I JUST realized something..............

[Imagican]

No, really. I just realized that perhaps as much as 50 percent of the disagreements that arise about scripture are caused by the scripture itself. Until joining this forum, I had absolutely NO idea that there were SO many different versions of the Bible. And it seems that the more I learn of them, the more each differs from the others.

it becomes OBVIOUS that there is NO way that this book could be interpreted in SO many different ways; CORRECTLY!!!! Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

It also seems that the main purpose for each 'new' or 'newer' version, is to offer the opinions of the writers rather than a 'more accurate' translation.

What think Ye?

 

[CatholicXian]

;-)

Which is precisely why the early christians recognized the need for heirarchy and leadership-- why Paul tells Timothy to entrust what he has heard to faithful men (cf. 2 Tim 2:2). etc.

 

[jive]

No, really. I just realized that perhaps as much as 50 percent of the disagreements that arise about scripture are caused by the scripture itself. Until joining this forum, I had absolutely NO idea that there were SO many different versions of the Bible. And it seems that the more I learn of them, the more each differs from the others.

it becomes OBVIOUS that there is NO way that this book could be interpreted in SO many different ways; CORRECTLY!!!! Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

It also seems that the main purpose for each 'new' or 'newer' version, is to offer the opinions of the writers rather than a 'more accurate' translation.

What think Ye?

i agree 100%, and if u ask denom. wise, whos context is right, the Baptist(i was) they will say there ways the truth, Methodist, theirs, Catholic, theirs..etc. what is the Truth it cant all be the TRUTH, if it all contridicts. i just read and have faith the Holy Ghost, will write on my heart the TRUTH.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

i agree 100%, and if u ask denom. wise, whos context is right, the Baptist(i was) they will say there ways the truth, Methodist, theirs, Catholic, theirs..etc. what is the Truth it cant all be the TRUTH, if it all contridicts. i just read and have faith the Holy Ghost, will write on my heart the TRUTH.

Exactly the way I feel.

 

[Imagican]

Exactly guys, and don't ever let a 'man' teach you otherwise. Men are NOT to be trusted period. There is NOT one that is perfect, NO, not one. So the Word is there, which one is the question. But for those that 'truly' seek the Father through the Son, they WILL be led to the 'truth'. Many men will tell you that this is NOT so, but many men would lead you to death instead of life also. Trust in God and trust in Christ and YOU CANNOT GO WRONG.

But, which words do we choose to be the 'right' ones to follow. Which interpretation is the 'closest' thing to the Word of God and how He meant for us to read it? That is the question and this is why men cannot be trusted. They will oft times interpret the words that they write for thier 'own' purposes rather than those of God. How do we KNOW which to follow?

 

[Vic C.]

i agree 100%, and if u ask denom. wise, whos context is right, the Baptist(i was) they will say there ways the truth, Methodist, theirs, Catholic, theirs..etc. what is the Truth it cant all be the TRUTH, if it all contridicts. i just read and have faith the Holy Ghost, will write on my heart the TRUTH.

Exactly the way I feel.

Amen

 

[stovebolts]

No, really. I just realized that perhaps as much as 50 percent of the disagreements that arise about scripture are caused by the scripture itself.

This is sheer foolishness and I utterly disagree. My opinion states that the majority of disagreements are caused because we seek what we want to find in God's word instead of what's truly being communicated within scripture. We are full of pride, greed and envy to name a few attributes of our fallen nature. Sad to say, but your wrong again and your assesment is not supported by any version of scripure an hence remains opinion.

Until joining this forum, I had absolutely NO idea that there were SO many different versions of the Bible. And it seems that the more I learn of them, the more each differs from the others.

As do opinions. Perhaps you should learn greek or hebrew? See, problem solved. But wait, it is easier to pass accountability right? Funny, I seem to remember a certain bible character back in genesis that did the same thing...

it becomes OBVIOUS that there is NO way that this book could be interpreted in SO many different ways; CORRECTLY!!!! Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

Wow, what an insight. Are you saying that we should just throw our bibles away? Heck, who needs it anyway when we got the spirit to guide us right? :wink:

It also seems that the main purpose for each 'new' or 'newer' version, is to offer the opinions of the writers rather than a 'more accurate' translation.

Times change, generations change, cultures change, language changes. True, opinions are promoted through certain translations and they are most certainly promoted in every commentary regardless of how fair they try to be. woa is us. Perhaps you could offer a solution... and while your at it, solve world hunger?

What think Ye?

