Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture?

[biblecatholic]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?

[cyberjosh]

No there is none. If it concerns us enough we should just all learn to read Greek and Hebrew (I personally am working on this). But even then the manuscripts we have are not the originals, although admittedly quite close.

P.S. This might need to go in the Bible Study thread, since we've had similar threads in there.

[kenan]

As cybershark said, there is no perfect translation, but the original KJV is your best bet. The original is a pretty literal translation of the original texts. the New KJV or 21st Century KJV are acceptable versions but don't really capture the original texts in the same way the old KJV does.

Personally, I use the Scofield Study Bible; it uses the original KJV and has definitions/equivalents of older words that are more difficult to understand in the margins.

[biblecatholic]

If it concerns us enough we should just all learn to read Greek and Hebrew (I personally am working on this). Praise God, that's awesome! Are you in seminary?

Would you place "some" emphasis on "some" tradition since there is no perfect translation or original manuscripts, or since tradition tells us who wrote the gospels etc?



As cybershark said, there is no perfect translation I agree
but the original KJV is your best bet. even though the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha are in the version of the original(although placed in the back)? There were many revisions(as with many/most/all bibles) do you prefer a certain revision? Mid to late 1800's version without apocrypha/deuterocanonicals?
The original is a pretty literal translation of the original texts. I do enjoy the poetic nature of the kjv, I even like the Douay. I prefer to read the rsv-ce 2nd edition(my faorite)and also the Jerusalem bible which is more of a literary translation(I think that's what they call it)



Personally, I use the Scofield Study Bible; it uses the original KJV and has definitions/equivalents of older words that are more difficult to understand in the margins. Never looked at the Scofield Study Bible. I am familiar with Scofield, the newer rapture definition he placed in the footnotes of his biblesand this led to the popularity of this belief.... I would like to look at one sometime though.(I collect bibles and read them all)

I really like the Navarre Bible. (there is an online version too http://groups.google.com/group/dailyword) It has alot of Church Fathers and Saint's commentary. Also one of my favorite's is Newman on the Bible and the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology(http://www.salvationhistory.com/Library ... m?PID=1025 (http://www.salvationhistory.com/Library/Scripture/index.cfm?PID=1025))

Blessings

[GraceBwithU]

As some others have said here there is no perfect English translation of the Bible. This would be the same for all manuscripts in other languages. However; I do believe that the KJV is the best we have in English. Anyone that uses the translation as their only source will receive everything they need to know about salvation and God’s plan for the “ages”. If a person wishes to understand more, then they should go to the source. I personally use an Interlinear Bible to help me understand anything that is unclear. If you are a person that is in deep study of the word, you can not do without understand the original. However; for understanding how a person is born again, the KJV will tell you all you need to know if you listen to the Holy Spirit also. Men are saved by the grace of our God, not the interpretations of man.

We should thank God for his word in any language. For without it we would all be lost.

[biblecatholic]

I do believe that the KJV is the best we have in English. I like it(the rsv is based on it) but I personally think the archaic language makes it not as good for me.
Anyone that uses the translation as their only source will receive everything they need to know about salvation and God’s plan for the “ages”. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I agree and I think we have to hear the word as well



If a person wishes to understand more, then they should go to the source. I personally use an Interlinear Bible to help me understand anything that is unclear. If you are a person that is in deep study of the word, you can not do without understand the original. do you use the LLX also?


However; for understanding how a person is born again, the KJV will tell you all you need to know if you listen to the Holy Spirit also. I think so, the only concern is whose interpretation of the kjv(or other translations) do you go by. Of course we want the Holy SPirit's interpretation but out of the millions of claims which would it be?


Men are saved by the grace of our God, not the interpretations of man. Amen, by grace alone.
not the interpretations of man. that opens up alot of complicated things. There are many who say that they prayed to the Holy Spirit and they disagree with each other on interpretation.... Would your interpretation of the word be from the Holy Spirit?


We should thank God for his word in any language. For without it we would all be lost. Amen

[GraceBwithU]

Biblecatholic,
Excellent response.


do you use the LLX also?

