Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture?

[nadab]

According to the International Standard Bible Dictionary, it says: "neg'-eb (ha-neghebh, "the negeb" or simply, neghebh, from a root meaning "to be dry," and therefore in the first instance implying the "dry" or "parched regions," hence, in the Septuagint it is usually translated eremos, "desert," also nageb):It gave more as follows:

1. Meaning:
"As the Negeb lay to the South of Judah, the word came to be used in the sense of "the South," and is so used in a few passages (e.g. Gen 13:14) and in such is translated lips. The English translation is unsuitable in several passages, and likely to lead to confusion. For example, in Gen 13:1 Abram is represented as going "into the South" when journeying northward from Egypt toward Bethel; in Nu 13:22 the spies coming from the "wilderness of Zin" toward Hebron are described as coming "by the South," although they were going north. The difficulty in these and many other passages is at once obviated if it is recognized that the Negeb was a geographical term for a definite geographical region, just as Shephelah, literally, "lowland," was the name of another district of Palestine. In the Revised Version (British and American) "Negeb" is given in margin, but it would make for clearness if it were restored to the text."

The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Since his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times as ×™×â€Ã—•×†(YHWH or JHVH), generally referred to as the Tetragrammaton (literally meaning “having four lettersâ€Â), there would be an injustice by replacing it with a title. By using the name “Jehovah,†the New World Translation has held closely to the original-language texts and have not followed the practice of substituting titles such as “Lord,†“the Lord,†“Adonai†or “God†for the divine name, the Tetragrammaton. The name Jehovah is the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Hebrew verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become".

The Codex Leningrad B 19A, used for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), vowel-points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah´, Yehwih´ and a number of times Yeho·wah´, as in Genesis 3:14. The edition of the Hebrew text by C.D.Ginsburg (Gins.) vowel-points YHWH to read Yeho·wah´. While many translators favor the pronunciation “Yahweh,†the New World Translation continues to use the form “Jehovah†because of people’s familiarity with it for centuries. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the divine name, YHWH or JHVH. James, in speaking on the issue of circumcision in 49 C.E., said that God has "turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."(Acts 15:14) How can God have "a people for his name" if no name is used ?

In addition, Jesus, in teaching us how to pray at Matthew 6:9, said that the most important request should be that God's name be sanctified or "hallowed". How can this be accomplished if there is no mention of his name ? The churches have hidden the name of Jehovah, by not using it and translators have done so by removing it from their Bibles. At Revelation 22:19, it says that "if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll." Anyone tampering with God's word, will "his portion (be taken) away from the trees of life". Jesus condemned the Pharisees for overstepping "the commandment of God because of (their) tradition", and thus making it "invalid", teaching "commands of men as doctrines".(Matt 15:3-9) He then said that their worship was "in vain".

 

[cyberjosh]

Thank you for the info nadab. And yeah I prefer Jehovah also, thus mentally when ever I see in my NASB, KJV, NKJV, or NIV the word 'LORD' (all caps) I automatically mentally translate it to Yahweh, because I don't like superficial titles, especially when Yahweh has a distinct meaning in comparison to his other names/titles.

 

[biblecatholic]

the name Jehovah although now is known as one way to call God by His name is actually a mistranslation

I'm not argueing with you, only clarifying, but actually its as good a transliteration as any, simply because we were never given vowel points for how to pronounce Yahweh, and the Jews used the vowel points of Adonai when phonetically pronouncing "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is merely an Anglicanized/Germanized form of Yahweh (YHWH), and the Y into a J is the same thing that happened with "Jesus", (Heb.) Yeshua --> (Greek) Iesous --> (English/Germanic) Jesus. We are however fairly confident of how Yeshua and Iesous were pronounced. As for the W into a V, well that's an Anglican difference in how things are translitterated, but Hebew doesn't have a W anyway, thus V is technically correct, thus : YHVH (and you will see many people write it that way). Some people even write YHWH as Yihweh, any many variations thereof, so Jehovah is not wholely uncalled for. However what's important is that we know what the Hebrew word means, and it means "to be" or "to have life" from the root havah (a.k.a. Eve's name - meaning "life").

