Bible translations.

In another thread, I took issue with “Sword & Shield” over his view of some unspecified modern translation of the Bible.

For various reasons, I generally use the translation the King James authorised for use in churches, but I thought I ought to see what modern translations are on offer.

As I’m sure everybody but I knew already, among the most popular are “The Good News Bible,” “The Contemporary English Version” and “The Good News Translation.” These seem to be closely related to each other, something like successive updates.

On the website http://www.bible-researcher.com/cev.html I read:
“The Contemporary English Version is a simplified version of the Bible designed for children and uneducated adults (at a fourth grade reading level).”

Other websites agreed. The consensus was that the CEV is a watered down version of the Bible. Not only is the language made suitable for children, but the religious and social concepts are also watered down so that they would not unsettle the minds of fourth grade American kids. This calls for a gross perversion of meaning, where the original writing does not happen to suit contemporary taste in thought.

“Shield & Sword” referred to the passage, John 3 verse 16. I’d guess that the CEV left out the word “begotten” because fourth graders aren’t supposed to know about sex.

Various translations of the Bible are online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ Perhaps the one to use in discussion here should be Young’s Literal Translation.

Any views?

I personally use the New American Bible. The NAB is really good about giving you the most accurate translation possible with the original languages.(Hebrew for OT and Greek for NT) I personally care more about the translation being accurate than the text itself reading well, because I must say the NAB's big flaws is ease of reading.

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

When we talked about this thing in the other thread, a user wrote that this word is not used any more in english so they canceled it, and my answer was that this is not matter of translation , its matter of canceling and gave u the verses from bible which talk about canceling and adding, and that its forbidden to do it. Now its written here that its canceled in children books, and the reason is that the word is not suitable for kids, strange reason, does ALLAH use NOT SUITABLE words, and who decide its suitable or not, priests?
But the prob is that the words Begotten is canceled also from the other versions not only that kids use. Who canceled it? why? who gave them authoroty? Is God wrote it in his bible, wont the word be suitable, as he know more?
we can answer the first question that priests canceled it (writers of bible, not hindu or any other religion).
The answer of the other question; why they canceled it? well i responded it before, the reason is the word is not suitable for ALLAH, its word that describe an animal action and request SEX, SEX is a low level action made between animals, and CANT IN NO FACE TO BE USED FOR ALLAH. Infact the user who wrote this thread helped alot, coz he wrote that the reason is that this word is not suitable for kids, well u agree in some way its not suitable, and u descided that its not suitable for kid knowledge, well i think that the reason its not suitable AT ALL to be putten in bible and to be used for ALLAH, no?
I give u another example for canceled verses, and u can see if its matter of kids book or its matter of FABRICATION. See John1 (first massege of John) 5:7, in king James version u can see the trinity and that it say they are one, in new versions we dont find this verse as its in King James version.
The propblem is this is the only verse that describe the trinity and that make them one, which mean this verse is the base of christianity. Why its canceled? does it contain not suitable words for children, or that they knew its fabricated verse, and that its wrong, and who is the right bible; the one that contain it or not, and isnt canceling forbidden (we can see that its not matter of translation)? I guess that the writers of new versions used the older scriptures from these that was used to write King James bible.
We can see that going more close to Jesus era more that christianity is wrong in its base, like trinity as we see here, that was canceled, i should check it and bring more explination..
We will never have scriptures from era of Jesus pbuh coz they do not exist.
About the language that used in bible, please check Ezekiel 23:1-49, are these words said by God, can you even read these words infront ur doughter, can the priest read them in public? they are even not suitable for adults.
Check also Song of Solmon, and see the language used there.

Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

It is a pity that Sword & Shield is expending considerable effort in his attempt to refute Christianity by focusing myopically on translation minutia rather than on the entire Gospel message. The Trinity is not based on a single passage, but on the cohesive interpretation of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

BTW.... Wifflingpin, I prefer the English Standard Version.... more literal than the KJV, but less stilted than YLT.

Crusader

1Jo 5:6 This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jo 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
1Jo 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

i primarily use the New American Bible these days, before that i used the New International Version. the NAB is a catholic sponsored translation into english, the NIV is an evangelical translation. they are both good. i am baptist myself, but i enjoy the clear and conscientious work that went into both these. i compare them with King James Version, Revised Standard, New Jerusalem, and others if i wonder about the clarity or meaning of a passage.

i only have one other comment. is it not true that english is a living language? just read a chapter of charles dickens from 150 years ago and ask yourself would he use the same words to write that today. the answer is no, because some have dropped out of common usage, and other, newer words have come about. so honestly, the original text is not changing, in words or in meaning, but english words and usage are, and that is the reason for different translations. my gosh look at the different texts of 'war and peace'. is there one that 'speaks to you' and is easier for you to understand the meaning of? and if there are difficult passages, you may want to look at them all, or learn the original russian to 'get' the nuances of the text. (and we all know there are nuances and shades of meaning in the last conversation you had today with someone) the same with written works.