Me think you have long road ahead of you with many pot holes that may bump you out of your seat and bang head on ceiling...

 

[Imagican]

Jeremiah 10:2-8 King James

2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

6Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.

7Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.

8But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.



New International:

2 This is what the LORD says:

Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them.

3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it will not totter.

5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.



6 No-one is like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is mighty in power.

7 Who should not revere you, O King of the nations? This is your due. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is no-one like you.

8 They are all senseless and foolish; they are taught by worthless wooden idols.

Now Stove, read these two different passages and see if you can't see how much of the meaning is completely changed from one version to the next. Now, what does opinion have to do with this. i mean, this is a deliberate altering of the Word to the point that there are two distinctly 'different' meanings that one would obtain from each.

I find it difficult to believe that two different interpreters could miss the mark by this much. In the KJ version, the stated reference is to a tree PERIOD, in the NIV, the reference becomes a 'carved idol'. Look at how one would lead to a different understanding than the other. And THIS IS ONLY A SLIGHT EXAMPLE.

I believe that the KJV is offered in reference to worshiping a 'tree'. The NIV would eliminate this understanding and choose to offer that the tree is NOT the point but an idol carved from it. This is VERY misleading. Now, Stove, which one do you think is the correct interpretation?

Stove, I recognize what you are offering. Yes, we will see what we choose to see if we read on our own and try to intellectualize. Being led by the Spirit is a different matter entirely though. But, even led by the Spirit, if one reads something that is 'false', the only thing the Spirit would offer is that it is False.

So, in your opinion what do these verses offer you in understanding and then we will have a way of proving my point?

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and Stove, let me point this out. At one time there were a very limited amount of different interpretations of the Bible. And, in these times past, there were very limited numbers of different denominations.

Now we have many many different interpretations and many many different denominations.

And in answer to your question: No, there is so little of the obedience and devotion needed to 'follow the Spirit' that this is NOT the answer. The answer would lie in WHICH interpretation is the 'closest' to the 'truth' and allow the Spirit to guide us through IT in understanding.

World hunger? That could be solved very simply. If each and every one of us would love his neighbor as himself, there would BE NO HUNGER.

And me thinks that there are bumps in store for EACH of us regardless of how 'bright' we think that we may be. Some will just have 'bigger' knots on their heads than others.

 

[AVBunyan]

A good start would be to...

1. Stick with the book God used since 1611 (Yes, I know God's word was around prior to 1611!) -

2. Don't correct it -

3. Take it as it stands -

4. Pray about it - compare scripture with scripture -

5. Throw the Greek/Hebrew out the window (most really can't read the Greek/Hebrew anyway)

6. And then study!!!

God bless

 

[Imagican]

Thank you AV, you have read my mind. This is exactly where this thread was headed. You are an insightful man and this goes to prove much, (in my opinion).

Thanks agains for your input.

 

[Imagican]

And AV.

I believe that it will be found that most that disagree with this will be those that choose to learn from a different version. I know that this seems 'obvious', but it does serve a point. That point being that THIS argument itself could ONLY have been brought about by a 'changing' of scripture from one interpretation to another.

And guys, isn't it obvious that things have NOT gotten better, but worse? I mean there WAS a time when the apostles HAD NO WRITTEN WORD. They WERE led by the Spirit. So, it would stand to reason by logic alone that the things offered in the past would more closely relate to the 'truth' than those of the present. Fewer people would mean less of a chance of the insertion of 'something else', less dilution. More people, more 'opinions', more dilution.

 

[CatholicXian]

5. Throw the Greek/Hebrew out the window (most really can't read the Greek/Hebrew anyway)

:-?
Why would you throw out the original languages of the Scriptures? There is a lot conveyed in sentence structure and grammar in the Greek/Hebrew that weighs heavily on the proper interpretation of certain passages.

Wouldn't it be dangerous to disregard the original languages of the Bible?

 

[TruthMiner]

A good start would be to...

1. Stick with the book God used since 1611 (Yes, I know God's word was around prior to 1611!) -

2. Don't correct it -

3. Take it as it stands -

4. Pray about it - compare scripture with scripture -

5. Throw the Greek/Hebrew out the window (most really can't read the Greek/Hebrew anyway)

6. And then study!!!

God bless

Similar to the Mormon approach.

And why would you want to ignore the original language in which it was written? That sounds like a plainly stubborn refusal to acknowledge what you don't want to hear.

