translation idolatry vs worshiping Christ

[ronniechoate34]

Personally I've never met or heard of anyone who worships any translation of the Received and the Masoretic manuscripts. No one that I have ever heard of worships those texts or any translation of them. Whether it be into Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, etc. I've certainly heard many people that are ignorant and that fancy themselves to be judges make these claims. This thing has been said against me many times, and every time it's been said I feel ill. It's such ignorance that it's absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could say such a blind thing. To make judgments that are that far out there I'd have to be blind and dead myself. But that's just me.

Have you ever seen people prouder of their church building than their salvation thru Christ? I have, I'm pretty sure. I guess I'm just trying to explain how when a group of people rant and rave how one translation is the only way, instead of ranting and raving about Jesus Christ.

The verse that came to mind is John 5:39,40.

Also, I'm not judging anybody. I have found many people judging me, though by pushing ideas similar to the scripture just mentioned.

Sorry if I offended you, I'm just trying to get a grasp on this.

It's no worries. I am not offended, I'm just weary. Thanks for the apology.

 

[ronniechoate34]

I don't believe that eternal life lies within the scriptures. But I also believe that denial of any of the scriptures isn't gonna gain anyone eternal life.

 

[stranger]

.
Needtotalk

Let us look at this matter from the perspective of the KJV only people. Their main concern is for the Bible as our only source of supernatural information. They see the differences in the different translations that in some cases are rather substantial. Take into account that this is a recent group who started over the obvious differences between the Byzantine compilation used by the KJV and the Alexandrian compilation used by most of the modern translations.

Consider that this began as a Protestant phenomenon. The common thread of conservative Protestantism is that the Bible alone is the only authority for all faith and practice. That makes the Bible very important indeed just in itself. And conservative Protestants, really conservative Protestants, tend to base their whole faith on what they believe the Bible teaches them about reality. Touch the Bible and you touch their faith.

Consider how long the KJV had been the “Authorized Version†for the Protestants. The first non-KJV Bible to attain any kind of notoriety came out as the Revised Version in 1881 in England and came out as the American Standard Version in America in 1901. The KJV had been THE Bible for 270 years and 290 years respectively. But that is not when the KJV began to wane in popularity. It was not until the RSV came out in full in 1952 that the KJV began to wane in popularity. Twenty years later, the KJV only Movement was becoming the full fledged movement that we see today. From 1611 to 1970 is 359 years before the KJV began to wane substantially as THE Bible of choice for the vast majority of Protestants.

And even the Catholics didn’t leave their Bible of choice for almost as long as the KJV for the Protestants, the Douay-Rheims Version, until 1970 when the NAB was published after Vatican II. The NAB is their Bible translated from the Alexandrian compilation. It is interesting that the Catholics were influenced by a practice of textual criticism that initially began in Protestantism.

From 1970 to 2010 is only 40 years. And between the beginning of the Protestant Movement and the KJV is 92 years, less than a century. The KJV was THE Bible for almost 400 years. Catholics are not the only ones that tend to hold to their Tradition.

Now consider that many conservative Protestants have seen a waning of Protestant Spirituality for some time, at least in America. And they see a synergistic relationship between the waning of Protestant Spirituality and the rise in popularity of the modern versions of the Bible.

Personally, I am like Jasoncran. I generally use the KJV, but sometimes I also use other translations. But I can do so with clarity because I know the differences between them and why those differences are there. And I can compensate for the differences in most cases. At least for the New Testament because I have a working knowledge of the Greek. But what about those who don’t have the experience that we have? Do we give them a copy of the Good News Bible or The Living Bible or The Message and tell them to read and learn the truth? These versions are far from literal. In fact they are commentaries more than they are translations of the Bible. The common term is paraphrase. Do we give them the NIV or the HCSB or the NCV? These are not literal versions either. They are called phrase to phrase translations. Do we give them a literal translation such as the KJV or the NASB or the NKJB? They too have their problems.

