What Do You Think About This Bible Translation That Reads Like a Hollywood Screen Play? (Poll)
- Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:22am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (The Blaze/AP) — A new Bible translation tackles the challenge of turning ancient Greek and Hebrew texts into modern American English and then adds a twist: It’s written like a screenplay.
(Related: New Bible Translation Replaces ‘Christ,‘ ’Angel’ & ‘Apostle’)
Take the passage from Genesis in which God gets angry at Adam for eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
“Adam (pointing at the woman): It was she! The woman You gave me as a companion put the fruit in my hands, and I ate it.
“God (to the woman): What have you done?
“Eve: It was the serpent! He tricked me, and I ate.”
Later, Eve bears her first son, Cain.
“Eve (excited): Look, I have created a new human, a male child, with the help of the Eternal.”
Even people who have never read the Bible could probably guess that other translations don’t say Adam pointed his finger at Eve when he blamed her for his disobedience. Neither do other Bibles describe Eve as “excited” about her newborn son.
That’s pure Hollywood, but the team behind “The Voice” says it isn’t a gimmick. They hope this new version will help readers understand the meaning behind the sometimes archaic language of the Bible and enjoy the story enough to stick with it.
The idea was a longtime dream of Chris Seay, pastor of Houston’s Ecclesia Church. Seay had had success in helping church members relate to the Bible by dividing out the parts of the various speakers and assigning roles to church members who read them aloud.
Watch Seay discuss the inspiration for the project, below:
The idea struck a nerve with Frank Couch, the vice president of translation development for Nashville-based religious publisher Thomas Nelson, who had performed Bible-inspired sketches on the streets of Berkeley, Calif., in his youth.
The result of their efforts, as well as a team of translators who worked alongside poets, writers and musicians, is “The Voice,” released in its full version earlier this year.
“The biggest thing, the unexpected plus, is that people will read an entire book of the Bible because it reads like a novel,” Couch said.
“It engages your imagination in a different way,” Seay said, expressing his hope that “The Voice” helps people to “fall in love with the story of the Bible.”
“The Voice” not only reformats the Bible but also inserts words and phrases into the text to clarify the action or smooth transitions. These words are generally in italics so the reader can tell what the additions are. At other points, the order of verses is changed to make the story read better.
Some earlier attempts to make the Bible accessible to a modern audience met with heavy criticism from people who thought the translators were taking too many liberties with the word of God, Wake Forest University Religion Professor Bill Leonard said. But those translators were attempting to deal with a real problem – increasing Bible illiteracy, even among those who attended church regularly, he said.
Eugene Peterson, translator of the popular “The Message” Bible, published in 1993, said he was braced for the negative reaction faced by some of his predecessors, but they didn’t materialize.
“I was surprised that the reception was so immediate and so positive,” he said. “…I think the one thing I hear most often is, `This is the first time in my life I understood the Bible.’”
Leonard said modern translations seem to have become less controversial as the total number of Bible translations has expanded, although the 2011 New International Version managed to cause a stir by employing some gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language, something “The Voice” doesn’t do.
It does, however, take out the word “Christ,” which many people have come to think of as Jesus’ last name, rather than a title bestowed upon him by the Gospel writers to show that they believed he was God’s “Anointed One” — the chosen translation in “The Voice.”
All Bible translators have to confront the problem of words that don’t convey the same meaning to a modern audience as they did to an ancient one, said linguist Joel M. Hoffman, author of “And God Said – How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning.”
Here’s an example from Psalm 150:
“For example, `John the Baptist’ was really like `John the Dunker,’” Hoffman said.
John was doing something new by submerging people in water to cleanse them of their sins, but that is lost on people 2,000 years later, Hoffman said. Today, people hearing John’s title might think it refers to a Baptist denomination rather than his then-strange behavior.
In the Old Testament, translators of “The Voice” have rendered YHWH (commonly written as Yahweh), the Hebrew name for God, as “the Eternal” or “the Eternal One.” One of the Bible’s most famous passages, Psalm 23, reads, “The Eternal is my shepherd …”
Most other translations render YHWH as “Lord,” a word that was rich with meaning in a time when people lived in subjection to absolute monarchs but not so much for contemporary Americans living in a democracy, Couch said.
Hoffman said he would buy the argument against using “Lord” if the translators didn’t go on to sometimes to call Jesus “the Liberating King,” another reference to royalty that has lost its grip on the modern American imagination.
“When I think of a king, I think of a powerless figurehead,” Hoffman said.
But Hoffman said the goal of making the Bible accessible to a contemporary audience is laudable, even if he doesn’t always agree with the translations in “The Voice.”
And for the average reader, unaware of the sometimes contentious debates over translation, “The Voice” seems to have struck a chord.
Steve Taylor, who directed the recent Christian movie “Blue Like Jazz” and also was one of the screenwriters, said the screenplay format makes the Bible stories feel more immediate to him.
“It was like it was happening now, as opposed to reading something that happened 2,000 years ago,” he said. “When Jesus turns the water into wine in John 2, I felt more like I was at the wedding. I felt the awkwardness of the situation.”