Thanks for the clarification....The reason I had stated that was a while ago when reading on the subject I had read how an 8th -12th century(don't remember) monk mistranslated(literated) it and thus the word came into being.... I personally don't have a problem with the word because I use the word God and that is a name to call the Almighty but not being His original Name

 

[cyberjosh]

Thanks for the clarification....The reason I had stated that was a while ago when reading on the subject I had read how an 8th -12th century(don't remember) monk mistranslated(literated) it and thus the word came into being.... I personally don't have a problem with the word because I use the word God and that is a name to call the Almighty but not being His original Name

Huh, never heard of that monk thing, but I know that since niether Greek nor Latin have a "J" that "I" was used in stead, and when translating into Germanic and English the I then retransformed into a J, although the original Hebrew letter is Y (yod). Either way we really can never be sure of the correct pronounciation. Sometimes in the Psalms you will even see the abbreviation Yah (Jah), which became a commong shortening for Yahweh.

Also yes you are correct that God (Elohim) is a title (meaning "mighty [one]" or "power[ful] [one]" -also see NASB Joshua 22:22), while Yahweh is his proper name.

P.S. This has turned out to be an interesting discussion thread.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

BibleCatholic,

Here are two links to threads I've made in the past which you might be interested in. They didn't have many posts in them so you should be able to read all of them with no problem.

Why learning the original languages would be beneficial....

The meaning of the word "God"...

Enjoy, and tell me your thoughts if you like (if you do, maybe you could revive those threads since they've sunk several pages deep :D).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[biblecatholic]

Huh, never heard of that monk thing, but I know that since niether Greek nor Latin have a "J" that "I" was used in stead, and when translating into Germanic and English the I then retransformed into a J, although the original Hebrew letter is Y (yod). Either way we really can never be sure of the correct pronounciation. Sometimes in the Psalms you will even see the abbreviation Yah (Jah), which became a commong shortening for Yahweh.

The source that I read about the "monk" was not a source that I would deem authoritative...I can't really remember where I read it....

Also yes you are correct that God (Elohim) is a title (meaning "mighty [one]" or "power[ful] [one]" -also see NASB Joshua 22:22), while Yahweh is his proper name.

P.S. This has turned out to be an interesting discussion thread.

God Bless,

~Josh

To be honest I didnt know that God meant Elohim....I'm glad I was right without knowing it..lol.. I was just kind of making a general statement that I don't think it is a necessities to call the Almighty by His proper name.....although His name should be Known and reviered

Blessings
Mike

 

[biblecatholic]

BibleCatholic,

Here are two links to threads I've made in the past which you might be interested in. They didn't have many posts in them so you should be able to read all of them with no problem.

Why learning the original languages would be beneficial....

The meaning of the word "God"...

Enjoy, and tell me your thoughts if you like (if you do, maybe you could revive those threads since they've sunk several pages deep :D).

God Bless,

~Josh

I'll check them out

 

[kenan]

well the discussion in this thread seems to be over so this is sorta a pointless post, but there is a good bible called "The Scriptures", published by the Institute for Scripture Research (link). It's interesting because its restored the Name of our Lord ×™×â€Ã—•×†and our Saviour ×™×â€Ã—•×©×¢ Messiah throughout the book. Plus the books in the Tanakh have been arranged into their original order, and all the hebrew names of people appearing in the book have been restored (EG "Yirmeyahu" for Jeremiah, "Yeshayahu", for Isaiah and "Mosheh" for Moses)

 

[cyberjosh]

To be honest I didnt know that God meant Elohim....I'm glad I was right without knowing it..lol.. I was just kind of making a general statement that I don't think it is a necessities to call the Almighty by His proper name.....although His name should be Known and reviered

Amen. And you don't have to know scholarship to discern these things, but many times studying the original languages helps reveal things not otherwise readily discernable.



God Bless,

~Josh

 

[nadab]

Down through the centuries, the correct pronunciation of the divine name of Jehovah in Hebrew has been lost. Hence, it is uncertain what vowels should be used to fill in the name. By combining vowel signs of the two Hebrew words A·do·nay´ (Lord) and El·o·him´ (God) with the Tetragrammaton, the pronunciation Ye·ho·wah´ was formed. Eventually, in a Latinized form, this became “Jehovah", just as the name Pontius Pilate is a Latin name. Nevertheless, many Hebrew scholars say that “Yahweh†is more correct. But Rudolph Kittel, editor of Biblia Hebraica, vowelizes the Hebrew tetragram as “Yehwah,†in all his editions.