Though I have not routinely read the Bible for many years, I read various translations of 1 Corinthians 13 in English Class. It's interesting that Douay-Rheims and James turned 'love' into 'charity'. I like the prose of the Geneva version, personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

SEX is a low level action made between animals

---

Don't knock it, it keeps the species going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiel&Sword

The propblem is this is the only verse that describe the trinity and that make them one, which mean this verse is the base of christianity.

---

Not all Christians believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity. Tolsoy, for example, came into conflict with the church over it a number of times.

"is it not true that english is a living language?"

"interesting that Douay-Rheims and James turned 'love' into 'charity'."

A good example of the shift of meaning - 'charity' has diminished in meaning since C17th, to a sort of condescending concern for those less fortunate than oneself. The original use of the word was from Latin 'caritas,' more or less equivalent to the Greek 'agape,' (the word used in the passage) for which no English word exists. 'Love' is an approximation, but erotic love and family love are not included - maybe human-kindness comes close, except that 'agape' derives, in the New Testament at least, from God.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crusader

It is a pity that Sword & Shield is expending considerable effort in his attempt to refute Christianity by focusing myopically on translation minutia rather than on the entire Gospel message. The Trinity is not based on a single passage, but on the cohesive interpretation of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

BTW.... Wifflingpin, I prefer the English Standard Version.... more literal than the KJV, but less stilted than YLT.

Crusader

1Jo 5:6 This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jo 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
1Jo 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

---

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

The ninth verse of the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew reads as follows: “And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.” (Matt: 9-9) Now, please pay close attention to this point: if Matthew himself wrote these statements, why did he use the name Matthew in the third person instead of speaking as Matthew himself? [If the author of this Gospel had been Matthew himself, he would have said, “As I was sitting at the customs place, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ passed by. When he saw me he told me to follow him, to walk behind him. So I stood up and followed him, walked behind him.”]

In the Gospel of Matthew, every speech quoted from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ is so long that it is impossible to say any one of them at one sitting, at one time. In fact, the advice and the directions that he gave to the apostles in the tenth chapter, his continuous words in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters, his scolding of the Persians in the twenty-third chapter, his continuous exemplifications in the eighth chapter are absolutely not short enough to occur within one sitting. A proof of this is that these same speeches and exemplifications of his are divided into various sittings in the other Gospels. This means to say that the author of this Gospel is not Matthew, the customs officer, the faithful companion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.

In the Gospel of Matthew, miracles (mu’jiza) of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ such as his curing the poor people who were blind, leprous or paralyzed, his feeding large numbers of poor people, are mentioned at two different places each. The Gospels of Mark and Luke, on the other hand, mention each of these events at one place. Hence, the author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew probably consulted two sources when writing the book and saw the same event in both sources. Then, perhaps, thinking the two events were different, he wrote them as such in his book.

It is written in the fifth verse of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew that hadrat Îsâ commanded his messengers, i.e. the Apostles, not to go to [call] the Gentiles [to their religion] and not to enter the city of Samaria. Further ahead it is said that he cured a pagan captain’s servant and Canaanite woman’s daughter.

On the one hand, the sixth verse of the seventh chapter says, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, ...” (Matt: 7-6) The nineteenth verse of the twenty-eighth chapter, on the other hand, enjoins, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” (ibid: 28-19)

While the fifth verse of the tenth chapter prohibits, “..., Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Sa-mar’i-tans enter ye not:” (ibid: 10-5), the fourteenth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter commands, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (ibid: 24-14) [This and the preceeding verses are completely contradictory of each other.]

Countless contradictions and oppositions of this sort are repeated in this Gospel. These additions leave no doubt as to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was interpolated. Some important episodes contained by the other Gospels do not exist in the Gospel of Matthew. For example, the episodes such as the selection of seventy pupils by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, his ascension in the Mala-i-hawâriyyûn, his coming to Jerusalem twice for celebrating the Bayram (Holy Day), and Luazer’s resurrection from his grave do not exist in this Gospel. Therefore, it is doubtful that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle.

THE GOSPEL OF MARK

All historians agree that Mark was not one of the Apostles. Perhaps he was an interpreter to the Apostle Peter.

Papias states, “Mark was an interpreter to Peter. Mark wrote the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as correctly as he could recollect them. But he did not write the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in a regular order. For he had not heard them from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, nor had he ever been with him. As I have said, Mark was only a friend of Peter’s. In order to have a book containing his conversations with Peter and the words of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, he related the events in a haphazard way, choosing the right time and the appropriate gathering for each event he was to tell about. For this reason, Mark should not be blamed for having written some parts of his book in a manner as if he had learned them from his master, Peter. For Mark did not consider it important to write what he had heard without forgetting or changing any parts.”