No, I’m a little overwhelmed by the 510 recourses that are at my disposal, but perhaps I should.


that opens up alot of complicated things. There are many who say that they prayed to the Holy Spirit and they disagree with each other on interpretation.... Would your interpretation of the word be from the Holy Spirit?

Not complicated at all. There are mysteries in the bible and that is for sure, but the message that the gospels have given the believer is clear and very simple.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
KJV

John 3:16
16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
NIV

John 3:16
For God So Loved the World 16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
ESV

John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.
CJB (jewish)

John 3:16
16 "God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but have eternal life.
NCV

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
ASV

I can go on.

The sinner that understands this in what ever language of interpretation on his death bed and believes will receive the promise.

[cyberjosh]

Praise God, that's awesome! Are you in seminary?

No, but if it is God's plan for me I would like to try to go to a Divinity School after I get my 4 year degree in Computer Science (I'm 3 years into it). :) I am however hoping to go ahead and take a class in Biblical Greek from a Divinity School I have in mind (Beeson Divinity College - a branch of Samford University), and with any luck - if I make it to the 3rd or 4th level Greek class - I'll be trained by an expert, who you can find out about by looking at his new book published by Zondervan which is sold in most major book stores including Books-a-Million and Barnes & Noble: Theology of the New Testament by Frank Thielman (he teaches the higher level Greek classes at Samford). Here is a link to this book on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Theology-New-Testament-Canonical-Synthetic/dp/0310211328/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200784918&sr=8-6) (you can also see my review on the book there - plus you'll see my name beside it).

Anyway it would be nice (and quite exciting) to be trained by an internationally acclaimed NT Scholar who just so happens to be teaching at a University (Beeson Divnity - Samford) in my city!

As for what I have accumulated so far I have mutliple lexicons/concordances (not just Strong's - which is for the KJV) but I also have an NASB lexicon (I prefer the NASB over the KJV, though I like both the KJV and - even more so- the NKJV) which uses the same numbering as Strong's for ease of comparison (but actually occasionally breaks each word into a), b), and c) if it has multiple forms or meanings), and also a Hebrew lexicon which takes very unique approach from a man I had the privelage to work with (I was a site moderator and helped even give editing suggestions for the lexicon[!!!]) at http://www.ancient-hebrew.org named Jeff Benner (great site check it out). He uses the ancient hebrew charatcers in his lexicon (which look quite different from modern hebrew) and organizes all the words on a [i]root/child system, grouping all parent and children (derivative) words in sections, which makes studying alot more easy and studying the words alot more relevantly grouped.

That Hebrew lexicon references Strong's numbers in the back but makes far more significant connections between words which in Strong's say "From an unknown root" and "Of uncertain derivation". Its a very amazing lexicon that brings out the original picture language (in which each letter represented a whole word - and he proves it too). Without getting to in depth on explaining that lexicon, I'll give an example: the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (for example) is aleph, which when actually spelled out in Hebrew phonetically aleph-lamed-peh [ALP] means ox (and is translated as such all throughout Scripture). Coincidentally (actually its not a coincidence - that's the point to make) the ancient Hebrew letter (and infact in Cannanite & other Semitic languages also) for aleph is a picture of an ox head. Same with Daleth which when spelled out means door (and is translated so in Psalms) and the ancient pictograph is the picture of a curtain on a rod (the door to a tent - the Hebrews were anciently a tent culture - just like the Tabernacle was a tent), etc. etc.

Look here to see his presentation of the ancient Hebrew alpahbet (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/3_home.html). A very significant find, although he isn't the first to discover it, just the first to utilize it for lay people in a helpful lexicon (luckily for me :)).

Anyway I'm mostly self taught, but I am rigorous to make sure that it is not done via fringe interpretations, and I make sure that I utilize good sources and scholarship, "Testing every thing and holding on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

I also have a facimile of an original 1611 KJV, and among my various Bibles I have a regular KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. I have dozens of study resources (Dictionaries, Theology Books, NT & OT Commentaries, a Greek commentary, Map Books, Archeological Books, Apologetcis Books, etc.) which make for great Bible studies when I have the time to actually sit down and utilize them all (not often, given how much time I spend at School). But I would like to put all that to use by actually going to School and making that area of study - which I have been doing by myself for years - an official course of study.

