Which translation and why?

[AVBunyan]

Vic, AV made a few good points on YLT, what do you think of them?

OK - I'm easy to do business with - what were the points you thought were good?

And brother I believe the scriptures I pulled from the YLT should negate any of the good points.

And while we are on this, here are some more:

Heb. 4:12 For the Word of God is living, and powerfully working, and sharper than every two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart;
Heb. 4:13 and there is no creature unrevealed before Him; but all things are naked and laid open to His eyes, with whom is our account.
KJV – word of God making the written or spoken word – Changing it to the Word removes the tie to the written word.

Eph. 1:7 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of deviations,
KJV - forgiveness instead of remission – Remission is associated with the past sins of Israel as a nation. Forgiveness is stringer and more final.

Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins;
KJV – forgiveness – see above

Col. 2:8 Watch that there not be one robbing you through philosophy and empty deceit
KJV – says philosophy is vain – the YLT appears to be neutral on philosophy

Tit. 3:4 who gave Himself on our behalf, "that He might redeem us from all lawlessnessâ€Â
KJV- has iniquity instead of lawlessness

Matt. 1:25 and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born.
KJV – says “first born son – YLT hints that Mary still could be the perpetual virgin of Rome.

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, the One loving me and giving Himself over on my behalf.
KJV – saints live by the faith “of†Christ – YLT says saints live by their faith

Pro. 30:5 Every Word of God is refined,
KJV – says pure – I guess the YLT doesn’t believe the word is pure – refined doesn’t necessarily mean it is pure yet

II Cor. 2: 17 For we are not as the many, peddling the Word of God;
KJV – says they corrupted – YLT says they just peddled it.

Eph. 6: 17 Also, take "the helmet of salvation," and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God
KJV – word (small “wâ€Â) of God – the YLT removes the tie to the written word as though only the Word has the power.

I'm trying to be open but the YLT keeps shootinig itself in the foot :o

I just can't buy into a version that changes main doctrines like this version does. How can folks say that this version is superior to the AV? :o

God bless 8-)

 

[Vic C.]

Vic, AV made a few good points on YLT, what do you think of them?

Jason, I've stated my case and don't see why we should rehash it. I personally don't think it's right to compare other translations of the TR to the KJ. Why not compare them al to the TR instead?

I'm out of this. I still love my good ol' KJB!

 

[ahimsaman72]

Has anyone stepped back and looked long and hard at the message behind the texts? Has anyone thought of factors such as culture, history and language when reading and deciphering texts?

Sorry, but I don't think there's a translation out there that you will find is error free. Language changes. Meanings change. In the English language there are many different definitions for the same word.

God is bigger than your KJV, NIV, NLT or any other translation. Instead of looking to the text, how about looking to the Great Author of salvation?

Peace...

 

[AVBunyan]

God is bigger than your KJV, NIV, NLT or any other translation. Instead of looking to the text, how about looking to the Great Author of salvation?Peace...

I agree - but the modern versions distort the truths about the Great Author of Salvation - when one looks at the text to find Christ they find a "tampered with" Christ.

 

[jgredline]

Actually, I think you guys are all wrong.
The Sword of choice should be the watchtower second edition. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

^ oy vey! ^


8-)

 

[ahimsaman72]

God is bigger than your KJV, NIV, NLT or any other translation. Instead of looking to the text, how about looking to the Great Author of salvation?Peace...

I agree - but the modern versions distort the truths about the Great Author of Salvation - when looks at the text to find Christ they find a "tampered with" Christ. This so moe of us have an issue with.

I personally don't think they do. The difference between calling Jesus by His name instead of as "Lord" really doesn't take away who He is. In your mind it denigrates Him and somehow takes away his Lordship. How can words change that? They can't.

Changing pronouns from him to them or from him to child really isn't going to change the overall message in the text. That's fine if you're not okay with that. I find the KJV adds and takes away just as much as other versions and with less amibiguity.

For heaven's sake, there are unicorns in the KJV. Have you ever seen a unicorn? Do unicorns like we see in fairy tales exist? No, there are changes in language and to be honest, there are historical and scientific problems with the text.

For example, rabbits don't "chew the cud" as is written in the OT. A "hare" is listed as "chewing the cud". Obviously, this is inaccurate. Who knows what the translators were talking about? This is the problem. The translators of the KJV were not scientists or historians. They were clergy for goodness sake, not Harvard graduates.

Modern scholarship and modern discoveries of texts (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) have advanced our knowledge and understanding of Scripture. That's not bad theology, it's reasonable use of the brain God gave us.

Woody

 

[mutzrein]

Sometimes my kids call me dad. Sometimes they call me father. And sometimes they call me by my known name. Now they all know their relationship to me and they each honour me no matter how they address me. And that pleases me. So it matters not how they address me since nothing can take away from them (nor me) my relationship with them.