Getting readers to feel engaged in the story is exactly what the creators of “The Voice” had in mind, Couch said.
“We had an 82-year-old woman who told us that she had never understood the Bible before.”
Considering that Bible translations can be controversial — and considering the changes in this particular version — what do you think? Does “The Voice” appear to be Biblically-sound? Take the poll, below:
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 383 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 383 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (119)
pap pap
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:04pmThe Bible is supposed to be the word of God. No matter how you rewrite it it is going to be criticized because now it’s the words of man instead of the Word of God. I’d have to read the entire thing before I could comment anymore on this.
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:52pmAny translation that says Jesus is God and that He gave His life in order for us to have eternal life if we believe on Him is a good translation… I like the King James, but it’s 400 year old english. Many times I have to go to a modern version to better understand what the King James is saying… Far too many people stay away from the Bible because they say they don’t understand it… Then get a version you can understand!!
Report Post »Amos37
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:09pmRemember God said they would water it down? The make so many versions where the translator puts in their own idea of what the text means instead of translating it Word-by-Word which is most accurate. If you want a far away glimpse the New International Version 1984 will work for you, but if you want to get down to real life-long study you will need a King James or New King James version to get closest to the Truth.
Report Post »bravjim
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:37amIt all depends on the translation I guess. We they focus on translating from the Greek and Hebrew, with word for word and though for thought translation styles, I think that the Holy Spirit is capable of avoiding any errors, if they are focused on an accurate translation. When you go to adding words or thoughts that are not there, then there becomes a problem because you lose something in translation.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:02pmMy Bible says that the words of God are pure. I’ll hold on to the old King James Version. EVERY new modern version published today CHANGES about every two years or so. These CANNOT be trusted as the word of God. The editors of the NASB, Living Translation, NIV, etc. make changes to their versions very often. You can pick up a 1611 AV and compare it to one published this year, and about the only changes there will be are typographical errors, font, spelling, etc.
Charlton Heston on the King James Bible
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmZrhpmZSI4
Locked
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:29pm“ou can pick up a 1611 AV and compare it to one published this year, and about the only changes there will be are typographical errors, font, spelling, etc.”
Or, you know, completely mistranslating multiple words and concepts (adding in Hell to the Old Testament, for example?).
Being unchanged in 400 years is hardly grounds for selecting a good Bible, especially given the limited resources and expertise of the time. Know why new versions happen so often in today’s world? Because new information and better understanding is constantly found and shared through an interconnected world.
But hey, who wants to really know what the word of God says, right?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:41pmNO recently discovered manuscript contains a text not known to the world before. The only reason scholars are giving these “newer” manuscripts the day of light is because they are dated earlier than the rest. That is no grounds to conclude they are more accurate. I trust the text preservered and sacredly passed down and received from generation to generation over those found in the dumpster or buried and disgarded under ground for hundreds of years.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 2:10amI’m with you Colt…1611 King James…I believe God’s word says how this version was purified seven times…something like that..would have to break out the bible and look it up..these new translations…no thanks.
Report Post »Matt
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:50amThe problem with making ANY easier to read translation is that the entire idea of such a bible is based on a faulty premise. Making it easier to read does not encourage reading because Christianity is something that takes a certain level of devotion. You can try to dumb it down all you want, have live bands with tons of music, only talk about the sweet, happy stories, tell people that they don’t need to get baptized, that they only need to “accept Christ” (despite the bible’s clear refutation of that statement IN CHRISTS OWN WORDS) and make bibles that read like Dr. Suess books, but in the end its to the deteriment of souls. This only enables the people who were never going to pour out their spirit unto God no matter how you presented it to them to assuage their guilt with a false sense of piety.
And then the people who really are devoted to their religion are just going to buy a real bible….so there is no point in dumbing things down.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:37pmMatt,
I “Like” your comment.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:10pmThe treatment of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, from the Hebrew scriptures should not be replaced with a title such as “the Eternal”, or “LORD”. These are titles but the Tetragrammaton YHWH is a name.
If my name was George and someone would abbreviate it to GRG and then change GRG to make it a title such as “MAN”, would that be an accurate translation? No, the accurate translation of the abbreviated GRG would be to restore the name accurately, George!
In Psalms 150 this new Bible translation uses YHWH rendering it “The Eternal”, a title.
This is how the NWT renders Psalm 150:
1 Praise Jah, YOU people!
Praise God in his holy place.
Praise him in the expanse of his strength.
2 Praise him for his works of mightiness.
Praise him according to the abundance of his greatness.
3 Praise him with the blowing of the horn.
Praise him with the stringed instrument and the harp.
4 Praise him with the tambourine and the circle dance.
Praise him with strings and the pipe.
5 Praise him with the cymbals of melodious sound.
Praise him with the clashing cymbals.
6 Every breathing thing—let it praise Jah.
Report Post »Praise Jah, YOU people!
deeberj
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:13pmAs I read what you posted, and agreed wholeheartedly, I also think about Sunday School. Your description describes so many Sunday Schools for children. They water down the Old Testament stories and teach only the nice parts of the entire bible.