But, where ever God leads me I'll go. :)


Would you place "some" emphasis on "some" tradition since there is no perfect translation or original manuscripts, or since tradition tells us who wrote the gospels etc?

Yes, even though I do believe that the Textus Receptus added some readings, which can be proven by referencing earlier manuscripts (and so that someone doesn't freak out I'm not talking primarily about the Sinaticus and Vaticanus - ever hear of the P documents which predate those? They're way more reliable) some readings in the Textus Receptus can be verified by Church Father quotes (who even predate the P documents), and thus Church Father tradition becomes very significant, since you can't quote a verse if it hasn't been written yet (meaning the probability of those disputed verses that are quoted by them are very high that they are infact authentic).

So yes I pay attention to all sources, but in the end one has to use wisdom in which ones to trust more than others when they disagree, and sometime regardless of how old or new a certain reading seems to be, context can ultimately determine which makes more sense to have as a reading (which sometimes nullifies people's clever arguements for one text's superiority over another). On such issues I believe I am very fair and rational about it, and I realize that the buck stops with God, not scholarship. If studying such things ever gets in the way of coming closer to God I'd drop it in a heart beat (and I've done it before in the past, when I started getting tired of scholarly debates that went in circles and there was no edification to be found in them - and thus I would take a needed rest to rather study theology or just come closer to God in meditation and prayer - some of the real things that matter in a relationship with God).

Also yes, tradition (mainly from the Church Fathers) is important for establishing who wrote the Gospels, etc. They even tell us interesting things like how Matthew was originaly written in the Hebrew tongue and then copied into Greek.


do you use the LLX also?

I'm sure that if you know anything about the LXX, you are aware that it has good and bad parts. It was translated by many different Scholars and as a result there are differences in quality from book to book, some books like the Pentatuech were almost dead literal traslations into Greek while other book are infact terrible translations. However in the good sections the LXX can be helpful for recovering ancient readings that somehow got lost in transmission. The LXX is good for that but I personally would never bank everything on the LXX. I take far more confidence in the readings that the LXX has that were confirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and I have a "Dead Sea Scroll Bible" translation BTW, that I forgot to mention above, which lists all the differences from the traditional Masoreteic Text - very cool! It has thousands of foot notes and shows when it agrees or disagrees and also mentions the LXX often when those two agree as well). The Samaritan Pentatuech (though it has suffered corruption) also has some readings in it which agree with the LXX, thus it shows that some readings are at least ancient. Josephus also helps us out in some respects. He told a story from Samuel (which was recovered in the DSS) which added only more history (thus not theologically significant - luckily for us) which was before our verse 1 in 1 Samuel 11. It talked about a foreign king who oppressed Israel, and Josephus had that testimony, as well as the LXX and the DSS, so it is obviously original. The only modern translation to utilize it is the NRSV (which I incidentally don't like - it's quite liberal, and also makes "gender tweaking" in verses that mention only males :smt104 ).

Anyway I'll use the LXX occasionally, but I really only trust it if it is relatively intuitive to derive it from the Hebrew (if you can reasonably see where it might have gotten a different reading) or if it can be corroborated with other ancient sources. The LXX is actually helpful for NT studies as well, if you want to see what Hebrew word would have corresponded to a Greek word. So yeah, I use it as a resource sometimes.

P.S. I hope this doesn't give anyone a head ache, but I am a bit of a scholar myself. :P

God Bless,

~Josh

[biblecatholic]

No, but if it is God's plan for me I would like to try to go to a Divinity School after I get my 4 year degree in Computer Science (I'm 3 years into it). :) I am however hoping to go ahead and take a class in Biblical Greek from a Divinity School I have in mind (Beeson Divinity College - and branch of Samford University), and with any luck - if I make it to the 3rd or 4th level Greek class - I'll be trained by an expert, who you can find out about by looking at his new book published by Zondervan which is sold in most major book stores including Books-a-Million and Barnes & Noble: Theology of the New Testament by Frank Thielman (he teaches the higher level Greek classes at Samford). Here is a link to this book on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Theology-New-Testament-Canonical-Synthetic/dp/0310211328/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200784918&sr=8-6) (you can also see my review on the book there [it's the longest review on there :)] - plus you'll see my name beside it). That's really cool...ya know God has something planed for ya that will be exciting....anything with Him is exciting



That's a lot of good info. I haven't really gotten into the greek/hebrew studies yet but if the Lord tells me to get into it I will.