Jesus is my Lord, but I am also a co-heir with Him of the glorious kingdom of our heavenly Father.

 

[jgredline]

Sometimes my kids call me dad. Sometimes they call me father. And sometimes they call me by my known name. Now they all know their relationship to me and they each honour me no matter how they address me. And that pleases me. So it matters not how they address me since nothing can take away from them (nor me) my relationship with them.

Jesus is my Lord, but I am also a co-heir with Him of the glorious kingdom of our heavenly Father.

Hey Mutz
I like this.
Its very cool and a well written sentence

 

[Steve]

Vic, AV made a few good points on YLT, what do you think of them?

Jason, I've stated my case and don't see why we should rehash it. I personally don't think it's right to compare other translations of the TR to the KJ. Why not compare them al to the TR instead?

I'm out of this. I still love my good ol' KJB!

Instead of making the KJV the all in end all, why not make the GREEK manuscripts as the standard to compare with? The KJV is not the answer. It has L O N G ago been bypassed by better translations. I mean, the syntax of the KJV alone is virtually impossible. So archaic. Sheesh! :roll:

 

[AVBunyan]

My question to you, with all due respect, is this: Why are you hindering the promotion and spread of the Gospel? What I mean by that is that for a hundred years, the KJV has been a stumbling-block because people DO NOT understand it.

Well Steve - may I respfectfully suggest you brush up on the history of missions from 1660-1900 or so.

Missionaries from Germany, USA, England, and Scotland went all over the world with an English King James Bible and won the heathen, cannibals, etc. by the millions. The KJV was no stumbling block then - worked fine. The stumbling block today are disobedient saints (like myself) who do not go to the mission field.

So, Steve - don't blame the KJV - it worked - problem is it got cast aside. So guess what God, cast aside fruitful mission work. Now - look me in the eye (over the internet :-D ) and tell me with all the new versions and technology missions we have today that there has been more fruit on theh modernn mission field than between 1700-1900. I'm listening.

Later

 

[ahimsaman72]

God is bigger than your KJV, NIV, NLT or any other translation. Instead of looking to the text, how about looking to the Great Author of salvation?Peace...

I agree - but the modern versions distort the truths about the Great Author of Salvation - when looks at the text to find Christ they find a "tampered with" Christ. This so moe of us have an issue with.

I personally don't think they do. The difference between calling Jesus by His name instead of as "Lord" really doesn't take away who He is. In your mind it denigrates Him and somehow takes away his Lordship. How can words change that? They can't.

Changing pronouns from him to them or from him to child really isn't going to change the overall message in the text. That's fine if you're not okay with that. I find the KJV adds and takes away just as much as other versions and with less amibiguity.

For heaven's sake, there are unicorns in the KJV. Have you ever seen a unicorn? Do unicorns like we see in fairy tales exist? No, there are changes in language and to be honest, there are historical and scientific problems with the text.

For example, rabbits don't "chew the cud" as is written in the OT. A "hare" is listed as "chewing the cud". Obviously, this is inaccurate. Who knows what the translators were talking about? This is the problem. The translators of the KJV were not scientists or historians. They were clergy for goodness sake, not Harvard graduates.

Modern scholarship and modern discoveries of texts (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) have advanced our knowledge and understanding of Scripture. That's not bad theology, it's reasonable use of the brain God gave us.

Woody

I'm still waiting (patiently :-D ) for KJVO folks to fill me in on unicorns and rabbits that chew the cud.

Woody

 

[AVBunyan]

I'm still waiting (patiently :-D ) for KJVO folks to fill me in on unicorns and rabbits that chew the cud.Woody

I don't mind saying I don't know - but because one doesn't understand what a phrase means or a term is doesn't make the text wrong. You guys find something you don't understand and assume it is wrong.

Because we do not know what a unicorn is does that make it wrong?

If that was all I could come up with was unicorn and rabbits then I'd get drunk and forget life. There are a lot more difficult passages than those two.

Now - I've been honest here - I do not profess to understand everything in the scxriptures, But I believe everything in the scriptures.

BTW - since I'm answering your question how about commenting on those obvious passages I posted earlier in this thread where the deity of Christ are attacked :-? You like reading versions that attack Christ's diety?

Later

 

[Poke]

I'm still waiting (patiently :-D ) for KJVO folks to fill me in on unicorns and rabbits that chew the cud

I think Bible translators have had a difficult time identifying animals. This applies to the new translations as well as the old.

The KJV has value over the modern translations in that it is pre-Political Correctness and pre-Zionism. It doesn't suffer from this corruption as some modern translations do.

 

[ahimsaman72]

I'm still waiting (patiently :-D ) for KJVO folks to fill me in on unicorns and rabbits that chew the cud.Woody

I don't mind saying I don't know - but because one doesn't understand what a phrase means or a term is doesn't make the text wrong. You guys find something you don't understand and assume it is wrong.