Do you understand that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to perfectly translate from one language, such as Greek, into another? It is especially difficult to translate such a language into a language like English. It might be possible to perfectly translate some sentences. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to perfectly translate a large portion of it. In many, many, many cases, you simply cannot find words in the English language that will carry the identical constellation of ideas conveyed by the original Greek word... no matter how hard you try. And this is because equivalent English words often do not exist for that particular Greek word. All translators can do is find a "closest fit" word and very often the shoe is way too tight or way too big. And when this happens, you miss the original intent of the Greek.

And that only takes nouns into account and they are the easiest to deal with. Verbs and participles are yet another matter. The Greeks had verb tenses that do not even exist at all in English.

People happen to know this.. and thats why they study Greek... to get at the original idea as opposed to the distortions created by translations. To put it bluntly, you are doomed to be a very poor theologian if you only rely on the English because you will run amuck when you don't realize that certain English words are a necessary distortion of what the author originally intended in the original language.

 

[Imagican]

Guys, once again you choose to hear what you want to hear. AV simply stated that it is USELESS to those that don't know how to read it.

To offer a partial explanation as to his reply would be to point out that there are many that would nit pick with what may be 'false' interpretations of Greek and Hebrew. In other words, if I offered you a dictionary of Greek and Hebrew into English, how would you know that what I offered was INDEED an accurate translation. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to compare different dictionaries of one language to another, but I can tell you from my experience with Spanish to English, that there are many differences between the different ritters, (interpretations).

Now, we know that Greek and Hebrew are oft times more difficult to translate than Spanish. And to the amateur, trying to use this means to decipher the Word would be a very sketchy attempt at best.

I think AV may have been a bit overzealous when he made the statement, but I am well aware of the purpose for his comment. There are many that dispute the Word by accepting ANY different translation that they can find that someone has offered to show that 'their' interpretation of Greek or Hebrew to English is different than that which was previously offered.

So, to sum it up, if one were to accept the KJV of the Bible and believed that it is about as close as it gets, (close enough for the slight discrepancies to make little or NO difference), then there would be NO need for a 'further' translation than what has already been offered.

Of course, the many versions of the Bible often leave many wondering which to read and follow. I doubt seriously that the use of Greek or Hebrew translation would ultimately lead to any better understanding. Just my opinion stated in this entire post. For what it's worth.

And to make my position clear, I too believe that the KJV is the closest thing we have to what God intended us to read and understand. Once again, just my opinion. And while I have my reasons that I have used to support my opinion, I must admit, that it is nothing more than this.

 

[Free]

Even if there was only one translation made, there would be just as many interpretations of any given passage. I think that most differences in interpretation are not caused by different readings in different versions but by the way the words are interpreted.

To support my point:

And to make my position clear, I too believe that the KJV is the closest thing we have to what God intended us to read and understand. Once again, just my opinion. And while I have my reasons that I have used to support my opinion, I must admit, that it is nothing more than this.

Okay, but I hope you realize that every point I've made in these forums I can argue from the KJV and in one instance even better. Perhaps you would like me to point out 1 John 5:7, "7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This pretty much nails down the Trinity. Except now that you'll say that that was added in later. So then you are back to square one.

To offer a partial explanation as to his reply would be to point out that there are many that would nit pick with what may be 'false' interpretations of Greek and Hebrew. In other words, if I offered you a dictionary of Greek and Hebrew into English, how would you know that what I offered was INDEED an accurate translation. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to compare different dictionaries of one language to another, but I can tell you from my experience with Spanish to English, that there are many differences between the different ritters, (interpretations).

Now, we know that Greek and Hebrew are oft times more difficult to translate than Spanish. And to the amateur, trying to use this means to decipher the Word would be a very sketchy attempt at best.

Unless I have misunderstood what you are saying in all of this, you have just undermined your whole argument. The difficulty in translating ancient Hebrew and Greek to English is one of the biggest reasons why there are many different translations; that and the fact that the vast majority of manuscript evidence has been found since the compiling of the KJV.

 

[TruthMiner]

Guys, once again you choose to hear what you want to hear. AV simply stated that it is USELESS to those that don't know how to read it.

To offer a partial explanation as to his reply would be to point out that there are many that would nit pick with what may be 'false' interpretations of Greek and Hebrew. In other words, if I offered you a dictionary of Greek and Hebrew into English, how would you know that what I offered was INDEED an accurate translation. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to compare different dictionaries of one language to another, but I can tell you from my experience with Spanish to English, that there are many differences between the different ritters, (interpretations).

Now, we know that Greek and Hebrew are oft times more difficult to translate than Spanish. And to the amateur, trying to use this means to decipher the Word would be a very sketchy attempt at best.

