protestants, re: the translation...?

Question

of your bible. since the people (catholic church) who translated your bible were biased, would you trust what it says in english, or would you want to know what it said in the original language (greek) before it was changed (to fit their doctrine)?

park, does your bible say study to show yourself appoved?

wally you obviously don't get it

those who say "i can't read greek", you don't have to know greek, you just have to look up the words that are controversial. when you do that, you find amazing things that will challenge and grow your faith if you let it.

those who say, "oh i have faith". that is nice, but it is like everything else in life, if you have faith but do nothing for yourself, for example, work, bathe, eat, you will be poor, dirty and eventually starve to death.

for all of you who are confused, i am referring to the new testament

mr greek guy, i am talking about the kjv, which DOES actually happen to be one of the most accurate

thank you dr paul

ok, let me rephrase part of my original question, when i said translate, i meant, compile. does that help?

but whoever translated it, was still biased.

Answer 1

How does that old saying go? " Whatever you do don't bring up politics or religion in a group discussion".

Answer 2

Actually, the English version I use is a bit bias toward protestants. New International Version (1978). I am able to work with the Greek, which helps greatly with the New Testament. I do not do too well with the Hebrew, but have an interlinear version of the Old Testament that allows me to see a word for word translation.
I have to figure you may be referring to the KJV. If so, it is actually a pretty good translation. From my own experience, it has not been the translations, as much as the interpretation that caused the differences in doctrine between Catholics and Protestants. Most of the better known theologians during the Reformation, were able to read the Bible in the original languages.
There is also a controversy as to which language was used for the translation. For instance, the Latin LXX (Septuagint) is NOT the original, but rather the Hebrew. Most Bible scholars would say the Hebrew is more accurate.
There are some newer translations that are out now that are awful. Everywhere they try to be gender neutral, as if women do not know the gospel is for them too. Other places they simply get it wrong, causing the possibility for misinterpretation or even false doctrine.
Example: Matt. 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (KJV)
For what will it profit THEM if THEY gain the whole world and forfeit THEIR LIFE? Or what will THEY give in return for THEIR LIFE. (NRSV)
The greek uses anthropos which means man. It also uses Psukane meaning soul, especially in this context. To lose one's life is sad, but doesn't begin to compare to losing one's SOUL (in hell).

Sabina2 Yes Luther did translate the Bible...From the original Hebrew and Greek. Good job slave of Christ Jesus!

Answer 3

I am not sure where you got that the Roman Catholic church translated the Bible we currently use but nothing you could say could be farther from the truth. It is true of the KJV but not the more modern (and more accurate) versions which use much older and more recently discovered manuscripts.

It was not changed to fit anyone's doctrine this is another piece of misinformation that someone has fed you. All of the Christian translations (excluding non-Christian works such as NWT) are well beyond 95% (closer to 98%) accurate to the oldest Greek manuscripts many of which date to the 2nd century.

In fact the places where it is different are minor spelling or punctuation differences that do not change the meaning at all. There is not one important teaching of any branch of Christianity that is impacted by translation from Greek and Hebrew to English.

The modern English Bibles such as the NET, NRSV, NASB and others are verified for 4 independent manuscript families. This is like having 4 eyewitnesses who don't know each other corroborate a story in court.

Ask me if you need more evidence. You do need some better information, someone has fed you a load of garbage.

edit-- I will defer to one of the foremost experts in the world in regard to the status of the KJV as "one of the most accurate."

If you actually wish to learn, invest some time into the following studies:
Series Title: The History of the English Bible
by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=117

Some of this will be quite heavy but as I said Dr. Wallace is one of the most respected authorities in the world. Read and learn.

Answer 4

Arcticdancer,

Reference your quote ‘ the KJV DOES actually happen to be one of the most accurate ‘

The KJV can’t be that accurate Because it translates the Greek word Hades as Hell . Hades aint Hell – Hades is the Brother of Zeus Or at a stretch Hades is a replacement word for the Hebrew word Sheol – still not hell.

The KJV has Isaiah 7:14 translates the Hebrew word ha-almah as Virgin – this is a clear sign of bias to fit doctrine.

The KJV has some terrible translations even as an atheist I can see that !

Why are you picking on Protestants ? Matthew Chapter 7 springs to mind , Planks and splinters

Answer 5

Yes I would love to get the original version .... but I cannot read Greek. My Bible was translated from english to Afrikaans(almost like dutch) my home language. Not once but a couple of times through the years... there is always a newer and better version. so I really wonder if somewhere amongst all these translations somebody didn't perhaps accidentally left something very important out. It has really been bothering me for a very long time. If you ever find a second translation that is the first one in English after the Greek one, please let me know.

Answer 6

I'm sorry but - there are only fragments of the original texts. The catholic church did not translate your bibles. They may have added or changed things to suit their purpose but translate them, NO. Scribes [usually Monks] copied the original texts. They were not necessarily literate in the Greek language so many of the letters were miscopied or whole pages were not copied due to distractions and other various things.

Until the past 50 or so years the catholic churches used Latin for their bibles. No mass was ever read in English or otherwise - it was always in Latin and some churches today still do the mass in Latin.

Tracking changes and the rewriting of the bible is a gigantic puzzle that is still undergoing great scrutiny even today.

Answer 7

Ahem, I'm not sure I get this question. Catholics came first. Protestants never meant to have a different bible. Also if my history is right, Martin Luther translated it, which lead to Gutenberg printing it. I think part of the problem there was regular people not being educated enough to read Latin and having no access to the bible, which allowed the Catholic church to take advantage of the situation.

Answer 8

All reliable Bible translations are translated directly from the Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew, with versions like the Latin Vulgate (the first translation, while Koine Greek and Aramaic were still spoken and known) for reference. They are compared against translations like the KJV, Beza, and others, but they are translated from the original.

I studied to be a linguist and Bible translator, and all of my work - whether I was translating to English or studying to translate into another language - was done from the original languages.

The Bible is translated both grammatically and culturally, so that it stays true to both the words and the meaning/concepts of the original. Translators debate back and forth on the words to choose to relay both the facts and the meanings. (In one African culture, for example, Jesus is the "pig of God" rather than the "lamb of God", as the pig is the sacrificial animal in that culture. While orthodox Jews would find that offensive - probably heretical - it is what makes sense to that people group and allows them to understand Jesus as the vicarious sacrifice for their sin.)

Hope that helps!

Answer 9

actually, wasn't most of the bible originally hebrew? the greeks were biased too... as well as the jews... everything was written to fit the doctrine of the leader at the time... so whats the point in going back to see what was biased when? besides, how many people actually know greek well enough to read the bible in it? most people don't even know english well enough to read the bible in it...

Answer 10

Wow! Deja vu! I have a concordance, and a Bible Dictionary, and an Expository Dictionary. I can see clearly that it doesn't take a Catholic to translate the Bible. And just to make sure, I have Roman Catholic Bible as well. They are not all that different. I have an Anglican Bible as well. And it is not so different.

So what's your beef?

Answer 11

Catholics have there own bible and there have being Christians throughout the ages and the bible or God's Word has been preserved so the Catholic church does not worry me and also the Catholics tried to destroy Christians during the dark ages and also tried to have there own members from reading the bible