The early Christian scholars wrote explanations to the Gospel of Mark daily. Iren, one of them, states: “After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote what he had memorized before.” Calman of Alexandria says: “As Peter was in Rome yet, Peter’s pupils asked Mark to write his Gospel. He did so. Peter heard of the writing of the book. But he did not say whether he should write it or not.” Eusebius, a historian, says: “Upon hearing of this, Peter was pleased about this effort of his pupils. He ordered that it be read in the church.” Nevertheless, the Gospel of Mark appears to be an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew, rather than the epistles of Peter. Accordingly, the book that Papias says was written by Mark must be another one, other than the existing second Gospel. The seventeenth and eighteenth verses of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark read: “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John,[1] and bound him in prison for He-ro’di-as’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.” (Mark: 6-17) “For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.” (ibid: 6-18) This is completely wrong. For the name of Herodias’ husband is given clearly as Hirius, not as Philippus, in the fifth chapter of the eighteenth book of the history of Eusebius. This error exists in the Gospel of Matthew, too. In fact, the translators who wrote the Arabic version which was edited in 1821 [1237 hijri] and 1844 changed this verse by having excised the word ‘Philippus’ from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, though it exists in the translations done in other years.

Again, the two statements in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark bear the following meaning: “Hadrat Îsâ said unto his pupils: Haven’t you ever read about how Dâwûd (David) and those who were with him, when they were hungry and in need, entered the home of God and he and also those who were with him ate the sacred bread, which was not permissible for anyone except the rabbis to eat, in the days of Abiathar, the head rabbis?” These statements are wrong, erroneous for two reasons:

First, at that time hadrat Dâwûd was alone. No one was with him. Second, in those days the head of rabbis was not Abiatar, but perhaps his father, Ahimlik. [Members of the Congregation of Seventies that administer the Jews’ affairs are called Rabbi. Their preachers are called Scribes.]

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

It is a certain fact that Luke was not one of the Apostles. It is written in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,” “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;” “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The-oph’i-lus,” “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke: 1-1, 2, 3, 4)

This paragraph has several denotations:

First; Luke wrote this Gospel as many other people contemporary with him wrote Gospels. Second; Luke points out the fact that there is no Gospel written by the Apostles themselves. For he distinguishes the Gospel writers from those who have seen with their own eyes, with the expression “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; ...”

Third; he does not claim to be a disciple of one of the Apostles. For in his time there were numerous publications, articles and epistles attributed to each of the Apostles; he did not hope that such a documentation, i.e. claiming to be a pupil of one of the Apostles, would cause others to trust his book. Perhaps he thought it a more dependable document to point out that he had observed every fact in its original source and learned everything by personal scrutiny. One point should be noted: recently it has become a customary practice on the part of the Protestant clergy to replace the criticised expressions with some other appropriate expressions, each time a Gospel is reprinted. In fact, with permission, registered with the date 1371 and number 572, given by the (Turkish) Ministry of Education, the British and American Bible companies transformed this paragraph, too. By substituting the expression “As I know all the facts to the most minute details....,” with “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first...,” they adapted the meaning to their own goals. But the French versions and the versions printed in Germany retain the meaning we have translated above.

In giving the genealogy of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, the twenty-seventh verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke writes as follows: “Which was the son of Jo-an’na, which was the son of Re’sa, which was the son of Zo-rob’a-bel, which was the son of sa-la’thi’el, which was the son of Ne’ri,” (Luke: 3-27) There are three errors here:

First; the children of Zo-rob’a-bel are written clearly in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of I Chronicles of the Old Testament. There is no one by the name of Re’sa there. This writing of his contradicts Matthew’s writing, too.

Second: Zo-rob’a-bel is the son of Pe-dai’ah. He is not the son of Sa-la’thi el. He is the son of Sa-la’thi-el’s brother.

Third; Sa-la’thi-el is the son of Jech-o-ni’as, not the son of Ne’ri. Matthew writes so, too.[1]

Again, the thirty-sixth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke reads, “... Sa’la,” (Luke: 3-35) “Which was the son of Ca-i’nan, which was the son of Ar-phax’ad,” (ibid: 3-36) which is wrong, too. For Sa’la is not the grandson of Ar-phax’ad; he is his son. This fact is stated in the first chapter of I Chronicles (nineteenth verse) and in the eleventh chapter of Genesis [in its tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses].