Look here to see his presentation of the ancient Hebrew alpahbet (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/3_home.html). A very significant find, although he isn't the first to discover it, just the first to utilize it for lay people in a helpful lexicon (luckily for me :)).

Anyway I'm mostly self taught, but I am rigorous to make sure that it is not done via fringe interpretations, and I make sure that I utilize good sources and scholarship, "Testing every thing and holding on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Thanks for the site, thats pretty cool.... you definately have a gift to be self taught in greek... Let's give the Lord some praise for that!




on the lxx. From what I've studied which isn't much in the scheme of things.(and I don't know any greek) what I've read is that there are many quotes in the New Testament form the lxx. and that the that version of the Jewish Scriptures was being used(because of Hellenization) .... your thought's?


The Orthodox Study bible is coming out soon and it will be a modern translation of the llx...I'll be getting it, to add to my collection.


Also I wanted to pass this book on to you -Beale & Carson: Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament - it's supposed to be a scholarly work(I haven't read it, but will be soon) but Scott Hahn who I love very much recommended it


Blessings
Mike

[cyberjosh]

Thanks for the compliments. :) And yes I do praise God for what I have learned.


on the lxx. From what I've studied which isn't much in the scheme of things.(and I don't know any greek) what I've read is that there are many quotes in the New Testament form the lxx. and that the that version of the Jewish Scriptures was being used(because of Hellenization) .... your thought's?

Yes you are right that the NT does quote the LXX often (perhaps almost half the time I'd guess), and sometimes there is a difference in translation. I won't lie to you, I've personally had trouble trying to figure out the reason that some of those those differences are there, but I must believe they were inspired if they are quoted in the NT, so faith takes precidence over the faculties of my head (my limited reasoning and understanding in the grand scheme of things). Some can see where the difference lies and can guess where it took off from the Hebrew, but it seems (note I say 'seems', but just because I can't figure it out doesn't mean there isn't an answer) to be saying something different than the original, but those have to be evaluated on a case to case basis.

P.S. I sent you a PM asking about that podcast thing you were telling me about.

God Bless,

~Josh

[cyberjosh]

Oh, and in the event that you would ever want to know some good resources for learning Greek (or Hebrew) I can point out some I personally have used, own, or have heard of. I have a good book that comments on the entire NT picking out different Greek words and gives (some short some long and in-depth) explanations of the history of the word and how it is used in the verse, all in layman's terms. Since I only know certain words in Greek, and not coherent sentances this is the perfect resource for me right now. Also that book by Frank Theilman gives adequate comments on the Greek along with the theological summaries of each book, and that book is also for laymen. Such resources don't readily confuse you, and those are the best type to have for study. But for starters I think all people who seriously want to study their bible should atleast have a lexicon/concordance (Strong's Concordance for the KJV or Zondervan's NASB Concordance for the NASB), they are extremely simple to use and Pastors use them all the time for sermons and teaching Bible Study classes.

[cyberjosh]

that opens up alot of complicated things. There are many who say that they prayed to the Holy Spirit and they disagree with each other on interpretation.... Would your interpretation of the word be from the Holy Spirit?

You know that's one of the most amazing things I've ever witnessed, and I've always wondered about it: how great men of God in the past, godly and devout men, still find points of disagreement between them in the interpretation of Scripture. I don't think any man will ever have it all right, but they will agree on the essentials at least. :)

[biblecatholic]

Yes you are right that the NT does quote the LXX often (perhaps almost half the time I'd guess), and sometimes there is a difference in translation. I won't lie to you, I've personally had trouble trying to figure out the reason that some of those those differences are there, but I must believe they were inspired if they are quoted in the NT, so faith takes precidence over the faculties of my head (my limited reasoning and understanding in the grand scheme of things). Some can see where the difference lies and can guess where it took off from the Hebrew, but it seems (note I say 'seems', but just because I can't figure it out doesn't mean there isn't an answer) to be saying something different than the original, but those have to be evaluated on a case to case basis. my thought's are(I could be wrong, and I often am) that the LXX was being used at that time by most Jews (I believe Jesus too)and early Christian writings include quotes from the greek. I read that the greek "cannon" and hebrew "cannon" (if you can actually call them that )never were a set "cannon" and that the hebrew cannon was only made a "cannon" after 70 A.D.(after the fall of the temple).