It is good to invoke the relationship between the Bible and the Spirit of God. But take into consideration the differences in doctrinal opinion between those who realize this relationship. Should we compound those differences by also reading different versions of the Bible or a non-literal version?

You personally prefer the NASB, a literal translation. That is good. But what do you say to those who don’t agree with you about the differences in the underlying compilations used to translate the NASB or the Alexandrian compilation and the KJV or the Byzantine compilation, who claim that the Alexandrian compilation is not representative of the true New Testament? Who claim that the Byzantine compilation is representative of the true New Testament? I happen to be one who makes the latter claim. But it is not an issue to me because I believe that translations such as the NASB and even the NIV are sufficient to lead one to Christ.

I understand why the KJV is an issue to the KJV only people even though it is not an issue to me. What I don’t understand is why it is an issue to you to the point that you call it idolatry. Are you perhaps starting to think that they might be right and you are looking for reasons to disagree with them?

JamesG

hi JamesG,

Needtotalk maybe making an observation that many others have made. The following article, written more than a century ago, captures what many of us have observed and yet failed to understand and articulate.

The article is about 'bibliolatry' written by Adolph Saphir 1831-91. For now consider his sentence: never mind whence and for what purpose the charge of Bibliolatry is made, --consider the thing itself; is there such a tendency, such an evil, such a danger?

Saphir says in his opening paragraph:

The charge of Bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) has been of late frequently preferred against those who maintain the supremacy of Scripture. As far as this objection is urged by those who do not fully and clearly acknowledge the Divine authority and inspiration of Scripture, it is easily refuted. But as far as we ourselves are concerned, we may do well to consider whether our opponents are not giving utterance to a truth which they themselves do not fully see, and warn us against a danger the existence of which we are apt to overlook. In other words, never mind whence and for what purpose the charge of Bibliolatry is made, --consider the thing itself; is there such a tendency, such an evil, such a danger? I know that many Christians will reply at once, "We cannot value, and reverence, and cherish the Bible sufficiently." And this is quite true. The danger is not of a reverence too deep, but of a reverence untrue and unreal. We cannot speak, think, and feel too highly of Scripture in its vital connection with Christ and the Spirit; but there may be a way of viewing Scripture by itself apart from Christ and the Holy Ghost, and transferring to this dead book our faith, reverence, and affection; and this surely would come under the category of idolatry, -substituting something, however good and great in itself, or rather in its relation to God, in the place of the living God. Gross idolatry is not the danger of the Church. Since the Reformation, idolatry must needs appear in a very subtle form.

here is the link to the article- if it doesn't work search: Adolph Saphir Bibliolatry

http://www.christbiblechurch.org/litera ... olatry.pdf

 

[happyjoy]

What I don't understand is how the same people who say the KJV is God's inerrant translation, are the same one's who say that Though shalt not kill is mistranslated and should be murder.?? What?

 

[ronniechoate34]

What I don't understand is how the same people who say the KJV is God's inerrant translation, are the same one's who say that Though shalt not kill is mistranslated and should be murder.?? What?

\


I don't say that. I believe the KJV is perfectly acceptable as God's final Authority to the English speaking people. I say that we don't change a single Word of it.

 

[happyjoy]

What I don't understand is how the same people who say the KJV is God's inerrant translation, are the same one's who say that Though shalt not kill is mistranslated and should be murder.?? What?

\


I don't say that. I believe the KJV is perfectly acceptable as God's final Authority to the English speaking people. I say that we don't change a single Word of it.

Well then I stand corrected. Obviously it isn't everyone.

 

[jasoncran]

the kjv isnt easy to read for all and there are just as accurate newer versions.

i can read the kjv and that era english easily as i was educated by the lord in understanding the old english of that bible.

i read the book common sense in old english. only one word was unfamiliar with me.

but some arent called to that nor are able to grasp that english.

some are billengual and want an english bible. a friend of mine uses the nkjv, he is a billengual.