Also, the first and second verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” “(And this taxing was first made when Cy-re’nius was governor of Syria,)” (Luke: 2-1, 2) are wrong. The Romans never dominated the whole world; how could they have issued a firman concerning a worldwide taxing? In fact, the Protestant priests, in order to dodge this question as usual, changed these statements in the Istanbul-1886 edition of the New Testament and wrote it as, “In those days a firman concerning the registering of the whole world was issued by the Kaiser Augustus.” On the other hand, in the Turkish version issued by the British society in Paris in 1243 [A.D. 1827], this passage is written as, “In those days it befell so that a firman concerning a census of the world was issued by the Cæsar Augustus.” “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; ..,” “To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, ...” (Luke: 2-2, 3, 4) Afterwards, when scrutinies on the passage about the taxing began, it was seen that neither the historians contemporary with Luke nor those a short while before him said anything concerning the taxation. As for Cy-re’ni-us; he became the governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; it is an obvious fact, therefore, that the so-called taxing could not have taken place in his time, supposing after all the doubtful taxing did take place.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

As for the Gospel of John; as is known, till the emergence of the fourth Gospel which is attributed to John, the religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was based on the principle of unity, no different from the canonical laws of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in its fundamentals. For it is the Gospel of John that first mentioned the word ‘trinity’ and which misled the believers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ by inserting the doctrine of trinity (believing three Gods) into their belief. For this reason, it is extremely important to search into the facts about the Gospel of John. Various quotations from the books of early Christian men of religion about the Gospel of John have been given above.

This book does not belong to John the son of Zebedee. It was written by an anonymous author after the second century. Contemporary European orientalist historians have proved this fact by various evidences.

First evidence: It is written as follows at the beginning of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John: 1-1) These words are of the subtle matters of the knowledge of Word and do not exist in any of the other Gospels. If these words had been heard from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they would exist in the other Gospels, too. Hence, the author is not John the apostle but another person, who must have studied the Platonic philosophy of three hypostases in Roman and Alexandrian schools. As a matter of fact, this will be explicated below.

Second evidence: The writings about the adulteress, from the first verse to the eleventh in the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, are repudiated by all Christian churches, who say that those writings are not Biblical. This means to say that the author compiled a number of Gospels he came across, adding many other things he happened to find here and there; or someone after him added these verses. According to the first case, the author wrote a compilation without distinguishing between the true and the untrue. So the compilation he wrote consists of unacceptable things. According to the second case, it must be admitted that this Gospel was interpolated. In either case, it is of doubtful origin and does not deserve trust.

Third evidence: Some examples, occurances and miracles narrated in the other Gospels do not exist in this Gospel, which in its turn contains a number of things non-existent in the others. Episodes such as Luazer’s coming back to life, the water’s changing into wine, his (Jesus) confiding his beloved disciple and his mother to each other, exist only in the Gospel of John and not in the others. Later on we shall give detailed information in this respect.
Fourth evidence: Of the early Christians, neither Papias nor Justinien mentioned seeing this Gospel. Justinien, especially, who admitted that the author of the Gospel of John was not John himself, did not say anything about this Gospel.

Fifth evidence: The way of expression in the narration of the events compiled in the other three Gospels is quite contrary to the style of discourse used in the Gospel of John. For example, in the other three Gospels Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, like a tutor who wants to train the people, disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the Pharesees. He commands to purify the heart, to approach Allâhu ta’âlâ, to love people, to form beautiful habits, and prohibits inclinations contrary to the sharî’a of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Mosaic laws). His teachings and advice to the people are quite clear, natural, and comprehensible to anyone. Although these three Gospels contradict one another in some of their narratives, they are apparently based on common sources in those that agree with one another. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite dissimilar and uses an altogether different style both in its discourse and concerning the moral and habitual conduct of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. In this Gospel, hadrat Îsâ is represented as a person who has knowledge of Greek philosophy and whose elegant and eloquent language expresses his personal nobility rather than such values as the fear of Allahu ta’âlâ and beautiful morality. And the way of expression chosen is not the Messianic style common to the public but the lexical and syntactical dialect peculiar to Alexandrian schools....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Today i researched for this book on net. And i've found it. If anyone wants i'll send the other parts of this book via e-mail or on this thread. I've read this book around 2 years ago and found it enough not to believe to Christianity. My intention is not offend you but to discuss about this.

"My intention is not offend you but to discuss about this."
I expect that your account of the authorship of the scriptures is substantially true, and your account would not surprise any Christian reasonably educated in the faith. Only the conclusion would differ.

If you believe, as I think you do, that holy scriptures have to be brought from heaven on tablets of stone, or sheets of gold, then you will reject the Jewish and Christian scriptures for the reasons that you have given. Fair enough, it is a matter of belief, and no-one can argue with that.

Christians, however, and Jews, as far as I know, are perfectly happy to accept that their scriptures (the word simply means "writings") have been written by humans, over a long period of time. They recognise that God inspires humans to write, and enables humans to judge the truth of what is written.

Whoever wrote the various books of the New Testament does not matter (except to scholars and historians.) The books are not the origin of the faith, but the expression of it.
Christ is the origin of the faith, and the early Christians had no need of books about Him, because they had known Him, and experienced Him. Most of all, they experienced Him as a living presence after He had been crucified. The Gospels, contradictions and all, are the records of the memories and traditions of His life, and (particularly John's account) a view of the significance of his life.