I think AV may have been a bit overzealous when he made the statement, but I am well aware of the purpose for his comment. There are many that dispute the Word by accepting ANY different translation that they can find that someone has offered to show that 'their' interpretation of Greek or Hebrew to English is different than that which was previously offered.

So, to sum it up, if one were to accept the KJV of the Bible and believed that it is about as close as it gets, (close enough for the slight discrepancies to make little or NO difference), then there would be NO need for a 'further' translation than what has already been offered.

Of course, the many versions of the Bible often leave many wondering which to read and follow. I doubt seriously that the use of Greek or Hebrew translation would ultimately lead to any better understanding. Just my opinion stated in this entire post. For what it's worth.

And to make my position clear, I too believe that the KJV is the closest thing we have to what God intended us to read and understand. Once again, just my opinion. And while I have my reasons that I have used to support my opinion, I must admit, that it is nothing more than this.

People often suppose that if a Lexicon says it then the ends the matter. That notion couldn't be further from the truth. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is also the gospel truth. Secondly, many, many of these lexicons simply take what has ALREADY BEEN TRANSLATED by others and use those very words to say that this is what a word means. It is absurd. This is especially true with Strong's. All that source really does is give you a list of words that have been used to translate a Greek or Hebrew word. However, this does not thereby mean that this is precisely what the the concept behind the Greek word intends. What matters is the intended concept of a word, not a word some translator happened to use. Very often translators are stuck using an English word that does not do the Greek word justice. And so to then claim this is exactly what the Greek word means is pure ignorance.

Case in point: The Hebrew word EL

You will find many people running around foolishly claiming this word is the equivalent Hebrew word to our English word "God." It isn't. It is a word which means "mighty" or "powerful." Just because the Hebrews used this word to refer to God does not thereby indicate the word EL MEANS the exact same thing as the English word "God.". It simply means the Hebrews called their God, "The Mighty one" or "the Power." And this is why you find this very same word also used of strong men, big mountains and big trees in the Bible. They were "mighty" things. The Hebrews used this word to refer to ANYTHING that was mighty. The English word "God" is used only to refer to the Creator.

And this is why, Isaiah 9:6 provides absolutely NO evidence that the Messiah was referred to as "God." He wasn't. He was referred to as EL. And so are men, mountains and trees in the Bible. And some use this verse as "evidence" for deity of Christ claims? It isn't only feeble, it is ridiculous.

But it seems you can't get this fact straight with a lot of people.

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry for such a late post Imagician. I believe that both Free and TruthMiner have exposed the errors in your posts witht the exception that AV is a little more zelous in regard to his 1611 than you give him credit for :wink:

 

[mutzrein]

Okay, but I hope you realize that every point I've made in these forums I can argue from the KJV and in one instance even better. Perhaps you would like me to point out 1 John 5:7, "7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This pretty much nails down the Trinity. Except now that you'll say that that was added in later. So then you are back to square one.

Yes of course they are one. Just the same as the person that I am, the words that I speak, and the spirit that dwells within me are one. So when I speak, the words are a reflection of me. The spirit which is a gift from God enables me to speak in truth. These three agree. Me, my word and my spirit. But that doesn't make the words that I speak, me. Nor is my spirit me. I AM me - if you catch my drift.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

No, really. I just realized that perhaps as much as 50 percent of the disagreements that arise about scripture are caused by the scripture itself. Until joining this forum, I had absolutely NO idea that there were SO many different versions of the Bible. And it seems that the more I learn of them, the more each differs from the others.

it becomes OBVIOUS that there is NO way that this book could be interpreted in SO many different ways; CORRECTLY!!!! Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

It also seems that the main purpose for each 'new' or 'newer' version, is to offer the opinions of the writers rather than a 'more accurate' translation.

What think Ye?

Correcto, Magic Man. You are now ready for the next level of revelation, namely, that the manuscripts these different versions of the bible are based on have been altered from the originals. What then would be the point of deciding which modern translation was "closest to the original" when we don't know what the original said? The translations we have are the corruption of a corruption of a corruption, etc.

It takes some degree of faith to believe that God has decided to reveal Himself to us through a written word, but then we have to believe that He has allowed for the original manuscripts of this word to be forever lost and the most ancient copies to have been corrupted. I have a problem seeing the preserving hand of an almighty, infinite God in this. In fact, what has happened to the Christian scriptures is just what we would expect to happen to any ancient manuscripts which were not inspired by God, that they would be corrupted in the copying over time.