 

[JamesG]

.
Stranger

Anything can become an idol. And no doubt some within the KJV only Movement ignorantly have that problem in relation to the Bible. But that is not the general thrust of this movement nor its purpose. They see a real problem and are trying to the best of their ability to rectify the problem. They are trying to stop a trend, and so long as they do, there will at least be a voice against the trend. The trend is away from the literal translation of the Bible. In this generation, it is dynamic equivalency. A translation that moves toward paraphrasing. The NIV is such a translation and is the most popular translation in this generation. In the next generation the trend will move even closer to a paraphrase. It will be the KJV Only Movement that will allow a literal translation to at least be available.

Most of the KJV only people are fundamemtalist, or very conservative Christians who are basically Baptist in doctrine. They are strong believers in God and in Jesus Christ. They believe that the Bible is our connection and source of information in relation to God and Jesus Christ. Thus the Bible is as important to them as God himself because the Bible, to them, is not only from God, but together with prayer is their earthly connection to God. Their faith is very Protestant in that it is centered in the authority of the Bible, an authority that has its source in God. As I said, touch their Bible and you touch their faith because the Bible is the source of their faith in God and Jesus Christ. Bibliolatry? I don’t think so. If they are practicing Bibliolatry, then it was practiced for at least 400 years prior to them by all conservative Protestants. Is Protestantism better off today with their modern Bible translations? Not so anyone can tell. Does that mean that the Catholics had it right all along, that the Church as the earthly expression of the Body of Christ has authority over the Bible? Is the practice of Bibliolatry by Protestants the result of leaving the authority of the Church?

I would be more apt to think that anyone who does not hold the Bible in as high esteem as the KJV Only people is making themselves or their denomination an idol. And there are a lot of people who claim that it doesn’t really make any difference what Bible is used as long as it is called a Bible. They don’t realize that not all “Bibles†are created equal. The proliferation of Bible translations is due more to monetary gain than in making the Bible easier to read or more accurate. That is not realized. And where that is the case it is money that is the idol. The last time I checked, the most expensive Bible is the NIV. Supply and demand? Shouldn’t the NIV be cheaper as its popularity and thus its demand grows? Or are we running out of trees?

The point that I was trying to make is that the matter of the KJV Only Movement must be kept in perspective. The leaders of this Movement have a clear sense of purpose. And that purpose must be recognized as being legitmate in this day and age. To them, they have taken a problem to its logical conclusion. If some within the Movement have been abusive or have come up with illogical estremes, it must not be blamed on the Movement itself. That would be like saying that all Protestants are like Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggard. Or it would be like saying that all priests in the Catholic Church are child abusers simply because a few have come to light.

The KJV Only Movement is not extremist, even though there may be extremists involved with the Movement. A hundred years ago, every conservative Protestant was on their side. A hundred years ago THE Bible to the conservative Protestant was the KJV. God didn’t tell them that they were wrong. The 1881 Bible was originally intended to be an update, not a change. But a change it became and that change influenced what we have available today.

The only crime, if it can be called a crime, that the KJV Only people have committed is to choose a particular Bible and say that this is the one that we should use. It is interesting that the Bible that they chose is the one that had already been in use by Protestants for 400 years. They could have chosen a newer version, the RSV or the NASB for example. They are literal translations. But they choose the KJV. We don’t have to agree with them that this particular Bible is the best choice. But neither should we judge them harshly for their choice. It is a logical choice.

Needtotalk

Be careful of overreaction to what you feel was an abusive situation. Anyone who has had any experience as a Christian has probably had to experience some kind of abuse. But we should note that probably none of us has yet experienced the abuse that Jesus experienced during his life on earth. And we have his example as to how we are to deal with abuse. And we have two chief ways of help, prayer and the Bible. Together they can renew our mind and transform us through the Spirit of God, so that we are more conformed to the image of our Lord Jesus Christ. We do not have to stay in our self-centered feelings forever. Pray for those who have abused you, for no doubt they have no idea what they have done. Our negative feelings can not deal with them or change them. But the Spirit of God can, especially if they are truly in Christ.