To you, this may make the books corrupt and worthless, but non-Moslems consider Moslem claims about the divine origin of the Kur'an to be totally unfounded also. Arguments, discussions even, on the lines of "my Book is better than your Book" are completely fruitless.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Arguments, discussions even, on the lines of "my Book is better than your Book" are completely fruitless.

---

On that 'wise' note, I will ask everyone not to turn this thread into yet another 'whose religion is superior?' argument. Any future posts which persist in similar fashion are likely to be deleted.

Turk>Are your last two posts your own summaries or copied from some other resource? If they are copied, please do state the source.

Now, please let's go back the discussing different translations of the Bible.

Ironically, if the books were identical in all forms and nature, one would say that each was written either by the same person or by four people together and therefore cannot be true. On the other hand, since they are not identical in every facet, those same people will now say, see look, they do not tell the story the same, therefore they cannot be true.

Suppose an accident occurs on a street corner. One person saw the accident from the front, one saw the accident from the side and one saw the accident from a distance. The person who saw the accident from the front said that the truck had hit the car after speeding through a red light. The person who saw the accident from the side said that truck had grazed the car and said nothing of the lights but did say that the truck was speeding. The person who saw the accident from a distance said that the truck had smashed into the car and it looked like he didnt see it coming. Now, each one of these are describing the same incident but becuase of their perspective of the incident, none are the same. Now who is lieing? No one because unless the 3 witnesses agreed on a common story before hand, their stories would be obviously different!

Now as far as interpretations of when the Gospels were written, I have seen sources that date their writting to as early as 15 years after Jesus's death.

As for myself, I think its important to use several interpretations of the Bible because it does allow for a rounded understanding of what the original language meant.

I've never heard of those versions...

The bible I use is King James, it is a parallel so it also has the amplified version as well.

For easier study when I am at school or something..I read the New International Version. My first Bible was New Living Translation...and they all vary.

I still prefer King James though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufioag

Ironically, if the books were identical in all forms and nature, one would say that each was written either by the same person or by four people together and therefore cannot be true. On the other hand, since they are not identical in every facet, those same people will now say, see look, they do not tell the story the same, therefore they cannot be true.

---

Who says that, exactly? I've never heard anybody claim that conflicting accounts of a particular event are evidence that the event never took place. This seems like pre-emptive apologetics to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

A good example of the shift of meaning - 'charity' has diminished in meaning since C17th, to a sort of condescending concern for those less fortunate than oneself. The original use of the word was from Latin 'caritas,' more or less equivalent to the Greek 'agape,' (the word used in the passage) for which no English word exists. 'Love' is an approximation, but erotic love and family love are not included - maybe human-kindness comes close, except that 'agape' derives, in the New Testament at least, from God.

---

Interesting stuff that, although I'm sure that, given the context, nobody could possibly interpret the word 'love' in the erotic sense. I've heard that the Geneva is a more 'direct' translation than the King James, although I'm certainly no authority on it. The James seems a bit more flowery to me, from the comparitave excerpts I've read.

"The James seems a bit more flowery to me,"

You could say that, if you thought that giant redwoods were flowery ;)

Ha ha! Yeah, redwoods.....



What?

Redwoods - What?
Just that "flowery" seems too trivial a word to use of a work that, regardless of accuracy or religious content, is possibly the greatest product of the English language.

A small bit of the passage (1 Corinthians 13 vv1-2)

Geneva (http://www.genevabible.org/files/Gen...orinthians.pdf)
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels and have not love I am as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal
And though I had the gift of prophecy and knew all secrets and all knowledge, yea if I had all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and had not love, I were nothing"

King James' AV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...20;&version=9;)
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. "

The two versions are very similar. The King James' has something extra that Cuppajoe might call floweriness, but I'd call dignity - "tongues of men and of angels" carries more weight than "tongues of men and angels" - "mysteries," straight from the original Greek "mysteria" rather than "secrets" - the more precise, yet rhythmic "charity" rather than "love."

Choosing between these is a matter of taste, but there are numerous versions around which have less regard for accuracy of translation.

Consider (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0;&version=74;)
"I may be able to speak the languages of men and even of angels, but if I do not have love, it will sound like noisy brass. If I have the gift of speaking God's Word and if I understand all secrets, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I know all things and if I have the gift of faith so I can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

"it will sound like noisy brass" does not mean "I am as sounding brass." And why has the translator omitted the "tinkling cymbal" that is certailnly present in the Greek? And where did the translator pick up "If I have the gift of speaking God's word?" Certainly not from the Greek "ean echo prophetaian" that he is "translating."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

The propblem is this is the only verse that describe the trinity and that make them one, which mean this verse is the base of christianity.