The name “Jehovah,†however, is far more widely known and used. For centuries, it has appeared in Bible translations and literature of all kinds. It also appears in various inscriptions. For example, a Latin inscription on the municipal coat of arms of the city of Plymouth, England, reads Turris Fortissima Est Nomen Jehova, meaning: “The name Jehovah is the strongest tower.†(See Proverbs 18:10.) The late Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: “Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.â€Â

 

[cyberjosh]

Nadab,

Out of curiousity, where did you study? Or are you self taught? And what resources do you use for your information? I ask because I'm interested.

~Josh

 

[nadab]

Josh,
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I use an in-depth library called the Watchtower Library. I make extensive use of this library to assist others to understand what the Bible really teaches, unlike many who attend a theological seminary, and come out with some formal training. As Peter and John were outspoken for the Creator, Jehovah God and his Christ, though they were "men unlettered and ordinary",(Acts 4:13) so likewise, I too speak out, being taught by what Jesus called a "faithful and discreet slave" at Matthew 24:45-47, with this "slave" providing ""meat in due season"(King James Bible)

Jesus, when speaking of himself as the "bread of God"(John 6:33) before the Jews, told them of a prophecy that is being fulfilled in our day, saying: "It is written in the Prophets,(at Isaiah54:13) ' And they will all be taught by Jehovah.' Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me".(John 6:45)

I am sure you have read the prophetic account at Isaiah 2:2-4, whereby it says that "it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream. And many peoples will certainly go and say: "Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."

Hence, there is worldwide educational work going forth in these "final part of the days", teaching people of all nations to know the God of the Bible and of which I am a part.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv,
2. but which version of the kjv?
3. ANy other version?..
4. Some say it is not that important? What do you say?

1. Yes, it is found in the one perfected in English in 1611 and from thence blessed and miraculously used it for almost 400 years. 8-)

2. Go down to Wal-Mart and take out $5.95 a you can buy it. :
Yes, I know about the revisions and editions - been covered over and over.

3.. No, but You can find some of the words of God in some of the other versions but I wouldn't call them the word of God though.

4. Important? Yes, outside of justification the most important issue to settle. 8-)

God bless

 

[biblecatholic]

1. Yes, it is found in the one perfected in English in 1611 and from thence blessed and miraculously used it for almost 400 years. 8-)

2. Go down to Wal-Mart and take out $5.95 a you can buy it. :
Yes, I know about the revisions and editions - been covered over and over.

3.. No, but You can find some of the words of God in some of the other versions but I wouldn't call them the word of God though.

4. Important? Yes, outside of justification the most important issue to settle. 8-)

God bless

thanks for sharing!!!(long time no talk)......your opinion is noted
glad to hear from you

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?

There is no perfect English version. But I believe that the RSV-CE is the English version most faithful to the original texts.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/library/bible_t ... _guide.asp

 

[nadab]

The King James Bible is read by many. Yet, it has had many changes over the course of almost four centuries since it was first published in 1611. Today, no one reads the King James Bible in it's original form. Explaining why this is so, the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.â€Â

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! Many should appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. There was the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; for who would want to read “fet†for “fetched,†“sith†for “since†or “moe†for “more,†as the edition of 1611 had it.

King James of England set forth certain rules of procedure when he authorized this version. These the translators followed. One of those rules was that “the old Ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept.†Thus the translators were bound to follow the Bishop’s Bible in using certain ecclesiastical words, whether or not these words represented an accurate translation of the original Bible. For example, the ecclesiastical word “bishop†(Greek e·pi´sko·pos) appears in the King James Version, although the original word, correctly translated, merely means “overseer", as at Philippians 1:1.