I think the Pharisees had a particular cannon and the Sadducee's had a lesser(by number)cannon and the Samaritans had the 5 books of Moses.(kind of represents us today..lol)


Blessings
Mike

[biblecatholic]

Oh, and in the event that you would ever want to know some good resources for learning Greek (or Hebrew) I can point out some I personally have used, own, or have heard of. I have a good book that comments on the entire NT picking out different Greek words and gives (some short some long and in-depth) explanations of the history of the word and how it is used in the verse, all in layman's terms. Since I only know certain words in Greek, and not coherent sentances this is the perfect resource for me right now. Also that book by Frank Theilman gives adequate comments on the Greek along with the theological summaries of each book, and that book is also for laymen. Such resources don't readily confuse you, and those are the best type to have for study. But for starters I think all people who seriously want to study their bible should atleast have a lexicon/concordance (Strong's Concordance for the KJV or Zondervan's NASB Concordance for the NASB), they are extremely simple to use and Pastors use them all the time for sermons and teaching Bible Study classes.


I'll look into the NASB one!

thanks

[biblecatholic]

You know that's one of the most amazing things I've ever witnessed, and I've always wondered about it: how great men of God in the past, godly and devout men, still find points of disagreement between them in the interpretation of Scripture. I don't think any man will ever have it all right, but they will agree on the essentials at least. :)We do agree on the essentials. And that means alot. And I believe we really teach each other(catholic/protestant) very much. It is good to be iron sharpening iron.


Blessings

[mondar]

Yes you are right that the NT does quote the LXX often (perhaps almost half the time I'd guess), and sometimes there is a difference in translation. I won't lie to you, I've personally had trouble trying to figure out the reason that some of those those differences are there, but I must believe they were inspired if they are quoted in the NT,

It has been a while since I have been here, I have been interested in some other things. This topic pricks my curiousity, but only at a surface level. I admit I have never even read a book dealing with this issue.

However, I I would like to express my agreement with Cybershark. Some of the differences in translation cybershark is alluding to has to do more with different Hebrew MSS, and not neccessarily the choice of english words used to translate a passage. I think there are three great and separate Hebrew families of MSS. One is the MSS behind the LXX. This was an issue in the early Church.
[If I remember right, when Jerome did his Latin Vulgate there was an issue with the OT because Jerome use the Masoretic MSS and not the LXX. (I am not sure of this, if someone is knowledgeable about Jerome and the OT, please feel free to inform me). Many in the early Church felt this was wrong because the LXX was favored by the early Church.

In any case, the three families are:
1---The Hebrew MSS behind the LXX
2---The Masoretic family.
3---An unknown family behind certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls and behind some unusual NT texts quoting this third family.

Now, Cybershark mentions that several NT passages quote the OT and the quotation is very much unlike the OT passage it quotes. Sometimes this is a Hebrew MSS issue, because the families of Hebrew Texts vary. Many of the different translations of english bibles use the Masoretic family of texts. So when the writers of the NT use the Hebrew MSS behind the LXX, or if they simply copied a text out of the LXX, then there is a possibility of a very different reading in the OT. The reason for this is that most translations use the Masoretic Text for their translation. If there is a masuscript difference there can be a very different reading.

I dont know if any of the above makes any sense to any readers, maybe it would have been better to simply say I concur with Cybershark. The bible is inspired. In my own personal theology, I would extend the docrine of the inspiration of the scriptures to include the doctrine of "biblical innerrancy." This innerrancy would extend to the choice of OT Hebrew MSS which the writers of the NT used in the OT quotes that they made. You could say the NT writers made inerrant decisions on the three differing Hebrew Manuscript families. The problem that Cybershark illuded to is then with the OT. The NT writers were moved by the HS. This concept of inspiration and innerrancy does not extend to the editors of any version or translation of the bible.