I just heard from a kid at my own church that their lesson was about James and watching our tongues. Good so far. And the kid only remembers he was told to not smoke and not curse. Oh please. Could they instead have taught him to not gossip and to intstead use their words to build up and not tear down? Smoking is not against the bible and I think saying a curse word is way less harmful than treating your fellow man like crap via your words.
I’m so glad I never sent my third child to Sunday School. He knows the bible and understands more about living the Christian life than many Christian adults I know.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:24pmThis is Psalms 150 from the KJV:
1 Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.
It is good to read and compare various Bible translations to get the flavour of the meanings found there. Do not limit yourself to just one translation. Good translations for study and to compare are the KJV, ASV, NWT.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:47pmThe rendition of the Hebrew Jehovah into “the LORD” is a valid translation. The name of God is “I AM”.
“And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am”
Jehova comes to mean Almighty and Eternal. “The LORD” fits that discription. Jesus is Lord.
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved… That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God [the Father] hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
New modern translations are denying the divinity and Godhead of Christ Jesus by not rendering Jehovah into LORD.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”
My Bible says the Word WAS WITH God; One divine unity.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:14pmColt,
Exodus 6:2-3 – KJV
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.
Isaiah 12:2 – King James Version (KJV)
2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation
Isaiah 26:4 – KJV
Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength:
Psalms 83:18 – KJV
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
I think God’s name is Jehovah, don’t you?
“I AM” is a description of Gods presence and ability but His NAME is Jehovah (YHWH)
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:44pm“And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.”
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:32pmcolt1860,
Come on Colt, I’m sure if you really think about this you can figure this out. Think man, think.
Report Post »The Postman
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:51pmI’m fairly sure Jehovah is just a combination of the vowels from Adonai and the YHWH. YaHoWaH = Jehovah. Look it up. You‘ll find I’m right.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:11pmThe original name would have been YHWH as the language at this point did not have vowels. This would not have been spoken by Jews for fear of pronouncing it improperly and blaspheming the name. They would often substitute the word Adoni (Lord). Even in the Septuagint (greek translation of the OT) they used the word Kurios (Lord). Eventually the vowels from Adoni or Elhoim (God) found their way into YHWH and became Yahweh. All said every one Jew or Christian are uncertain of the actual pronounciation as it has been lost in history. Jehovah is probably a 16th century Latin variant of Yahweh. Jehovah is the comination of the imperfect, participle, and perfect form of the English word “is”. So Jehovah means literally, “he who will be, is, and has been.” While it is a the name God gave himself it most defintiely is a name that reflects the nature of his being, namely his eternality and self-sufficiency. So in a very real sense it is both his name and a description of his characater. The meaning of the word is generally agreed to mean, “the unchanging, eternal, self-existent God,” the “I am that I am,” a convenant-keeping God. The vowels were inserted later by Jewish translators as vowel points so Yahweh proabably comes the closest to the original pronounciation. the hebrew word “hawah” means “to be” and YHWH is the imperfective of Heb. verb hawah, earlier form of hayah “was,“ in the sense of ”the one who is, the existing.” Thank you….
Report Post »Amos37
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:06pmCheck out the book “Every Name and Title of God in the Bible” by larry richards (i think). it’s about a 2-5 year study if you work on it every day ;)
Report Post »bravjim
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:52amI agree that Lord is appropriate. God does rule over us, and that is what a Lord was, someone with power over the people in his district, whether it is a kingdom or some other type of province. Since He is sovereign over all, He rules over all, and has power over all. The ‘punishment’ that God doles out is actually a natural outcome of not following Him and allowing Him to rule over us, or allowing Him to lead us through His Spirit or His word. Different phrases from the Bible, such as “Draw closer to me, and I will draw closer to you”; “lean not on your own understanding, but trust in the Lord”; ‘not by your strength, not by your might, but by My Spirit, says the Lord.” Walking in obedience to Him. All of these are how we are to rely upon God, to allow Him to lead us as a Lord would lead His kingdom.
Report Post »nopenopenope
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 4:25amSo true.. Our kids should know that if they act up, the good old fashioned bible says we can have them stoned to death. Who knows how this translation could sugar coat that?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 11:54amI am….Good enough for me!
Report Post »Hearmenow2
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:48amThe messages Bible translation of the Lords prayer. Our Father in Heaven,Reveal who you are.Set the world right. Do whats best. As above so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you,and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the devil. You are in charge. Give me a break these translation are nothing but a distortion of the word of God which was transcribed word for word over centuries. Now we want to paraphrase ourselves into what God has spoken.
Report Post »Doc John
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:33amthe key issue to explore in this translation is, like it is with anything else the emergent church does, Is Jesus the Son of God? Does His death on the cross justify us before God the Father, does His resurrection give us assurance of eternal life, and is the road to salvation only through belief in Jesus’s saving actions? And finally if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Christ are you going to hell? The emergent church is nothing less than the 21st century version of the old lie…. jesus is a great moral teacher that we should seek to emulate but that there are many paths to “god”, there is no hell because it’s all about living a good life …… yep same old lie straight from the enemy.