---

Ah, how so? I disagree.


Define "Christianity" then.


As far as translations are concerned, I have about six that I read regularly (The ESV, the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the HCSB, and the NASB). If you read multiple translations that all appear to be different, it helps to get at the meaning of the original language. It makes more work, takes more time, and is therefore less "enjoyable" . . . but I find the process of re-reading multiple translations of the same verse/chapter invaluable, as far as comprehension is concerned.

I used to always use the NKJ, but now I have a (ESV) English Standard Version. They are very similiar. There is also the Message if you ever want to see a passage from a very different perspective

I think, in the passage you cite, that the Geneva reads a bit more smothly, and I do like 'love' over 'charity', and 'I were nothing' over 'I am nothing'. 'Mysteries' certainly beats 'secrets', however. Dignity is certainly present in both translations, and I think it would be very difficult to take it away (although the translator in your third example certainly has a go at it. That's awful).

Check out Revelations 6:12:

Geneva: And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun was as black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon was like blood. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree casteth her green figs, when it is shaken of a mighty wind.

King James: And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Geneva just seems to me a bit smoother in general (although they both have their share of yob's commas). I stand by my adjective.

"I stand by my adjective."
Fair enough - as I said, it is a matter of taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"I stand by my adjective."
Fair enough - as I said, it is a matter of taste.

---

Quite so.

Any idea what a 'sackcloth of hair' is, by the way? I gather it's something black...

Sackcloth is cloth to make sacks from - or maybe sacks are what you make out of sackcloth.:confused:
"helios egeneto melas os sakkos trikhinos" (the) sun became dark/black as sack/sackcloth (made) of hair.

Incidentally, since you've stirred me up to take a closer look, where the two translations differ, the King James stays closer to the original, as above using "became" rather than "was." "Untimely figs" rather than "green figs," because (according to my Greek dictionary, at any rate,) "olynthos" (the word used in the original) was "a fig which grows in the winter, but seldom ripens," so not merely unripe or green, but one which, by growing at the wrong time would not ripen.

Crusader
When i hear a christian who say that the whole bible is word of God letter by letter, i ask him about some passages and after that the person say: "you must read whole bible to understand it" or "do you have another silly mistakes?" and untle now i didnt understand what is the relation between reading whole bible and believing the whole bible is inspired word by wrod from God. For me the bible contain also words of God that remained from the original bible, from the book that Jesus peace upon him got, and from the Torah and from the book of David peace be upon them, but the books that remained untle these days are not pure words of God, some passages are added and some are removed, some are modified by normal persons. Are they still words of God? and how you know if the modifications did not affect the main idea, what if the main idea is made by people and not what God wanted?
We find the most clear phrase about trinity that exist in KJV is decided by 50 sects of christianity as a not original phrase from the bible and it was canceled, no trinity can be find in bible so clear other than this verse. What about crucifiction, the famous phrase that "Jesus" shouted when he was crucified (the one about forgivness) is decided in NIV as a phrase that doesnt exist in the most old scriptures.
Which bible you mean that i most read to understand the idea of the bible, the one the protestant use? or the one that Catholic use, with 6 books more than protestant's one? or the one that orthodox use, with 151 psalm? and so on differences, and so on phrases and passages, added and cancled. I discussed alot about these phrases, i dont think i got time to discuss more with exams i got now, i will try to log in when i can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Sackcloth is cloth to make sacks from - or maybe sacks are what you make out of sackcloth.

---

I think that as far as I'm concerned, what people do with sackclothes is more interesting. ;) Sackclothes are generally mournful attire, aren't they? Also, I think the Old Testament prophets wore sackclothes at certain times, though I'll have to look that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

no trinity can be find in bible so clear other than this verse.

---

Ah, you're changing your wording as time goes on. So the Trinity is present in the Bible elsewhere, just not as "clearly?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

Which bible you mean that i most read to understand the idea of the bible, the one the protestant use? or the one that Catholic use, with 6 books more than protestant's one? or the one that orthodox use, with 151 psalm?

---

How much difference do you think can be found between these versions?

Do you think any one of them doesn't contend that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the son of God incarnated in the flesh for the purpose of personally reconciling mankind to God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

Do you think any one of them doesn't contend that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the son of God incarnated in the flesh for the purpose of personally reconciling mankind to God?

---

Maybe we should discuss about this at another thread but i'll ask you two question firstly;

Does God need anything?

Why does God need a son?

I don't think it matters here. The question is whether the Bible postulates those facts or not.

It does.

You can question the logic or truth, and we can do that in another thread, but Shield&Sword routinely attacks Jesus' place in the Christian Bible, so I just want to see how he responds there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

I don't think it matters here. The question is whether the Bible postulates those facts or not.

It does.

