Announcement

Collapse

End of WeDG

Hi all,
Due to well over two years of a clear lack of interest in this board, I will be closing it when the hosting is up next month (24 Aug). I see no reason to continue this with the lack of readership and participation.

It's been a wonderful 27+ years, with tons of ups and downs, but with all the excellent resources available to us online via Telegram, YouTube and other platforms - we've outgrown our purpose. I do not believe any huge modification/improvements to the site would help, plus that has always been way beyond my knowledge/skill set.

Y'all know how to reach me.
See more
See less

Question on translations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question on translations

    If you don't mind does anyone know which version of the bible is closest to the original languages? I have used a variety of them but the accuracy of the translation of the original text is so important to understanding what we are reading. Right now I have been using the KJV for study and I use my old NKJV when I want to read those favorite verses and such that I have highlighted as I used it for many years. My KJV is also a study bible called The Defender's Bible I got from Berean Call. I appreciate your comments.

  • #2
    Re: Question on translations

    Originally posted by JackieJ View Post
    If you don't mind does anyone know which version of the bible is closest to the original languages? I have used a variety of them but the accuracy of the translation of the original text is so important to understanding what we are reading. Right now I have been using the KJV for study and I use my old NKJV when I want to read those favorite verses and such that I have highlighted as I used it for many years. My KJV is also a study bible called The Defender's Bible I got from Berean Call. I appreciate your comments.
    I would be more concerned with word for word versions than original language, for that you have to go to Aramaic.

    IMO the placement of the words are divine as well as what is said.
    When comparing versions in word for word, you quickly find there is no point.

    KJV and even NKJ is in all practicality equivalent to the Latin word for word versions, all having an aramaic background of translation. A breath of knowledge of given scripture on a subject will provide more assurance than the microscope analysis of individual verses.

    Most error I find is in the over blowing of nuances in any single section of scripture. If something is true in the pages it will have more than a few references.

    The structure of a particular passage also lends itself to the holy write self exposition.

    God has preserved his recorded will miraculously.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Question on translations

      Originally posted by Boston View Post
      I would be more concerned with word for word versions than original language, for that you have to go to Aramaic.

      IMO the placement of the words are divine as well as what is said.
      When comparing versions in word for word, you quickly find there is no point.

      KJV and even NKJ is in all practicality equivalent to the Latin word for word versions, all having an aramaic background of translation. A breath of knowledge of given scripture on a subject will provide more assurance than the microscope analysis of individual verses.

      Most error I find is in the over blowing of nuances in any single section of scripture. If something is true in the pages it will have more than a few references.

      The structure of a particular passage also lends itself to the holy write self exposition.

      God has preserved his recorded will miraculously.
      First question, do you subscribe to the mechanical dictation theory?

      Second question, do also subscribe to the Aramaic original NT hypothesis rather than Greek?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Question on translations

        Originally posted by JohnR View Post
        First question, do you subscribe to the mechanical dictation theory?

        Second question, do also subscribe to the Aramaic original NT hypothesis rather than Greek?
        “mechanical dictation theory”

        never heard the term before I had to look it up . . . . well my view comes from my studies of Hebraic poetry. The endless correspondence of subjects and words overlapping in complexity I find overwhelmingly to be supernatural. I have no answer of reason how humans could accomplish it. It harkens almost with a pure echo the stamp of the creator with what is found in nature with fractals.

        As to the direct means of delivery of the scriptures to individual humans, revelation: I have a Pentecostal background, I speak in tongues. That experience and others would and does lend me to grasp the supernatural as more natural than super. Father made creation so his work in it is in a natural form, not opposite to its flow, not an intrusion, but a highlighting of what is already there, a “quickening” if you will, or perhaps an infusion of life or vitality that is beyond the everyday. A vision for instance is a hyper form of a dream, something which already exists and is a common reality for all.

        “Aramaic original NT hypothesis rather than Greek”

        Before commenting I would say George Lamsas work leaves a lot to be desired… to say the least

        I would say both LOL, the fight I suspect is really over money and politics and makes my stomach upset. To infer that both were not used I find silly and impractical and Greek would be logically secondary as not being the common language. Its kinda of a “duh” if you know more than one language you do not first write in one that is not your primary, it’s a silly thought to me. I have a hard time seeing peter or the sons of thunder saying “wait a minute – let go Greek!!!” regardless all versions we have stem from much later copies so frankly the point is mute besides placing an overemphasis where there is no spiritual advantage. God is living and active and I believe has preserved his written revelation. We do not need to strain over history as if we were mere historians researching a Caesar.

        Which is my point, IMO we don’t lose anything from language to language but we do lose when changing from word to word to paraphrase. I read paraphrases and loose versions and love them but if I am doing serious study I would rather have a Latin word for word version than a Greek one where the publishers were unaware and unconcerned of flow and structure.
        Last edited by Boston; 05-18-2013, 09:53 AM. Reason: speeling and grammers and added an example

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Question on translations

          in addition

          The very fact we have mainly Greek texts to work from yet the conversations relayed by the Greek texts were in Aramaic is a testament itself to my mind that language is not a high importance to God, or at least not a barrier.