Report Post »Maquis de Lafayette
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:31amI would have to actually read it, but conceptually, I think this could be used as another tool to help teach the bible, NOT a replacement for traditional texts. The kids I have the privilege to teach really learn and get engaged with the drama, short skits, etc. This is kind of strange for me, because I really never did. The unfortunate reality is that many of our young kids and now these kids are grown up and are parents themselves are Hollywood and TV brainwashed – like I was. We have to suck them back in with a familiar format just long enough before we can get them to the traditional texts and source biblical teachings.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:29amThe Bible is authenic and many try to copy it to suit their own needs and that counterfeit. Its close only to those who do not know what the true word is. Take Mary Baker Eddy who made thousands of socalled corrections to both the Old and New testaments. She says she was given a divine guidance to do so…albiet from the devil himself.
Report Post »Carol1955
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:23amFine, if you want to call it “The Bible for Dummies” AND put a disclaimer that if anyone should be interested or inclined to read a more accurate translation of the Word of God, they should be encouraged to do so. Wow, people today are sooooo stupid that they would think John the Baptist is a member of the Baptist church and they would never understand the intense message connected to the immersion baptism John was performing. This is what happens when our mainline denominations abandon preaching the Word and concentrate on a narrow social justice message. Even in Bible times, people sought out knowledgeable teachers who would help them discover what was in the Word. Today people are willing to make anyone their authority. Find a Bible Teaching Church as your anchor and hold firm.
Report Post »LukeAppling
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:22amI am in favor of studying the familiar Bible with which I grew up and do so daily.
Report Post »clemV
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:18amWhat’s the big deal? It’s been written and rewritten to suit the needs of those who ENSLAVE us anyway.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:32amIts a book that sets you free from the bondages of your sin. How is anyone enslaved by it? Your more enslaved by the things of this world that the bible warns us about….get real and read it today and stop throwing out punch lines you heard in grade school.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:44amIn a sense, we are all slaves to something or someone. Be it God, pop culture, drugs, sex, money, government or whatever. The trick is to choose the right master. None other can satisfy like Jesus! And not just for today, but for iternity. All others will fade away. But not the Kingdom of God.
Report Post »strewth_cobber
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:10amNo problem. The TRUTH will set you free!
And thank God the Father, we are just visitors in this world.
Maranatha!
Report Post »Hallelujah!
Amen!
INTHEBROTHERHOOD
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 4:39pm@chief George…….the book does not set us free from the bondage of our sin….true repentance, and Jesus death,now middled by the Holy spitit of Jesus, since His resurection set us free. You can read that book a hundred times, and still be in sin bondage. The book gives us a small look back in history, and the knowledge of whats to come. Its insight and instruction give us the wisdom to live our wordly life, free and without fear. The scriptures contained within the book from Genesis to revelations, were divinely assembled for us to gain wisdom and understanding. Wisdom is in direct relation to your bible knowledge. futhermore its words,thank you Jesus, are spiritual weapons, we have available to fight the powers, principalities, rulers, and wickedness of this world. As children we do childish things, with innosence. As adults we put away those childish things. The bible is not a book, we need to change or re-write for the sake of those who refuse to approach it with the innosence of a child. The spirit of Jesus, also carries the correction of His Father, and He said do not add nor take away from my words, and Im sure He meant it.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:16amObama break at least 7 of the 10 commandment (that we know of, bearing false witness and coveting among them) every single day. He worships the book of alinsky. He acts exactly like the anti-Christ, and why anyone would like or vote for someone who resembles the anti-Christ as obama does is mystifying. But then again – we were warned that the anti-Christ would be this way.
Report Post »pwatkins
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:14amIt would be interesting how they depict Sodom and Gommorah. That may be the real answer to why they want to change things, (not a little but a lot). If Hollywood viewers like it then it must be special…not! The excitement about Cain also seems overly exagerated…why? Who could they be calling the Eternal? What Voice are they listening to?
Report Post »John 3:16 will never change in the hearts of mankind.
john vincent
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:06amThe kjv 1611 in the english tongue is the monarch of books, which has wore out manner a hammer.
Just one more attempt to soften, disguise, peddle, irrationalize, and hawk one more translation of the multitude of already bad versions.
Bottom line: the enemies guile is ever the same, cast doubt on God’s word, by suggesting, ‘hath GOd REALLY said?’ Why the desire to change language to mean what it is never intended? REading ‘soft’ books neither make men learned or wise.
There is a use for these various new ‘books,’ cat litter bedding, or mulch.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:21amThere are actually better and more accurate Bible translations of the original Greek and Hebrew since the KJV was done that stay true to the original texts. Paraphrases (such as the Living Bible and The Message) are good for “easy” reading but should never be a primary source for Bible study.