JamesG

 

[stranger]

.
Stranger

Anything can become an idol. And no doubt some within the KJV only Movement ignorantly have that problem in relation to the Bible. But that is not the general thrust of this movement nor its purpose. They see a real problem and are trying to the best of their ability to rectify the problem. They are trying to stop a trend, and so long as they do, there will at least be a voice against the trend. The trend is away from the literal translation of the Bible. In this generation, it is dynamic equivalency. A translation that moves toward paraphrasing. The NIV is such a translation and is the most popular translation in this generation. In the next generation the trend will move even closer to a paraphrase. It will be the KJV Only Movement that will allow a literal translation to at least be available.

Most of the KJV only people are fundamemtalist, or very conservative Christians who are basically Baptist in doctrine. They are strong believers in God and in Jesus Christ. They believe that the Bible is our connection and source of information in relation to God and Jesus Christ. Thus the Bible is as important to them as God himself because the Bible, to them, is not only from God, but together with prayer is their earthly connection to God. Their faith is very Protestant in that it is centered in the authority of the Bible, an authority that has its source in God. As I said, touch their Bible and you touch their faith because the Bible is the source of their faith in God and Jesus Christ. Bibliolatry? I don’t think so. If they are practicing Bibliolatry, then it was practiced for at least 400 years prior to them by all conservative Protestants. Is Protestantism better off today with their modern Bible translations? Not so anyone can tell. Does that mean that the Catholics had it right all along, that the Church as the earthly expression of the Body of Christ has authority over the Bible? Is the practice of Bibliolatry by Protestants the result of leaving the authority of the Church?

I would be more apt to think that anyone who does not hold the Bible in as high esteem as the KJV Only people is making themselves or their denomination an idol. And there are a lot of people who claim that it doesn’t really make any difference what Bible is used as long as it is called a Bible. They don’t realize that not all “Bibles†are created equal. The proliferation of Bible translations is due more to monetary gain than in making the Bible easier to read or more accurate. That is not realized. And where that is the case it is money that is the idol. The last time I checked, the most expensive Bible is the NIV. Supply and demand? Shouldn’t the NIV be cheaper as its popularity and thus its demand grows? Or are we running out of trees?

The point that I was trying to make is that the matter of the KJV Only Movement must be kept in perspective. The leaders of this Movement have a clear sense of purpose. And that purpose must be recognized as being legitmate in this day and age. To them, they have taken a problem to its logical conclusion. If some within the Movement have been abusive or have come up with illogical estremes, it must not be blamed on the Movement itself. That would be like saying that all Protestants are like Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggard. Or it would be like saying that all priests in the Catholic Church are child abusers simply because a few have come to light.

The KJV Only Movement is not extremist, even though there may be extremists involved with the Movement. A hundred years ago, every conservative Protestant was on their side. A hundred years ago THE Bible to the conservative Protestant was the KJV. God didn’t tell them that they were wrong. The 1881 Bible was originally intended to be an update, not a change. But a change it became and that change influenced what we have available today.

The only crime, if it can be called a crime, that the KJV Only people have committed is to choose a particular Bible and say that this is the one that we should use. It is interesting that the Bible that they chose is the one that had already been in use by Protestants for 400 years. They could have chosen a newer version, the RSV or the NASB for example. They are literal translations. But they choose the KJV. We don’t have to agree with them that this particular Bible is the best choice. But neither should we judge them harshly for their choice. It is a logical choice.
JamesG

Hi JamesG,

Will have to get back to you in more detail and perhaps break up the potential discussion into smaller parts. Let me just say 'people move in movements' and you seem to have moved in the KJV only movement. Are you still part of it?

take care

 

[JamesG]

.
Stranger

No. Never was. Almost was. But I talked to Donald Waite, a leader in the KJV Only Movement to the present day, about the matter of the difference between the KJV and the modern versions on Romans 3:22. He sided with the modern versions. I don’t think he ever realized that his answer pretty much nullified his KJV only opinion. At least it sure did for me. But that doesn’t mean that the Movement has no value. Nor does it mean that we can now disregard the problems in the modern versions or inherent in the Bible itself.

