I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
Announcement
Collapse
Questions about manuscript evidence
Collapse
X
-
The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987
-
Originally posted by Dante View PostI do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
1 Corinthians 16:13
"...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
-Ben Witherington III
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dante View PostI do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by AkByR64 View PostWell, being liberal means you are more open up to newer ideas. I remember reading the passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where the passage meant rape. But then, I did some research and some articles say it does not mean rape. Some suggest it is seduce.. well, can we have them change that word 'rape' into seduces in all the bible versions.
Rape is used as the translation in both passages, even though seduce makes more sense of the context.
That's not the definition of liberal that I'm familiar with, where did you get it?
I guess there is also no slavery in bible history. Only servants right?
See, the people who redo the new version of the bible tried to make it more acceptable by using words that total means something else. It doesn't mean what it says!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostNot to derail the thread, but would you classify those Christian's who were open to newer ideas, back in the day, like heliocentrism, as liberal?Last edited by AkByR64; 05-15-2015, 09:24 AM.Yeng Vg
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostReading a translation won't always offer you the full context of a passage. That's not good Bible study. If you can't read the original language, it's good to go to commentary sources in order to get a better understanding of said passage. In your Deut. example the NIV uses the word "rape" and the NET Bible uses the phrase "overpowers and rapes her", whereas the King James version uses the phrase "lay hold on her, and lie with her". It has the same meaning, but different wording. Other modern translations use similar language as the King James. The ESV and the NASB use the phrase "seizes her and lies with her".
Academic commentators aren't using the King James or any modern translations like the ESV or NASB. They're reading the words in the original languages, but even reading the passages in the original languages doesn't guarantee that they're all going to agree with one another on an interpretation. While the Gospel message may be simple enough, the Bible take dedication and prayerfulness to understand. The Bereans were commended for their exuberance in examining the scriptures. I've been studying the scriptures for decades now, and am constantly learning new things, and finding new dimensions to things I thought I already knew. An old translation or a modern translation of the Bible isn't going to change that.Yeng Vg
Comment
-
Originally posted by AkByR64 View PostI am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987
Comment
-
This website states rape is not in view in the Deut 22:28-29 passage. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Again, it implied rape, regardless of language.Yeng Vg
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostContext is key, and the Hebrew is different than the English. The word translated merely means "lie with", and in the context, seduce makes better sense. Especially since the English understanding of rape is given a different judgment in the text. Oh, and context is what would decide for many translations. This is because words often have multiple meanings, so that has to be taken into account. You're also wrong about your example, here's the NIV of Deuteronomy 22.
Rape is used as the translation in both passages, even though seduce makes more sense of the context.Yeng Vg
Comment
-
Originally posted by AkByR64 View PostSeduces is different from rape I'm afraid. If you used the word seduces, it would not mean rape. ^_^
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dante View PostI do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
"Lucifer" is in 11 other translations.
(Yes, I'm bored at work).Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by AkByR64 View PostI am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.
Unless we're talking about clearly and openly biased translations like The Queen James, or The Silent Voices Bible, most modern translations aren't purposely attempting to foist their personal interpretations on the reader. The NIV isn't a conspiracy attempt to mislead people away from the truth. The translators of the Bible are doing their best to convey what they believe the original authors were saying. Some Bibles do a better job at this than others.
I don't agree with Dante's characterization of the King James. I certainly don't think it's one of the worst translations available (that might go to one of the more dynamic Bibles). It's not the best either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AkByR64 View PostWhat evidence is there that heliocentricism is true? By all appearances the earth doesn't move. If we look up in the sky, we see the sun appears to revolve around the earth and the stars appears to rotate once every 24 hours. This is how it appears and this is probably how it is.
Yeesh. We should have a litmus test for new posters so that we get a heads up.
Comment
-
The NKVJ has indeed been supplemented with some of the DSS findings (just checked my copy); I'm fairly certain the NRSV also incorporates material from the DSS.
As far as I am aware, the long delay in releasing material from the DSS pertains mostly to the non-canonical writings found there.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
39 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-16-2024, 03:47 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
28 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-27-2024, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
342 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
367 responses
17,331 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:55 AM
|
Comment