The Voice takes entirely too many liberties and attempts to water down the words and meaning of the Scriptures
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:27pm@ KAYDEE. You are 100% correct. I always am mystified by those who insist on the KJV, which is itself just a translation of the original, as being the ONLY translation. As you stated it is no where near the most accurate tranlsation and those who believe so do so because of tradition and the teachings of men more than factual evidence. I agree with your posts about light reading and study. I would take it further by stating that if you are really studying the word deeply you should only rely on the origianl language to begin with for a proper use of hermeneutical principles…. Good comment
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:25pmYou guys don’t understand that the KJV is from the “Received Text” or “Receptus Textus” manuscripts. The other Bibles are not. 50 years ago the word “cool” meant “not hot”. Today it means something totally different. We should not be changing the Word of God just because our lexicon changes. And tell me, do you think we speak english more intelligently or less intelligently now than we did in 1611. See Shakespeare.
Report Post »john vincent
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:22pmOne final thought if I may:
The question was asked: who is able to bring Christ down from above? Any attempt to soften His word in one respect is doing that. Satan has been casting suspicion on God’s word since time, and he is a rather experienced artisan. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…’ Doesnt sound too archaic to me. ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Doesnt sound archaic, obeying now, thats another story. There is a progression of grammar and spiritual learning that is ONLY found in the KJV 1611. Inspired as it were., beginning in Gen and ending in Rev. Words convey thoughts, and the words that are supposedly ‘hard to understand,’ are meant to excercise the brain, not make it simple. You want simple, read Time magazine or Readers digest. Godliness is never easy.
You are called to ‘compare spiritual with spiritual,’ as deep answers to deep. But ask yourself, what Version of the bible has been under attack unlike any other? The answer should be obvious. The comment was made and a good one, ‘why do you not see Shakespeare re-translated?? It is both unnecessary, but more importantly, ‘its not what he said…’
Is there value in other books? Of course, but Paul would add,’ yet I show unto you a more excellent way.’ Some good comments, though, tkx alot.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:58amDumbing down of the Bible continues. KJV, that’s the book for me! The translators of the KJV spoke and average of 11 languages. The KJV is from the Receptus Textus, which is the widely accepted manuscripts (guarded from the Inquistors of the Roman church by the Irish which is another interesting story). The NIV comes from a different manuscript that was widely rejected and written by two men who weren’t even believers!
Besides, the Lord warns in Revelations what will happen to anyone who adds to or takes away from His Word!
Report Post »john vincent
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:16amsquid
Report Post »just a correction-
it is commonly considered ‘revelations,’ a lateral and harmless oversight,
but more aptly,
the book is REVELATION- singular,
a series of visions but only a revelation, no ‘s.’
otherwise u are correct
qpwillie
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:19amThe KJV is written in 1600s English which nobody speaks anymore. It was translated in a time when there was far less knowledge about translating the ancient languages than we have now.
I believe Yahweh intended for us to use the knowledge we gain through the years.
Report Post »TXJackrabbit
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:40amThe King James Bible is excellent but it was also based on Greek manuscripts that were over 1000 years away from the original texts. The Textus Receptus was hurriedly thrown together to have it printed before another scholar could print his. Erasmus couldn’t find a copy of Revelations so he back translated it from the Latin Vulgate. They didn’t need to know 11 languages to translate the Bible into English, only four. English, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. We don’t have the original texts of any of the books of the Bible but we do have texts today that are closer to those originals than the scholars who translated the KJV had available.
I would not use The Voice Bible for serious study but neither would I only use the King James 1611. The Voice is interesting and good for reading aloud. For study I use several translations including the King James, New American Standard, HCB, NIV and ISV.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:32pmThe KJV was not written in 1600′s english. People back then did not refer to others in common speech with ye and thee. In fact, no such English was ever common among the populace. The Epistle Dedicatory refers to the King as you, not thee. The KJV translators intended to translate the original languages into Biblical English. That is, set apart from ordinary words and speech. We don’t change the terminology in textbooks so that people may understand the subject, rather, we teach the subject matter so the people may understand the terminology. LOL. There was not far less knowledge about translating ancient languages back then. But we do have a dumber academia today.
The Greek Texts used by the KJV translators were not 1000 years away from the originals. NO originals exist today. ALL WE HAVE ARE COPIES. The earliest manuscripts have been found recently, but the text in those scripts were available beforehand already, through other copies or translations. A manuscript found to be dated earlier DOES NOT make it more accurate. In fact, it stands to logic that the Text sacredly passed down THROUGHOUT EVERY GENERATION is the preserved word of God. Most ‘earliest’ texts found today are texts that were dismissed as currupt. Christianity didn’t accept them, and thus disregarded them. The KJV was not hurridly made. The translators went through painstaking efforts to ensure that the best translation was made from the best texts.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:33pm@ TX JACK…agree 100%. I like to simply use the original language for deep study. Be blessed.
@ SQUID…While I don‘t agree with the comment I sure wouldn’t be critical of you for using it. I hope none of us make this small matter more important than it is (not that you did). Have a good day everyone.