The Bible has many problems. And those problems are all seen in the KJV on down to the modern versions. The problem that is emphasized by the KJV Only Movement today is the difference between the use of the Byzantine compilation by the KJV and use of the Alexandrian compilation by the majority of the modern versions. And that is a legitimate concern. But there are some problems inherent in the Bible itself. And many of the translational problems of the modern versions were already present in the KJV. There is never a vacuum in regards to the problems related to Christianity. They always begin somewhere. Christianity is a historically developed religion. Like the practice of interpretation in relation to the Bible. It is a practice that was already present in the Western Church as it existed in the 16th century. And the Protestants perpetuated the practice. That perpetuation resulted in a lot of unnecessary division.

JamesG

 

[jasoncran]

james i assume that you are talking about translation problems not the overall integrety of the bible.

i really dont think that one needs to be a scholar to read and teach the bible, if the holy spirit has called you.

 

[stranger]

.
Stranger

No. Never was. Almost was. But I talked to Donald Waite, a leader in the KJV Only Movement to the present day, about the matter of the difference between the KJV and the modern versions on Romans 3:22. He sided with the modern versions. I don’t think he ever realized that his answer pretty much nullified his KJV only opinion. At least it sure did for me. But that doesn’t mean that the Movement has no value. Nor does it mean that we can now disregard the problems in the modern versions or inherent in the Bible itself.

The Bible has many problems. And those problems are all seen in the KJV on down to the modern versions. The problem that is emphasized by the KJV Only Movement today is the difference between the use of the Byzantine compilation by the KJV and use of the Alexandrian compilation by the majority of the modern versions. And that is a legitimate concern. But there are some problems inherent in the Bible itself. And many of the translational problems of the modern versions were already present in the KJV. There is never a vacuum in regards to the problems related to Christianity. They always begin somewhere. Christianity is a historically developed religion. Like the practice of interpretation in relation to the Bible. It is a practice that was already present in the Western Church as it existed in the 16th century. And the Protestants perpetuated the practice. That perpetuation resulted in a lot of unnecessary division.

JamesG

Hi JamesG,

Fair enough. Seems like you met some top brass!

Here are a few comments about where I am coming from...

Since I was not born in an English speaking country - I am comfortable with viewing English as but one of many major and minor world languages. True enough - as a language group English is making gains on the other languages -- but I can't see it being no. 1 except in a handful of nations like UK, US, English speaking Canada, Australia, NZ and so on.. Even the mainland European Reformers were a bunch of foreigners! Thus the whole debate about the KJV being the best translation (or not even classed as a translation) needs to be seen in a broader perspective. The KJV only movement like all separatist movements -will have difficulty here.

However, I see a prefered status of modern day Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (?) translations insofar as the ancient languages from which their modern day counter parts evolved were the languages which God chose for His autographs, other factors being equal!

take care

 

[JamesG]

.
Stranger

You should consider the matter of Protestant compilation. In the last hundred years, a new compilation of the New Testament has come into being that has become steadily more popular since the 1970’s. Prior to that time, Protestantism used what is called the Byzantine compilation. It was what the KJV was translated from. The new compilation is called the Alexandrian compilation and evolved between 1881 and the early 1990’s. About 5000 manuscripts, mostly fragments including only verses, were found during that era. These manuscripts are considered the oldest manuscripts and thus are considered to be closer to the original writings by those who advocate their use.

But popularity or numbers does not make right. The Catholic Church has the most members of any Christian denomination. That is only evidence that the Catholic Church is the true Church if you’re a Catholic. The Alexandrian compilation is based on manuscripts found in a region of the Mideast that is very dry and conducive to extended survival. And they are inconsistent with each other marked with many corrections. My question is, why weren’t these copies used into oblivion like the original writings? Maybe because they are inaccurate copies?

