Is that group the only group who will be saved? What if you study from more than one version? Are you contradicting your faith? Why do modern day translators have so much trouble with translations of things such as... advertising slogans? If human beings can't properly decipher the intent and nuance of the foreign language advertising slogan of someone who wrote it just yesterday, how can we think translations of thousand-odd year old writings from another culture have been translated correctly?
2007-07-12 19:34:03 · 11 answers · asked by PediC 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The translation and version that works for you and inspires you is the best version. Some of the answers said the King James Version. Others find the Thous and thees too cumbersome and archaic. It is true, as you point out, that something is necessarily lost in translation. In the Middle Ages, to be educated meant learning Latin, Greek and Hebrew to be able to read the Bible in its original versions. For the rest of us, the best course may be to go through different versions. This may entail an hour or two in your local religious book store. I can't believe that the version you choose is going to make a difference on your spiritual well-being unless the translation is so misleading as to convince you to do bad instead of good. Ask your pastor for suggestions as to the best version to work with given your background and time commitment. Obviously if you're attending a class that requires a particular version for everyone to be on the same page your decision is made for you.
2007-07-12 20:51:12 · answer #1 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"whose bible is the absolute correct version? Is that group the only group who will be saved?" It's a fallacy that if you study only a specific version that one will be saved. People have been saved not having read the Bible at all--just from hearing it preached.
"What if you study from more than one version? Are you contradicting your faith?" Reading more than one version enhances our faith as we get a fuller grasp of what the passage is teaching.
"Why do modern day translators have so much trouble with translations of things such as... advertising slogans? If human beings can't properly decipher the intent and nuance of the foreign language advertising slogan of someone who wrote it just yesterday, how can we think translations of thousand-odd year old writings from another culture have been translated correctly?" Can you back up your claim that hundreds of Bible scholars over many decades have been having trouble with advertising slogans?
2007-07-13 03:21:55 · answer #2 · answered by Steve Husting 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there are translations within the Bible that are not well translated in accordance to what the disciples had written in Greek.
i.e. a very serious one that have led many astray...
"A wife must not separate from her husband. 11{But if she does}, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."-1 Corinthians 7.
The beginning of the verse contradicted itself in the second, but if you read the Greek version it clearly says {but if she had}:
ean de kai cwrisqh, menetw agamoV h tw andri katallaghtw kai andra gunaika mh afienai.
sorry, it didn't turn out properly, but go to www.greekbible.com and you'll find out.
2007-07-13 02:52:31 · answer #3 · answered by blackmail8549 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We can trust God to give us the bible that he wants us to have.
edit:
The King James bible is the pure, inerrant and infallible word of God.
Many do not believe in some of the foundational beliefs of Christianity due to the translation of the modern versions of the bible, which change, leave out, or add to its text. In that sense they have fallen for the lie that Satan told Eve in the garden, when he said "Yea, hath God said,...?" by the implication that God did not give us one pure, inerrant and infallible translation of his word, which he said he would preserve forever, and are in danger of eternal condemnation because they do not believe God..
2007-07-13 02:39:46 · answer #4 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No bible is 100% Accurate but, the "King James Version" is proven to be the most accurate.
2007-07-13 02:38:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The following WHOLE verses have been removed/destroyed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!! They declared biblical verses apocrypha – doubtful authority.
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.
Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"
John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes
Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says,
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you. People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.
NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to...
tell God, OUT LOUD, that these verses do not belong in the Bible?
If not, you need to get a King James so you can have some confidence.
He said, I said
One writer said to me, "You [do not] talk about the large section of Mark [referring to Mark 16:9-20] which was INCLUDED with the provison that the earliest reliable manuscripts did not include that section."
I said to him, That "provisional" statement is, at best, casting doubt on the word of God and at worst deleting the information in the footnotes. You say that the NIV says, the MOST RELIABLE manuscripts don't have it. That is as good as saying, "If you accept this rendering you are accepting an inferior, unreliable manuscript." What they DON'T tell you is that those same "reliable" manuscripts DON'T EVEN INCLUDE THE WHOLE BOOK OF REVELATION!!! If the manuscript is so reliable, then why didn't they take out the WHOLE book of Revelation? Mmm? Selective deletion? Why not be true to what they say are the earliest and most reliable manuscripts? I have no respect for this.
2007-07-13 02:39:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
its in revalation 20:12
2007-07-13 03:04:08 · answer #7 · answered by Mosa A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read from the NKJ version.
2007-07-13 02:39:23 · answer #8 · answered by ok 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The one with God's autograph in it.
2007-07-13 02:37:02 · answer #9 · answered by Always Curious 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
this is the same im looking for I don't know
2007-07-13 02:39:49 · answer #10 · answered by clarkzila 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