Report Post »deeberj
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:03pmThe Old Testament is not translated well in even the KJV. If you read the New Testament, and Jesus or someone refers back to something said in the Old Testament, and you go look that up, it doesn’t say the same thing. The best Old Testament is the Septuagint.
Report Post »http://www.amazon.com/The-Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-English/dp/0913573442/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343667176&sr=8-1&keywords=septuagint
colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:18pmNo one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.
Every LXX manuscript cited in the Septuagint Concordance (Zondervan publication) was written 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. They are as follows:
A- “Alexandrinus:” written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.
Aleph-”Sinaiticus:” written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.
C- “Codes Ephraemi:” written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets.
B- “Vaticanus:” It omits all off Genesis 1:1 – 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:17pm@JOHN You are right. It’s Revelation (no s)
@QP – So is Shakespeare. Should we dumb that down too? So was that Constitution. Should we dumb that down too? There has been a reading comprehension study to show that among children, the KJV is the most comprehensible version of the Bible.
The reason the manuscripts aren’t as old is becaused they were used so much. Just like a book that is read over and over, it wears out and must be discarded. Example, if you have books on your shelf bout at the same time 20 years ago and one is dog-eared and pages torn and the other is in perfect shape, guess which one was read.
The english that was used during that time is an accurate tranlation of the Hebrew/Greek language used in the Bible.
I realize you don’t need to know 11 languages but if you do, you know what a single word means in 11 languages giving you context to pick the correct english word. Plus, I haven’t met too many people that can speak that many languages have you?
The NIV removes the deity of Christ, it has 40,000 less words than the KJV and whole verses! Satan has attacked God’s word from the garden of Eden (”yea, hath God said…?”). He has not stopped since.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:39pm@Squid
The only good things I can say about KJV are that it’s easy to read and was as accurate as possible 400 years ago. Naturally though, “easy to read” does not necessarily mean “accurately translated”: it means it was made with stylistic flair and easy word usage in place of accuracy.
Obviously the writers of the KJV didn’t think they were doing much harm when they created the concept of an Old Testament Hell (something no Jews believe in… because it’s not in the OT at all). They didn’t think there was errors in claiming all love is the same despite several different and distinct types of love (for example, would you say sexual love is the same as familial love or the love of one’s country? KJV would). And they didn’t think it was bad to translate over a dozen different Hebrew words to the term “Prince,” because, hey, England was a monarchy and people understand princes better than clan chiefs, tribal leaders, etc.
KJV is a great introductory Bible for those who want the general sense of the Bible without putting in serious study. If you actually care to accurately know the word of God, I suggest looking elsewhere.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:04pmI don’t think so. It depends upon the context of the text.
“So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (agapao) thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (phileo) thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
The greek uses two words for love here, for the phrase, “Lovest thou me”. Yet, the apostle states, “because he said unto him THE THIRD TIME, Lovest thou me?”.
“Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.”
Report Post »bravjim
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 1:14amGod is also pretty specific with what He says concerning about following religion or traditions rather than following His Spirit. It is He who gives us the understanding we need by illuminating His word and clarifying it’s meaning. And to not be able to understand much of the language does become a hindrance, especially when you consider the way words have changed through the years. For example, a liberal today has a completely different connotation for what a liberal was during our founding years. Liberal then meant that you wanted less government and less authority; today it means the exact opposite. There are many words that have lost their original connotation, and to a student unaware of the changes may be duped into believing something in a completely different way than what was intended. You have to take the time to read exactly how the particular bible was translated, whether it was word based or thought based. Those that take both into account tend to be the best translations, and the Holy Spirit can help you to discern differences if they matter.
Report Post »Constructionist
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:57amI think this would actually be helpful as Closed Captioning during MSM interviews, for example:
George Stephanopoulos (sycophantically softballing): Mrs. Pelosi, how proud are you of this administration’s considerable achievements?
Nancy Pelosi (slurring nonsensical, apologistic, partisan drivel): Very proud indeed, George! Had this administration not ostensibly intervened in various non-specific yet patriotic ways, many of the scary economic things that did not occur because of our ‘fair share’ and ‘save the working class’ policies would have not happened even harder.
George Stephanopoulos (pretending to understand): One can hardly argue with facts, Madame Speaker.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:05amThat was very clever!
Report Post »Bullfrog85
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:57am“For I testify unto everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”- just sayin
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:55amHere is another opinion, with examples.
Emergent church leaders such a Brian McLaren and Chris Seay in conjunction with a pack of poets, songwriters and storytellers have just released a new “translation” of the Bible that they claim is a “fresh expression of the timeless narrative known as the Bible”. The name of this fresh “translation” is The Voice and it claims to be a dynamic translation of the Bible. Unfortunately, not since the release of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures in 1950 has there been a bible published that so blatantly mangles and distorts God’s Word in order to support a peculiar and aberrant theological agenda.
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/11/review-of-the-voice-new-testament—part-one.html
Report Post »muffythetuffy
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:04amThe Bible according to Atheists. Why isn’t there a vote selection that its not liked at all. I would like to read the rewritten book where God sends his atomic weapons to destroy the homosexual cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:12amRational Man,
Well, thank you for your “opinion” which of course is not accurate and filled with prejudice.