There is another compilation called the Majority Byzantine compilation. It is claimed that they represent the majority of extant manuscripts. But not all of these manuscripts have actually been included. And these copies are internally diverse, though to a much lesser degree than the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Then there are the manuscripts used to translate the KJV. They represent the Western Byzantine compilation. And apparently, are not entirely accurate.

And one must consider the use of textual criticism as the method of compiling the Alexandrian and Majority Byzantine compilations.

The question is how did God providentially preserve his writings?

There is one other compilation that few in the West would think to consider. That is the compilation used by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The last update was made in 1904, mainly on Mount Athos, a group of ancient monasteries. It is the Eastern Byzantine compilation. I favor the notion that God preserved his text in the ultra conservative Eastern Orthodox Church that has a long standing Tradition of keeping the compilation that is its own text as pure as possible. The compilation is almost identical to the Majority Byzantine compilation. But has a more solid foundation in the Orthodox Church in Greece.

This matter is of importance because the Alexandrian compilation, in comparison to the Byzantine compilation, is significantly shorter in content. The facts of the matter of the compilations should be taken into consideration. On the internet, one can find the arguments presented by both sides, Byzantine and Alexandrian. And this is in addition to the matter of interpretive translation. If the Bible is considered important enough to base ones life on, these matters are of the utmost significance.

JamesG

 

[stranger]

JamesG wrote:

You should consider the matter of Protestant compilation. In the last hundred years, a new compilation of the New Testament has come into being that has become steadily more popular since the 1970’s. Prior to that time, Protestantism used what is called the Byzantine compilation. It was what the KJV was translated from. The new compilation is called the Alexandrian compilation and evolved between 1881 and the early 1990’s. About 5000 manuscripts, mostly fragments including only verses, were found during that era. These manuscripts are considered the oldest manuscripts and thus are considered to be closer to the original writings by those who advocate their use.

Some are fragments and others are more extensive - these are usually papyri number P1 to P75. The dating of these is the closest we get to the autographs. There is a good summary in

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of ... anuscripts

Three of the earliest complete or nearly complete manuscripts are:
B (Vaticanus) 300AD
Sin (Sinaiticus) 350AD
A (Alexandrinus) 450AD

The earliest B (Vaticanus) 300AD was apparently given to the pope in 4th century and housed in the Vatican library and only opened to scholars around 1891 (?) from memory.

The above manuscripts can be checked against P1-P75. This would be the first step in a long process of verification. I have a GNT that lists the process in more detail.

But popularity or numbers does not make right. The Catholic Church has the most members of any Christian denomination. That is only evidence that the Catholic Church is the true Church if you’re a Catholic. The Alexandrian compilation is based on manuscripts found in a region of the Mideast that is very dry and conducive to extended survival. And they are inconsistent with each other marked with many corrections. My question is, why weren’t these copies used into oblivion like the original writings? Maybe because they are inaccurate copies?

I value the Alexandrian tradition because chronologically it is closer to the autographs. Hand copying produces variants- but it is all kosher as manuscript evidence.

There is another compilation called the Majority Byzantine compilation. It is claimed that they represent the majority of extant manuscripts. But not all of these manuscripts have actually been included. And these copies are internally diverse, though to a much lesser degree than the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Ok

Then there are the manuscripts used to translate the KJV. They represent the Western Byzantine compilation. And apparently, are not entirely accurate.

The Greek New Testament is the work of Erasmus around 1520AD. He worked on a Latin/greek version.

The question is how did God providentially preserve his writings?

I would say the earliest manuscripts were preserved, as you pointed out, were in a providentally dry region/climate. My view is not to discount anything say before about 500AD - manuscripts later than that would have to bear resemblance to what preceeded it. I can't fathom a vaccuum by claims that the earliest manuscripts closest to the autographs were corrupt.

And one must consider the use of textual criticism as the method of compiling the Alexandrian and Majority Byzantine compilations.