Because we do not know what a unicorn is does that make it wrong?

If that was all I could come up with was unicorn and rabbits then I'd get drunk and forget life. There are a lot more difficult passages than those two.

Now - I've been honest here - I do not profess to understand everything in the scxriptures, But I believe everything in the scriptures.

BTW - since I'm answering your question how about commenting on those obvious passages I posted earlier in this thread where the deity of Christ are attacked :-? You like reading versions that attack Christ's diety?

Later

I did earlier, on page 6. I am quoting here that same message below. And, by the way, I appreciate your honesty and answers. The answer to this is that this KJV Bible is not infallible. It's filled with historical and scientific errors. Therefore, it is not infallible.

Here is my reply from earlier:

I personally don't think they do. The difference between calling Jesus by His name instead of as "Lord" really doesn't take away who He is. In your mind it denigrates Him and somehow takes away his Lordship. How can words change that? They can't.

Changing pronouns from him to them or from him to child really isn't going to change the overall message in the text. That's fine if you're not okay with that. I find the KJV adds and takes away just as much as other versions and with less amibiguity.

Woody

 

[jgredline]

I must say that this has been a fun thread to follow.

 

[ahimsaman72]

I'm still waiting (patiently :-D ) for KJVO folks to fill me in on unicorns and rabbits that chew the cud

I think Bible translators have had a difficult time identifying animals. This applies to the new translations as well as the old.

The KJV has value over the modern translations in that it is pre-Political Correctness and pre-Zionism. It doesn't suffer from this corruption as some modern translations do.

You're right. I would even go further and say that since the Bible translators were not scientists or historians, but clergymen, it should be understood in this way.

Woody

 

[AVBunyan]

1. It's filled with historical and scientific errors. Therefore, it is not infallible.

2. Changing pronouns from him to them or from him to child really isn't going to change the overall message in the text.

Woody

1. Where are thse by the way? Just because people do not understand them or can't study doesn't mean they are wrong.

2. Didn't point those out - How about:
Mic 5:2 - the everlasting has been changed to a variation tht includes "days" or "from ancient days." depending on which version. This says Jesus was not from everlasting - big change

Dan. 3:25 where "is like the Son of God." is changed to something like.."a son of the gods."

The above 2 should be sufficient but here is just one link of many which are out there.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/de ... rsions.htm

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

You're right. I would even go further and say that since the Bible translators were not scientists or historians, but clergymen, it should be understood in this way.Woody

God doesn't need scientists or historians . God used a murderer (Moses), a murderer and an adulterer (David), and a blasphemer (Paul), and an uneducated fisherman to write his word - any ole bush will do.

You've got to decide wether you are going to trust God or men. Either man runs things or God runs things - which is it?

Why would God inspire and then not preserve? :o

God bless

 

[ahimsaman72]

You're right. I would even go further and say that since the Bible translators were not scientists or historians, but clergymen, it should be understood in this way.Woody

God doesn't need scientists or historians . God used a murderer (Moses), a murderer and an adulterer (David), and a blasphemer (Paul), and an uneducated fisherman to write his word - any ole bush will do.

You've got to decide wether you are going to trust God or men. Either man runs things or God runs things - which is it?

Why would God inspire and then not preserve? :o

God bless

If He wants to communicate his ideas he needs to use them. I'll give you two examples: Muhammed and Joseph Smith Jr. Both of these men were basically illiterate, claimed visions and divine guidance and wrote "holy" books that even you would think were questionable.

Okay, Moses....remember this guy was brought up in Egypt, learned from the very best teachers (given that he was adopted into the royal family) and was highly educated. He was well schooled in all the arts and sciences of the day, which are pretty archaic by today's standards though.

What great Scriptures did David write? He wrote poetry. He didn't write theology.

Paul was a highly educated Jew. He was more than able to write theological works.

St. Peter wrote what Scriptures? Well, there's 1st and 2nd Peter which are two of the shortest books in the whole Scripture....These were letters, not theological works either.

These aren't good examples of uneducated men who wrote highly engaging theological works. They were either highly educated (Moses and Paul) or wrote small letters directed to people or it was simple poetry (David and Peter).

Unless you are willing to admit that these were just humans who were "inspired" by God and not God's words themselves we can't go very far. It's clear that these are not God's words, but words that were "inspired" by God written through human hands.

Remember, all Scripture is given by "inspiration" of God. You have to step outside the box and look objectively at what you are reading.

I don't trust anything that doesn't make sense, whether God or man. God gave us brains to use, and I think he expects us to use them. If someone came to me and said God put wings on some humans, but not on others, I would say that either this man was lying or that God really made a mistake, because that isn't how humans are declared in the Bible.

Peace...

Woody