Anyone who wants to read a accurate translation should actually read the NWT before passing judgement on it’s worth.
Report Post »Bible scholars who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses have praised the NWT for its accuracy in holding to the Hebrew and Greek scripture texts.
Rational Man
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:25amThe best word for word translations are the King James and the New King James versions. The NKJV has only taken out the ‘old english’ and convoluted sentence structure of the ‘old english’. Although the Psalms and prayers have stayed the same. I have done alot of researching on the different translations and settled on the NKJV for the easiest to understand without compromising the true translation of original texts. I know people will disagree and point to things they think are wrong with even the KJV. But no critisizism of these two versions holds water for me. And neither falls into the catagory of heresy as do many of the ‘modern’ versions out there today.
Without the Holy Spirit, no translation is any good anyway. The Holy Spirit is the one who interprets the scripture rightly. The Holy Spirit is the teacher.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Report Post »John 14:26
deeberj
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:48pmEmergent church leaders don’t have correct theology. I would never read something they recommend.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:30pm“The best word for word translations are the King James and the New King James versions.”
Absolutely 100% false.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:36pmThe NWT is one of the most currupt, perverse, tampered withtranslations ever made. None of the NWT editors disclose their names, and none of them are accountable to any overview by academia, or scholorship.
The WTS could not defend it’s doctrines against the Bible, wherefore they eventually made their own version to fit their views.
“We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ organization,” (Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.) (See the quote in context.)
“All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the ‘greatly diversified wisdom of God’ can become known only through Jehovah’s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave,” (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1994, p. 8).
The NWT treats the Holy Spirt as an “active force” and Jesus as “a god.”
Legitimate scholars in Biblical languages and manuscripts don’t think well of the NWT. Dr. Bruce Metzger, a well-known scholar whose works are seminary standards, said when describing the NWT: “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” British scholar H.H. Rowley stated that the NWT is “a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.” He also referred to the NWT as “an insult to the Word of God.” Dr. William Barclay stated, “It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:47pmcolt1860, – The NWT treats the Holy Spirt as an “active force” and Jesus as “a god.”
What scriptural evidence do you have to dispute that?
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:40pmColt,
I know you are referring to John 1:1 If John 1:1 say Jesus (The Word) is GOD, then how does that square with the rest of John chapter one?
see verse 14 and 18 for example and see that Jesus is GOD’s Son.
He is the Son, not the Father. – John 3:16
Many are confused about this because of the Trinity Doctrine which clouds the true identity of Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus, the long awaited for Christ/Messiah.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:46pmThe Holy Spirit is one with GOD.
“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” – 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16
“And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” 2 Corinthians 6:16
Jesus Christ is one with GOD.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us… I and my father are one… I proceeded forth and came from God… all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father… Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father… And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was… Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God… Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:03pmNWT says,
“For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile.” 2 Corin. 5:10
“But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.” Rom. 14:10
“This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it.” Isa. 42:5
“You are Jehovah alone; you yourself have made the heavens, [even] the heaven of the heavens, and all their army, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them; and you are preserving all of them alive; and the army of the heavens are bowing down to you.” Neh. 9:6
“All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” Jn. 1:3
The Word existed eternally as one with the Father, in unity and divinity.
“Look! God is my salvation. I shall trust and be in no dread; for Jah Jehovah is my strength and [my] might, and he came to be the salvation of me. With exultation YOU people will be certain to draw water out of the springs of salvation. And in that day YOU will certainly say: “Give thanks to Jehovah, YOU people! Call upon his name.” Isaiah 12:2-3
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:09pmColt,
Is it possible to “one” with someone and not be that person?
Is it possible to be in unity with God and not be God?
We are to be at unity “one” with Jesus. Does that mean we are Jesus?
In John 14:28 Jesus said “the Father is greater than I”. What does that mean? Does it mean exactly what Jesus said? I think it does.
John 1:1 in many translations stating that Jesus is GOD is obviously a error in translation.
Report Post »So the NWT is actually correct and the KJV is the translation that does not treat John 1:1 correctly.
colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:17pmCompare Isaiah 12 with the following NWT verses.
“Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life… Now on the last day, the great day of the festival, Jesus was standing up and he cried out, saying: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that puts faith in me, just as the Scripture has said, ‘Out from his inmost part streams of living water will flow.’” John 4:14; 7:37-38
“to YOU who have been sanctified in union with Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones, together with all who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours” 1 Corinthians 1:2
“so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground” Philipians 2:10
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:31pmLOL. Most all scholors acknowledge that John 1:1 is to be translated “was God”. We’d check the credentials of the NWT editors, but they won’t give their names! “A god” is a huge mistranslation.
The Father, Word and Holy Spirit are one in nature, divinity and existence. The Father is not the Word, but is one with the Word. A divine unity NO ONE can claim. As the Father sends his Spirit into our bodies to dwell in us, and claims that HE is in us, so the Father sent his Son down to earth to dwell among us, and claimed that HE was among us.
