully.:D
     
  10. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    Why? None of the Bible was written in Latin. I always find it rather strange that people go to the effort of learning a dead language just so that they can read an old translation.

    James
     
  11. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Most religious orders I know teach Greek and Hebrew to seminarians BEFORE Latin.... and Latin is not taught to Priest for Bible study, but for the Liturgy.... they start to learn (at least Jesuits) Greek in the first (of 13 years) year of studies.
     
  12. sandy whitelinger

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    Yet it is quite comprehensible. I even know children who understand, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
     
  13. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Not really... the KJV's rendition of I Corinthians 13 really screws things up for us. BTW, I don't see you writing in that style... why? It is indeed obsolete, and there is NO scriptural reason to use it over a translation into modern English. Only spiritual arrogance and nearsightedness. :D

    Mark 7:6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
    " 'These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
    7 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." NIV
     
  14. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    I believe the reason is to go to the original earliest version, so that the error transmitted in translation can be avoided.
     
  15. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    I thought the Septuagint was not referred to by early Catholics until the 16th century, with the birth of the Protestants, and hence the revival of the Greek version since Luther did not trust the Latin translation used by Pope and the Catholics during that time?
     
  16. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    This is a fact?


     
  17. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    In fact, English bible is near to the last language used



    Not counting the no longer existing John Wycliffe "Morningstar of the Reformation" version, but this is the heretic copy! Tyndale may be the best earliest translation. We also have Coverdale, Cranver, Geneva, Bishop, before the KJV came into existence.

    Since English version came in so late, it is best to trust the Vulgate.
     
  18. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    Mostly, yes. The Pe****ta, however, is a kind of combined single gospel compiled from the 4 canonical gospels and has nothing to do with the Old Testament at all. It is a translation from Greek into Aramaic and to the best of my knowledge is no longer used even by the Syriac churches.

    You are quite wrong, however, about the Septuagint. It was always the OT version of the Church, at least up until St. Jerome translated the Vulgate. In the east no other version of the Old Testament has ever been used up to this day and we still use all of the Septuagint, including several books the RCs no longer use. There was no adoption of the Septuagint after the Reformation, rather the reformers rejected the Septuagint in favour of new translations from the Masoretic Text.

    In addition, given that there are certain errors in the original Vulgate, which have since been corrected by the RCC (one notable one being the warning about Eve's descendants crushing the serpent's head in Genesis), I'd say that it is certainly better to go backl to the Greek than the Vulgate. We may not have the original manuscripts but what we do have are not translations and are pretty consistent as far as possible copyist's errors and the like are involved. I still fail to see any reason for preferring an old translation over the older original text.

    James
     
  19. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    What I am saying is that prior to AD400, the 'church' mostly used the Septuagint, since of the early Christians are not Jews, and they did not use the Hebrew version. Once Jerome translated the Vulgate, that was the authentic book used by the Catholic until 1600, when the reformation protestants started to question Rome authority in the interpretation. I believe they then used both the Hebrew to Torah or whatever it was called and the Septuagint together to produce all the newer translated version.
     
  20. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Here is some information: The King James Version differs from the newer versions 5% of the time. Because it was written from the body of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus, or Recieved Text. For the new testament, there are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which agree 95% of the time, exactly. The modern versions also used the Textus Receptus, but it disagreed with two very old, yet very corrupted manuscripts; the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus, they preferred the corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus, accounting for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Here are some examples:
    I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, GOD was MANIFEST IN THE FLESH...KJV
    I Timothy 3:16 And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: HE WHO WAS REVEALED IN THE FLESH...NASB

    KJV says GOD was manifest in the flesh, meaning Jesus is GOD, very important for the doctrine of the diety of Christ.

    Romans 14:10b,12: For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of CHRIST...So then every one of us shall give account fo himself to GOD. KJV

    Romans14:10b,12: For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of GOD...So then each of us shall give account of himself to GOD. NASB

    One word is changed, erasing the diety of Christ. Pretty tricky.

    Here is one more on Christ's Diety:

    Acts 20:28 ...to feed the church of GOD which he hath puchased with HIS OWN blood. KJV
    Acts 20:28 ...to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of HIS OWN SON. RSV
    God's church was bought by God's blood, therefore CHRIST is GOD, RSV separates Christ from God proving nothing.

    Well, there are MANY verses that attack the doctrine of the diety of Christ, the virgin birth, atonement by faith, the physical resurrection of Christ, and His Second Coming. I have a bunch, but, not the time. A good book is "Lets Weigh the Evidence" by Barry Burton, get at local Christian Bookstore. Peace!!
     
Loading...