By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a guy on another BB that has done comparative work and is quite good at this subject. If anyone wants the link, I will go to the trouble to look up the articles he wrote. Just ask me for the link.

OK, I am finished now. The KJV only people can now begin to throw their darts.

[nadab]

The King James Bible is used by millions around the world. However, it has inconsistencies and errors that distort the original meaning of the Bible. For example, at Genesis 13:1,3, it says that "Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south....he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai." Could Abram (Abraham) go south and arrive at Bethel ? No, for Bethel was over 100 miles northeast of where Abram was staying.

The Hebrew word used there is ne´ghev and is thought to be derived from a root meaning “be parched” and often denotes the semiarid area south of the mountains of Judah. From the circumstance that this region lay south of Judah, ne´ghev also came to mean “south” and is used with reference to a southern side (Num 35:5), a southern boundary (Jos 15:4), and a southern gate (Eze 46:9). In some translations a distinction between the geographic designation and the compass direction is not maintained, resulting in confusing renderings. This example at Genesis 13:1, where translating ne´ghev as “south” (American Standard Version, King James Version, Leeser Translation) makes it appear that Abraham went southward out of Egypt, when actually his direction was northward through the Negeb to Bethel. But this difficulty has been eliminated in many modern translations.-The Complete Bible-An American Translation, Jerusalem Bible, New World Translation, Revised Standard Version.

Another example is at 1 Corinthians 10:25, in which the King James Bible reads: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:" Yet some modern English Bibles properly say "meat market". Hence, the meaning of the Scripture is lost or blurred because of the word "shambles" instead of "meat market".

In the original Hebrew Scriptures, (commonly called the Old Testament) God's name of Jehovah is there almost 7000 times (called the Tetragrammaton literally meaning "having four letters"). For example, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, H.S.) and Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, are based on the Leningrad Codex B 19A (1008 C.E., the oldest dated manuscript of the complete Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew) and use the Tetragrammaton, or divine name, 6,828 times in the original text. However, the King James Bible uses it only four times, at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. Current circulating texts of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Syriac Pe++++ta (Sy) and Latin Vulgate (Vg) substitute the mere title “Lord” for God’s unique name. Some Bibles, though, have made a restoration of God's name, Jehovah, such as the American Standard Version of 1901, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Young's Bible and Darby's Bible, with the New World Translation having restored it in all 6,828 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In addition, the King James Bible has kept the use of archaic wording, such as thees and thous, thus causing a difficulty in grasping the meaning of the Scriptures. Many modern English Bibles now use "you" and "I", hence using up-to-date language that we personally use and understand. Some Bibles though are not translations, but rather are paraphrased, and can cause a distortion of the intended meaning.

There are Bibles that do not carefully note the difference between gno´sis (“knowledge”) as at Philippians 3:8 and Luke 1:77 and e·pi´gno·sis (translated “accurate knowledge”) as at Philippians 1:9 and Romans 10:2. Some also fail to distinguish between ta´phos (“grave,” an individual burial place) as at Matthew 27:61, mne´ma (“tomb”) as at Luke 23:53, mne·mei´on (“memorial tomb”) as at Matthew 27:60, and hai´des (“hades,” referring in the Bible to the common grave of dead mankind) as at Acts 2:29, 31. Several Bible translations distinguish between ta´phos and mne·mei´on at Matthew 23:29 but not consistently elsewhere. In addition, the King James Bible inconsistently renders the Hebrew word sheol , 31 times as "hell", 31 times as "grave" and 3 times as "pit".

Another example is that many Bibles fail to differentiate between shades of Greek words, such as the three Greek words used to distinguish the successive stages of Jesus growth from birth, which are bre´phos, pai·di´on, and pais. Bre´phos literally means an "infant", pai·di´on means "young child", and pais means "boy". Yet, the King James Bible renders pai·di´on and pais by the same English word of "child" at Luke 2:27(where pai·di´on is used) and Luke 2:43 (where pais is used). At 2 Timothy 3:15, the King James Bible renders the Greek word bre´phos as "child" just as it did for both pai·di´on, and pais at Luke 2. Yet, the proper rendering should be "infancy". The New World Translation correctly renders all three Greek words.