          However the existence of Hebraic poetry form saturating scripture I would take note rather as a testament to its importance. A group of men, predominantly fishermen, did not spend their days going out on the boat and talking poetry to one another. It’s out of the norm and thus highlighted.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Question on translations

            Speaking of the Old testament only, the vast majority was written in Hebrew, Daniel, Ezra were written in Aramaic.
            Aramaic became the common language for the Jews during the Babylonian exile.
            Jesus spoke Aramaic. it's closely related to Hebrew.

            Ive read that the KJV had quite a few mistakes and that later translations were more accurate as the later translators had more reliable copies to go on.

            Myself, I started out studying the NKJV and have never used another, nothing against other versions, just that i got comfortable with that version.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Question on translations

              Could you tell me for instance what language the Dead Sea Scrolls are in and which translation best translates it? I personally do not believe in the KJV only but it is what I use. I assume they translated to the unique language of the day causing us to translate the translation because that language is unfamiliar to us, well at least to me. My sister loves the KJV but then she reads many books written in the English language of that era. So she is familiar. My question in the end is what translation appears to be the best translation in this era of language. Thanks.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question on translations

                Originally posted by Boston View Post
                I would be more concerned with word for word versions than original language, for that you have to go to Aramaic.

                IMO the placement of the words are divine as well as what is said.
                When comparing versions in word for word, you quickly find there is no point.
                Problem is...if portions of the NT were written in Aramaic..none of it survives so we have to rely on the Greek.

                When it comes to the placement of words, I assume you mean the word order. I wouldn't be too concerned with this...especially in the NT given the Greeks were not real concerned with word order. Here's an example...that if taken literally in the word order...would confuse any person you are trying to witness to:

                "Commends but the of Himself love God that yet sinners being us Christ on behalf of us died." -Romans 5:8

                Try memorizing THAT ;-)

                When I was first studying Greek (I started with ancient Greek in undergrad before I did NT Greek in seminary)....this was the hardest thing for me to get...that and accent placement. But after a while it becomes natural...but when you read enough Greek you realize that word order...even though it may be put there in the right order by God...really means nothing until unscrambled by the reader.

                As far as the main question of this thread: I also tend to stay with word for word translations. I like the KJV...but not as much as I do the ESV...and the reason is the same reason KJV-Only advocates cite for liking the KJV: Scholarship.

                Frankly-the KJV's Greek text is not as good as some of the later Greek texts. It relies on less accurate texts with some known problems...and any group that feels the need to rely on "inspiration" to say their version is the best rather than hard-core facts...well...to me that is a problem...and that is what you have with the KJV. The advocates have to overcome it's shortcomings with the un-provable (and it positively cannot be proved) claim of inspiration.

                But I still use it. The scholarship that went into the compilation of the TR and the translation of the TR into the KJV is excellent....but I just think the ESV is better. But this is a matter of opinion and will always be a matter of opinion thanks to the Muslims and others burning the Library in Alexandria.

                But one should certainly stay with word for word translations...especially for study.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Question on translations

                  I have one question re: translations...do we still consider God's name to be Jehovah?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question on translations

                    Originally posted by cnav View Post
                    I have one question re: translations...do we still consider God's name to be Jehovah?
                    Is Jesus' name Jesus?

                    Think about it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Question on translations

                      Originally Posted by cnav View Post
                      I have one question re: translations...do we still consider God's name to be Jehovah?

                      Nelson wrote:

                      Is Jesus' name Jesus?

                      Think about it.

                      Nelson I wasn't talking about Jesus.

                      I was talking about Jehovah and the reason I ask is most new translations have removed Jehovah from the Word.

                      Re: Jesus...Jesus has not been removed!

                      Translation comparisons of Jehovah can be found here....

                      http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/

                      You won't find Jehovah in the...
                      NASB
                      NKJV
                      ESV
                      NIV
                      etc

                      It is found 7x in the KJV

                      My point is if God's name is still Jehovah why can't it be found in many bibles now?

                      A whole generation in the days ahead will be using bibles void of the name Jehovah depending on the translation used.
                      Last edited by cnav; 05-20-2013, 01:20 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Question on translations

                        Originally posted by Nelson View Post

                        But one should certainly stay with word for word translations...especially for study.
                        That is one sentence I wholeheartedly agree with. Use that as you basis for study and if you want to use other types like paraphrased versions strictly as a tool, that's fine...but even that I hesitate to suggest to someone if they are a new believer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question on translations

                          Originally posted by cnav View Post
                          Nelson I wasn't talking about Jesus.

                          I was talking about Jehovah and the reason I ask is most new translations have removed Jehovah from the Word.

                          Re: Jesus...Jesus has not been removed!

                          Translation comparisons of Jehovah can be found here....

                          http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/

                          You won't find Jehovah in the...
                          NASB
                          NKJV
                          ESV
                          NIV
                          etc

                          It is found 7x in the KJV

                          My point is if God's name is still Jehovah why can't it be found in many bibles now?

                          A whole generation in the days ahead will be using bibles void of the name Jehovah depending on the translation used.
                          Hi cnav

                          And the "name" is becoming very important the closer we get to the end.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question on translations

                            You are right SAT ..very important in these days!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Question on translations

                              Hi CNAV.. try this thread
                              http://wedg.millenniumweekend.org/fo...=yahweh&page=2
                              my thoughts are in post #14

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X