You can question the logic or truth, and we can do that in another thread, but Shield&Sword routinely attacks Jesus' place in the Christian Bible, so I just want to see how he responds there.

---

I think admin will probly take our last posts to another new subject on forum when she see. But anyway;

So does God need anything? Then he's not God anymore. Because only "creatures" created by someone needs things.

I think you should start a new thread - this is a thread concerning Bible translations.

Shield&Sword is questioning different Bible translations, and is inducing from their number that the Bible or the faith is flawed or contaminated, or some such thing. So I think my first response there was on topic.

No i didnt change my words. Yes i said so clear, but i didnt say it exist in bible in other forms, you know "between lines" or "you must read whole book" as i always hear. My point was that trinity as base of christianity say: "the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not 3 gods but one" in all bible verses we dont find any thing that show that the Son is God or the Holy spirit, and no other verse than the one that was canceled (decided as fabrication) show that father and son and holy spirit are ONE. Some times christians use the verses were Jesus and holy spirit and father are mentioned together as sign of trinity, but they cant approve the 2 other parts are gods or the whole 3 parts are one, they can use it as 3 persons mentioned toghether but not the trinity as christians believe, and reading whole bible cant give us the minimom idea that Jesus and Father and Holy Spirit are one God or every part of them is God, only the father is God. As i said the three can be mentioned toghether in one phrase, as the first part of John1 5:7, but nothing more, thats what i meant by clear, saying that these 3 are god and all 3 are one.
By the way if you got another part were trinity is mentioned in not direct way please tell me about it.
About bible translatione, is there translation called protestant translatione and Catholic one, because we find a huge difference between them. And between KJV and NIV and so on, because i find verses that i cant find in other.
I dont attack anyone, i only ask questions and discuss, scuse me if you felt i attack you, Jesus peace be upon him is my prophet and i cant attack him. Believe me my interest in religious studies began when i arrived here, i aways hear insults and so on on Quran and prophet Muhammed peace be upon him, so i read and decided to talk with christians in polite way, not the way that others use here to talk with us, all i do is talk and discuss nothing else, and i discovered since i started to talk why others insult us muslims without agreeing to talk or discuss even our book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

About bible translatione, is there translation called protestant translatione and Catholic one, because we find a huge difference between them. And between KJV and NIV and so on, because i find verses that i cant find in other.
I dont attack anyone, i only ask questions and discuss, scuse me if you felt i attack you, Jesus peace be upon him is my prophet and i cant attack him. Believe me my interest in religious studies began when i arrived here, i aways hear insults and so on on Quran and prophet Muhammed peace be upon him, so i read and decided to talk with christians in polite way, not the way that others use here to talk with us, all i do is talk and discuss nothing else, and i discovered since i started to talk why others insult us muslims without agreeing to talk or discuss even our book.

---

This has been discussed in the forum at length in other threads.

Briefly - the Old Testament is a collection of writing, originally in Hebrew. The Jews of Judaea accepted one group of writings as their canon, and the Jews of Alexandria accepted those writings and a few more. The additional ones are collectively known as the Apocrypha. Christians accept the Apocryphal writings as useful but not essential. Roman Catholic editions of the Old Testament generally included the Apocrypha, Protestant editions generally did not.

The New Testament contains those writings (in Greek) which all Christians accept as being essential.


There are numerous translations, because the original writings were in Hebrew and Greek, which relatively few people can read. Just as with the Koran, any translation is an attempt to interpret the original, but a translation of the New Testament from Greek into English has no more or less validity than a translation of the Koran from Arabic into English. (As I do not speak Arabic, I have to rely on translations if I want to read the Koran, and I am not surprised when I find that the translations differ - if the exact meaning is important, then I read two or three different translations, and I still accept that I have not read the original words.)

Different English translations have been made over time, because no translation is perfect, and the English language changes, so some words in it become obsolete or change meaning. (We've discussed "charity" and "love" for instance in this thread.) Any translation ought to be as faithful a rendering of the original (unchanging) Hebrew or Greek as possible.

I prefer,for my use, the translation the we refer to as the King James' Version (or Authorised Version,) that is the translation made by a committee of scholars in the late sixteenth to early seventeenth centuries which was authorised for use in churches in England by King James I. Where I have been able to check, this version is very close to the original (I can only check the New Testament passages, because I don't know any Hebrew.) Unfortunately, the style of the King James' version is somewhat old-fashioned, which makes it difficult for some people to read.

There are some modern versions where the translators have not kept closely to the original meaning. You have expressed outrage that the meaning of the scriptures might be deliberately perverted in translation and I agree with you on that. So, if you wish to use passages from the Bible to argue about Christian doctrine you should use one that claims to be accurate, which comes back to my first post in this thread.