Some other words used by the King James translators are not even used today. When we encounter these, our rate of understanding may considerably slow down. So mentally a reader of the King James Version may have difficulty when he encounters obsolete words. For example, at Jeremiah 4:22, the King James Bible reads: “They are sottish children.†What kind of children are these? A modern translation clears the meaning of an obsolete word out of our pathway of understanding: “They are stupid children"(Revised Standard Version), "unwise sons", (New World Translation) The King James Version also uses the word “overcharge" at 2 Corinthians 2:5. What does the phrase “that I may not overcharge you all†mean? The obstacle to understanding is removed by a modern English translation reading: “not to be too harsh in what I say.â€Â(2 Cor. 2:5, New World Translation), "not to be severe on all of you."(William's New Testament)

Language change can distort God’s Word if we use a Bible that is not up to date. These distortions either give a reader an entirely wrong idea or may cause him, in despair, to give up trying to understand at all. Take, for example, Jesus’ words at Matthew 11:12 according to the King James Version: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.†Will God allow one to attain his kingdom by violent means? No. So what is the right understanding? A modern translation removes the distortion: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.â€Â(New World Translation)

At Matthew 5:3, the King James Bible says: " Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What would one draw from these words, as rendered by the King James Bible ? That perhaps one lacks energy, vitality, determination or will power. A modern translation correctly renders it: “Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need.†(Matt. 5:3, New World Translation) Today's English Version reads: "Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor."

Sometimes words change so much that they take on a meaning entirely opposite from that which they once had. When this happens to words in the King James Bible, the reader gets just the opposite from the truth. How would you understand, for instance, the word “let� Today it means “allow", yet in the days of King James, it meant to "hinder". How then would today’s reader understand the scripture of 2 Thessalonians 2:7,8 in the Authorized Version: “The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" ? Does this mean that the apostles of Christ, when still alive, allowed lawless, apostate Christians to come into and remain in the Christian congregation?

A modern translation renders this as: "The mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out f the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed.â€Â(New World Translation) The International Standard Version reads: "For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed."

 

[Free]

No, there is no perfect English translation as common sense, among other things, tells us that no language can be perfectly translated into another without some loss. But some translations are better than others, for sure, and the New World Translation is not one of them.

 

[Swish727]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?

Just to throw in my two cents here...

A lot of people will say the KJV, but as more manuscripts have been found in the last 400 years, the KJV is not necessarily as accurate as some more modern translations (not to mention the difficulty in reading it for many people today). Personally I use the English Standard Version (ESV). Whenever I have translated from Greek, the ESV has been the closest on nearly every occasion. It does a good job of translating the specific words and getting across the sense moreso than other versions that I've read.

 

[Righteousone]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?

KJV has so many errors it isn't funny..

 

[Righteousone]

Josh,
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I use an in-depth library called the Watchtower Library. I make extensive use of this library to assist others to understand what the Bible really teaches, unlike many who attend a theological seminary, and come out with some formal training. As Peter and John were outspoken for the Creator, Jehovah God and his Christ, though they were "men unlettered and ordinary",(Acts 4:13) so likewise, I too speak out, being taught by what Jesus called a "faithful and discreet slave" at Matthew 24:45-47, with this "slave" providing ""meat in due season"(King James Bible)

Jesus, when speaking of himself as the "bread of God"(John 6:33) before the Jews, told them of a prophecy that is being fulfilled in our day, saying: "It is written in the Prophets,(at Isaiah54:13) ' And they will all be taught by Jehovah.' Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me".(John 6:45)

I am sure you have read the prophetic account at Isaiah 2:2-4, whereby it says that "it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream. And many peoples will certainly go and say: "Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."

Hence, there is worldwide educational work going forth in these "final part of the days", teaching people of all nations to know the God of the Bible and of which I am a part.

Nadab,
Just curious, why are you called "Jehovah's Witness" and not Christian since JW appeal to Isa 43:12, 44:8 for Scriptural support that they should be called "JW", then what was the new name prophesized in Isa 62:2? It can't be JW, for God already used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be Christian after our Savior, Christ?
Why would the name God gave to his people not be Christians since Acts 11:26 says "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch?" Why is the name JW found nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God's Divine name for his new people under the new Covenant?
Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name JW?
And why if you have the truth and nothing to fear from self-investigation, why are you officially forbidden from reading any materials that cross-examine your doctrines?
Is it not hypocritical when you chide the "poor deluded Catholic" that his faith cannot find a bible passage to support it when the same goes for you and 1935?

Just curious...