Truth and heresy

[Butch5]

I think we need to be careful in making such claims. Dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translations actually can be more accurate in conveying what the author intended than formal equivalence (word-for-word) translations. The reason is that, as anyone who has learned or tried to learn a second language knows, there is often very little that actually translates word-for-word. If everything in the Bible, even in formal equivalence translations, were literally translated word-for-word, it would be nearly unreadable and very difficult to understand.

As such, the NIV is actually quite good and makes some things clearer then the KJV. For good, proper study, using many translations, both dynamic and formal equivalence, is the best way to.

But that is all I will say on that since it is not the topic.

Hi Free,

There is one thing that must be considered with thought-though translations. That is does the translator properly understand the text? If he doesn't then he's going to translate it incorrectly.

 

[Butch5]

They were considered inspired by Jesus and the apostles, though. It was the Septuagint, which contains the "apocrypha", that was used by Greek speaking Jews of the first century. In fact, most NT quotes come from the Septuagint.

"[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Septuagint - Influence on Christianity[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica] The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]http://www.septuagint.net/[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]If it's good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it's good enough for me. [/FONT]

I here that, I too use the Septuagint. It makes a big difference in some passages.

 

[farouk]

Hi Free,

There is one thing that must be considered with thought-though translations. That is does the translator properly understand the text? If he doesn't then he's going to translate it incorrectly.

I think it's hard to make claims about conveying accurately the thoughts of writers unless one encapsulates them in actual words. So this is all part of the translator's task.

 

[Butch5]

Where is this doctrine taught in Scripture?

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.​

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:10-11 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

I think it's hard to make claims about conveying accurately the thoughts of writers unless one encapsulates them in actual words. So this is all part of the translator's task.

Not sure how this bears on what I said.

 

[farouk]

Not sure how this bears on what I said.

B: I was agreeing with you about what you were saying in relation to supposed thought-for-thought translations.

In the end, words are what we have, for the sake of the record.

 

[dadof10]

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.​

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:10-11 KJV)

Whether what things were so? It's obvious from the context that the Beroeans were searching Scripture concerning the Messiah. They were not "sola-Scriptura" adherents. They "accepted the word", which was the message that Jesus was the Messiah, then looked into whether Jesus fit the bill.

This doesn't teach us that we are supposed to "check everything against the Scriptures".

 

[Butch5]

Whether what things were so? It's obvious from the context that the Beroeans were searching Scripture concerning the Messiah. They were not "sola-Scriptura" adherents. They "accepted the word", which was the message that Jesus was the Messiah, then looked into whether Jesus fit the bill.

This doesn't teach us that we are supposed to "check everything against the Scriptures".

They were searching the Scriptures to see if Paul's words were true.

I didn't say anything about "Sola Scriptura"

 

[Butch5]

B: I was agreeing with you about what you were saying in relation to supposed thought-for-thought translations.

In the end, words are what we have, for the sake of the record.

Oh, I misunderstood what you said. I prefer word for word translation because I want to see what was actually said to determine for myself what it means. I may still look to others for their thoughts but at least I've started with the text. I've seen instances where the translators didn’t correctly understand what was being said and it shows in their translations.

 

[dadof10]

They were searching the Scriptures to see if Paul's words were true.

Right. To see if what he was saying about Jesus squared with what was written about the Messiah. That's what "these things" are. They didn't "search the Scriptures" to check which doctrines were true.

I didn't say anything about "Sola Scriptura"

OK. I misunderstood. I thought that's what "check everything against the Scriptures" meant.

 

[Butch5]

Right. To see if what he was saying about Jesus squared with what was written about the Messiah. That's what "these things" are. They didn't "search the Scriptures" to check which doctrines were true.

Paul preached the kingdom of God, not just the death of Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

Hello Carolyn. Thank you for your helpful answer.

I have a Bible that is translated to my mother tongue, but since I will be discussing scripture with you guys now, I will put it aside.

I think I will study the Jerusalem Bible. The English is not very complicated and English is not my first language. Also, it points out 'glosses' and makes clarifications in small notes at the bottom of
the page which help me understand.

Thank you all. This has been really helpful.

I use several different versions, but the KJV is my first choice.
May I suggest the Amplified Version over the Jerusalem Bible. It also has helps as you go, is easy to read, and follows the KJV very closely.
I use biblegateway.com a lot to compare versions. It may help you to decide.
I use blueletterbible.org. There are many versions as well as Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon on this site. It's very helpful for studies.

I other thing and the most important of all. The Holy Spirit was given to us to teach us what we need to know. If you really want to understand the Bible, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and help you understand. I know you say you are not a christian, it doesn't matter, ask Him anyway He will respond. He wants you to find the Truth. God bless you in your studies.

 

[farouk]

Oh, I misunderstood what you said. I prefer word for word translation because I want to see what was actually said to determine for myself what it means. I may still look to others for their thoughts but at least I've started with the text. I've seen instances where the translators didn’t correctly understand what was being said and it shows in their translations.

B:

In principle I agree. Strictly speaking, by the nature of differing languages, a completely word for word translation is impossible, but one which aims to take account of all the words is less likely to go astray.

 

[Butch5]

B:

In principle I agree. Strictly speaking, by the nature of differing languages, a completely word for word translation is impossible, but one which aims to take account of all the words is less likely to go astray.

Agreed!

 

[farouk]

Agreed!

Anyway, while I'm certainly not King James Only, yet the sort of translation that the King James represents is, in my humble view, basically reliable.

 

[Free]

Hi Free,

There is one thing that must be considered with thought-though translations. That is does the translator properly understand the text? If he doesn't then he's going to translate it incorrectly.

This goes for any and every translation.

 

[Kaliani]

And therefore let us never forget that it is not our own understanding that we must rely on, but the Holy Spirit's gift of discernment.

Thank you all.

 

[Mitspa]

I would also add that the Greek is not as "greek" as many make it out to be!
A good Greek interlinear bible, meaning it has the Greek with the English line for line can be very helpful.
There are many good books and computer programs on learning basic bibilical Greek.

Now I can explain why the NIV is different than the KJV, but not sure how helpful that would be? Sometimes we can get too much information and it can bring confusion instead of understanding? God Bless- Mitspa

 

[ezra]

And therefore let us never forget that it is not our own understanding that we must rely on, but the Holy Spirit's gift of discernment.

Thank you all.

a very valid point which is of lots truth. we have down to a T when it comes to the Bible. we have all kind tools at our finger tips that makes us educated. leaves out discernment if a man has a B.A degree or higher in ministry. the church will swallow that degree like a fish bites on a worm on a hook. i am not against education .but it has been replaced for the anointing . i know of people with a grade school level education that know the word and can preach it. of course this man is in his late 70,s

 

[dadof10]

Paul preached the kingdom of God, not just the death of Christ.

Ok. I don't understand what difference this makes to my argument. The Bereans checked Scripture to see if "these things" were true, not to settle a doctrinal dispute. Paul "went into the Jewish synagogue" when he arrived. The Bereans were Jews and "searched the Scriptures daily" to see if what Paul preached about the Messiah (or His kingdom) squared with prophecies concerning Him. Acts 15 shows how doctrinal disputes are settled.