***

You complain that non-Muslims will not even discuss the Koran. If this is true, on this forum, it is because any attempt to discuss the meaning of passages in the Koran is immediately met by Moslems with the statement that discussion is only acceptable within the framework of Moslem scholarship, which is neither within the experience or inclination of most non-Moslems. Any statement that implies that the Koran was not delivered directly from God by an angel, or that it is not necessary to believe every word of it, is regarded as an insult, which also makes discussion difficult.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Shield&Sword”

No i didnt change my words. Yes i said so clear, but i didnt say it exist in bible in other forms, you know "between lines" or "you must read whole book" as i always hear.

---

You used to say – “No trinity can be found in the bible” or some such thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Shield&Sword”

My point was that trinity as base of christianity say: "the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not 3 gods but one" in all bible verses we dont find any thing that show that the Son is God or the Holy spirit, and no other verse than the one that was canceled (decided as fabrication) show that father and son and holy spirit are ONE.

---

I disagree with the notion that the Trinity is the base of “Christianity.”

Again, define “Christianity.” If you think Christianity is defined as “Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit being One” then 1 John 5:17 must have some significance for you. However, there are many Christians that do not believe in the Trinity.

I provided my definition of Christianity above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Shield&Sword”

As i said the three can be mentioned toghether in one phrase, as the first part of John1 5:7, but nothing more, thats what i meant by clear, saying that these 3 are god and all 3 are one.

---

Is “clear” a subjective term or not? Why is it that things are “clear” for some and not for others? (Not quite a rhetorical question, but it is leading in nature.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Shield&Sword”

By the way if you got another part were trinity is mentioned in not direct way please tell me about it.

---

Sure. Here are many. You can find a nearly identical original somewhere on the Internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Shield&Sword”

About bible translatione, is there translation called protestant translatione and Catholic one, because we find a huge difference between them. And between KJV and NIV and so on, because i find verses that i cant find in other.

---

You may find a huge difference, I myself do not. Are you referring to “huge” as relating to import or to overall size as relating to the whole?

Please answer my question from above, reprinted here for your convenience:

Do you think any one of them doesn't contend that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the son of God incarnated in the flesh for the purpose of personally reconciling mankind to God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Sackcloth is cloth to make sacks from - or maybe sacks are what you make out of sackcloth.:confused:
"helios egeneto melas os sakkos trikhinos" (the) sun became dark/black as sack/sackcloth (made) of hair.

---

Oh, thanks. I was wondering why anybody would put hair in a sack.

First thing i wonder is why no one mention the difference between the different bibles that protestants use and catholics and orthodox, are the differences between them differences of translations?
Now about the trinity: i saw that you used book of Daniel, first thing book of Daniel for protestant contain 12 chapter but for Catholic and orthodox it contains 12 chapter, for sure you will say that it doesnt inflewence the idea that Jesus is son of man, and i say is it word of God 100% with the 2 chapters 13 and 14 or without them? I rememer for the book of Daniel i posted a question about the difference that we find between a historical story that mentioned in Daniel (at the time he lived) and in Kings, we find a clear contraddiction between the 2 books and the interesting thing is that the contraddiction is in a story that Daniel lived in the same time of that story, while we find Daniel talk about the future in exactly, doesnt sound strange? also i posted other questions but no answers, i think my questions are in same thread of your post.
Jesus admit he cant do anything without his Father, you wrote that his Father gave him so how they can be equal? Jesus pray to his Father, Jesus say that his Father is GREATED than him, Jesus say that his Father is his God also, do you say in trinity that the Father is God and he is the God of the Son and the son is God? what about holy spirit where is the proof that he is god equal to Jesus and the Father, all i saw is words about Jesus and Father.
To be more clear about the differences do you find verses in a version that you cant find in other?
I still saying no trinity can be found, the word clear i used is to refair to the idea that the 3 are 1, we can find the three of them , but we find Father as God, Jesus as prophet , and Holy ghost as dove nothing else.
Yes we find Jesus of Nazareth as christ and "son of God (not as you understand it)" but not only him also thousands we find as sons of God, Jesus by his muoth said my Father your Father, my God your God. And in other verses he say my Father your Father.
Incarnation: did Jesus talk about incarnation? where we find the original sin in the bible?
Christianity is based basicly on crucifiction, and then on trinity but it still base of alot of christians, lets say the major part of them, and when i talk to you as you are christian i use the term "base of christianity" because for you it is, when you discuss and try to approove that Jesus is God then its a base for your belief, because believing in God is the base of every religioun and the definition that you got for God will be the base of your belief no matter if there are others belong to the same religioun belief in other defition of God, also the definition that they got will be the base of thier faith. Another thing: if you say that there are christians dont believe in trinity then for you are they still christians? because its logic that different God mean a huge difference and mean anther religioun, because that way believing Jesus as god is not important and not basic, while believing that Father is God is basic because i think those who dont believe in trinity say that Father is God (as its clear in bible) but not Jesus.

Please star other threads to discuss Trinity and reincarnation.