“Arise, O woman, shed forth light, for your light has come and upon you the very GLORY OF JEHOVAH HAS SHONE FORTH. For, look! darkness itself will cover the earth, and thick gloom the national groups; but upon you JEHOVAH WILL SHINE FORTH , and upon you his own glory will be seen…
For you the sun will no more prove to be a light by day, and for brightness the moon itself will no more give you light. And JEHOVAH MUST BECOME to you an indefinitely lasting light, and your God your beauty. No more will your sun set, nor will your moon go on the wane; for JEHOVAH HIMSELF will become for you an indefinitely lasting light, and the days of your mourning will have come to completion.” Isaiah 60
“And the city has no need of the sun nor of the moon to shine upon it, for the GLORY OF GOD lighted it up, and its lamp WAS THE LAMB.” Rev. 21:23
Report Post »OLD AND BROKEN
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:00pmAmen…
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:08pmcolt1860,
Thank you for the conversation, I always enjoy this. It is difficult though to use this kind of forum to effectively convey scriptural understandings.
Again, thanks.
WF
Report Post »Wajki5
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:50amWhat a load of junk! If you watch there YouTube video it all about making money of this translation. They state, the publisher, it could take up to 10 years to recoup their investment. Wow! It’s about money, we don’t need more of the earth thrown in the water of the spirit to make it any more muddier!
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:45amWait till the get to exodus and revelations where obama is pointing everywhere else!
Report Post »rparrny
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:43amI studied Christianity for 50 years before I chose to follow my Jewish roots, I will say once I read the Chumash (Hebrew bible), I was amazed and angered by the poor translations of my NIV bible. That being said, the story presented above with Adam pointing a finger at Eve is actually very close to Hebrew translation according to the Sages. Regardless, I would prefer a good translation over a good story and feel there is too much room for error here…I’ll take the Torah anytime.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:01amExactly! Adam did kind of blame Eve for his sin. Everyone should read the Antiquities by Josephus. It’s a great commentary on the Bible by an ancient Jew right before the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:19pmThe issue with translating the Word from Hebrew is the many nuances of Hebrew that cannot be exactly translated into English
Report Post »sfmog
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:41amWe do NOT need any more translations. This foolish talk that we need to rewrite it so people can understand it is ridiculous and foolish. The Bible clearly tells us that the Holy Spirit is the one that bring understanding when needed and not man’s knowledge! I am fine with a few translations and commentary from men (or women) of God with the education of the times, Greek and Hebrew, but if I do not understand I turn the Holy Spirit not Holywood.
Report Post »balldini
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:40amI suggest Chris Seay read Proverbs 30:5-6.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:32amThere are a lot of people trying to “hip up” the bible these days. All I can say is look how well it went when we “hipped up” the presidency.
Silversmith
Report Post »Mapache
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:30amTotal mis-reading of the Bible. The Bible is not a screenplay and to make it so completely misses the mark. There is religious and symbolic language in the Bible and it is not an historical narrative. Rather than explaining the Bible in a sound, academic way (incorporating understanding of history, culture, anthropology etc) this makes the Bible a sounding board for simpletons. e.g. The creation story in the book of Genesis simply says that all creation came from God (not how), it is good and humankind is not some accident or happenstance of evolution (though it is not against evolution) but at some point God breathed and shared his spirit into what are now human beings.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:29amNo thanks. I’m all for properly translating things (and let’s be honest, I doubt it’ll be as poor a translation as the KJV), but not for adding screenplay directions. It’s like one step forward and two steps back.
Report Post »Wajki5
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:47amKJV Poor translation? Were is your evidence that any modern translation are any more accurate then the KJV?
Report Post »cvs334
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:05amKJV and the others miss the mark if not researched back to the original text. Take the word love … agape, eros, philia or storge … if you don’t know the real meaning you can read it any way.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:43am@Wajk15
“KJV Poor translation?”
Yes, it’s rubbish. Did you not know that? Off the top of my head, the first thing that comes to mind is the concept of Hell, which was introduced to the Old Testament without any basis, and was translated for several words (like Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus, and Sheol) in the New Testament. Another one was taking over a dozen different words in Hebrew and changing them to “Prince” in English. There are many sites showing the errors, feel free to run a search.
Now, for its time it was one of the more accurate translations, given the limited research abilities and knowledge (and ignoring the obvious bent taken by the Church of England). But since then there has much more research done, and older copies found, which have led to many superior translations. The KJV grossly distorts the word of God; I highly recommend an annotated version of Bible if you are actually interested in learning the debate over translations and the context in which certain words are used.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:00pm@cvs334
Thats your example? Yes there are different Greek words for the different kinds of love, where as we just say love. So your saying that it is a mistake or mis-translation that the KJV does not use different words for the the different kinds of love because people can’t tell the difference between husband and wife love, love thy neigbor, love of the world, brotherly love, love your enemies, love of money and so on?
Report Post »Give me a break!!