Yes, I have examined that. From my perspective, and you may well disagree, but Erasmus' Latin and Greek new testaments were the beginning of modern textual critical work! I would be interested to know Erasmus' sources - apparently he used about 7 fairly late manuscripts from the middle ages.

There is one other compilation that few in the West would think to consider. That is the compilation used by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The last update was made in 1904, mainly on Mount Athos, a group of ancient monasteries. It is the Eastern Byzantine compilation. I favor the notion that God preserved his text in the ultra conservative Eastern Orthodox Church that has a long standing Tradition of keeping the compilation that is its own text as pure as possible. The compilation is almost identical to the Majority Byzantine compilation. But has a more solid foundation in the Orthodox Church in Greece.

Again this is part of ALL the evidence. Don't know if these are to prior 500AD or after?

This matter is of importance because the Alexandrian compilation, in comparison to the Byzantine compilation, is significantly shorter in content. The facts of the matter of the compilations should be taken into consideration. On the internet, one can find the arguments presented by both sides, Byzantine and Alexandrian. And this is in addition to the matter of interpretive translation. If the Bible is considered important enough to base ones life on, these matters are of the utmost significance.

Yeah, is all on the web. Oh for more time to explore it.

To be honest the critique of the KJVO movement raises deep concerns for me about them - not the papyri P1-P75 or earliest manuscripts - the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus. We have to agree to disagree! Not much middle ground here.

 

[stranger]

Does it bother you guys that you dont have the original Aramaic scripts which recorded Jesus(AS) and the apostles original, unadulterated words?

Inevitably some ideas Jesus(AS) preached were lost when translated to Greek and latin.

Hi Mujahid Abdullah,

If anything was lost it would be a poor translation. Do you have examples of what you are referring to?

 

[stranger]

[quote="Mujahid Abdullah":1old2l4i]Does it bother you guys that you dont have the original Aramaic scripts which recorded Jesus(AS) and the apostles original, unadulterated words?

Inevitably some ideas Jesus(AS) preached were lost when translated to Greek and latin.

Hi Mujahid Abdullah,

If anything was lost it would be a poor translation. Do you have examples of what you are referring to?

i have no specific scriptural quotes because the Aramaic is gone.

I speak Arabic which derives from Aramaic, and translating Arabic to non-semetic languages can be difficult. In arabic (and I am assuming Aramaic) there is no such thing as synonyms, words may have simaler meanings, but each word represents a specific idea. Sometimes well intentioned translators mistranslate whole ideas, misconstruing the original meaning of a passage.

Now this happens mostly when a foreigner comes in and translates without a firm knowledge of the true meanings of words, and complex root word structures. Now the bible was translated from aramaic - Hebrew - Greek - latin. This is a daunting trip for an entire book, some was inevitably lost or misconstrued.

Even today, the best English versions of the Quran and Hadeeth can not be trusted to convey the true meaning of the passages.

Even to[/quote:1old2l4i]

Hi Mujahid,

Yes, many attempts to translate scripture into another language leave much to be desired. As far as I know only parts of the bible were written in aramaic - the remainder in hebrew and greek. The manuscript evidence is important to substantiate any theories or traditions. I have heard that Jesus spoke aramaic - but have never seen any evidence to substantiate the claim. There is reason enough to say he spoke hebrew - and greek (because it was the language of the day) - why aramaic?

 

[jasoncran]

only parts of daniel and esther have been written in aramiac.

 

[jasoncran]

daniel was written in aramiac as he was recorded to the tee what the kings did and spoke.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, that book is, and so is the book of esther, both were written in captivity.

i would have to look at the commentary i have on this.

 

[jasoncran]

no, as with the dead seas scrolls that shown the retention of the original to isiah and others

if we actually started to worry like that, then why even bother believing in christ.
for you see if he cant keep his word then how shall save us.

the lord is all knowing. if he aint then whats the point of believing in him as must know about our sins and be able to circumvent the sins eternal consequences when they come up and we repent.