At Matthew 5:22, the Greek word "Raca" was left untranslated by many Bibles, for until recently, it's meaning was not understood. However, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Goodspeed has said that “Raca” was a foul name “which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print.” The New World Translation renders it “an unspeakable word of contempt.”

One reason why modern translations are better than such old ones as the King James of 1611 is that the English language itself has changed over the years. For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7) Likewise, to “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”(1 Cor. 10:25)

[biblecatholic]

I agree that the original KJV had some issues. as there is no perfect bible... I think it is a good translation though I only have a few critiques, I would say I have many more with the nwt


I see the rational behind not translation directly the Lord's name because it is such a Holy word to utter.. It is done in this way because of respect...


the name Jehovah although now is known as one way to call God by His name is actually a mistranslation

[cyberjosh]

That arguement would be fine in an debate against a KJV-only thread, but that's not the aim here. All translations suffer from similar translation error, though some less than others. As for the Negev point (sometimes translitterated Negeb), that's all fine and well but that word can be a consistant point of speculation of which it should be translated as for each verse & any of its occurances in Scripture, since I describes a Geographic region and also sometimes as a direction. As for the KJV, although it is vague it still gets the idea across, "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south". Into the south of where? It doesn't tell us but for anyone who knew the hebrew it would be clarified. It does not say they went south of Egypt. And then it says, "he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel", from the south (Negev) up to Bethel, thus its not quite as big a deal as you make it out to be, though I do prefer the new translations that make it Negev.

~Josh

[cyberjosh]

the name Jehovah although now is known as one way to call God by His name is actually a mistranslation

I'm not argueing with you, only clarifying, but actually its as good a transliteration as any, simply because we were never given vowel points for how to pronounce Yahweh, and the Jews used the vowel points of Adonai when phonetically pronouncing "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is merely an Anglicanized/Germanized form of Yahweh (YHWH), and the Y into a J is the same thing that happened with "Jesus", (Heb.) Yeshua --> (Greek) Iesous --> (English/Germanic) Jesus. We are however fairly confident of how Yeshua and Iesous were pronounced. As for the W into a V, well that's an Anglican difference in how things are translitterated, but Hebew doesn't have a W anyway, thus V is technically correct, thus : YHVH (and you will see many people write it that way). Some people even write YHWH as Yihweh, any many variations thereof, so Jehovah is not wholely uncalled for. However what's important is that we know what the Hebrew word means, and it means "to be" or "to have life" from the root havah (a.k.a. Eve's name - meaning "life").

[nadab]

According to the International Standard Bible Dictionary, it says: "neg'-eb (ha-neghebh, "the negeb" or simply, neghebh, from a root meaning "to be dry," and therefore in the first instance implying the "dry" or "parched regions," hence, in the Septuagint it is usually translated eremos, "desert," also nageb):It gave more as follows:

1. Meaning:
"As the Negeb lay to the South of Judah, the word came to be used in the sense of "the South," and is so used in a few passages (e.g. Gen 13:14) and in such is translated lips. The English translation is unsuitable in several passages, and likely to lead to confusion. For example, in Gen 13:1 Abram is represented as going "into the South" when journeying northward from Egypt toward Bethel; in Nu 13:22 the spies coming from the "wilderness of Zin" toward Hebron are described as coming "by the South," although they were going north. The difficulty in these and many other passages is at once obviated if it is recognized that the Negeb was a geographical term for a definite geographical region, just as Shephelah, literally, "lowland," was the name of another district of Palestine. In the Revised Version (British and American) "Negeb" is given in margin, but it would make for clearness if it were restored to the text."

The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Since his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times as יהוה (YHWH or JHVH), generally referred to as the Tetragrammaton (literally meaning “having four letters”), there would be an injustice by replacing it with a title. By using the name “Jehovah,” the New World Translation has held closely to the original-language texts and have not followed the practice of substituting titles such as “Lord,” “the Lord,” “Adonai” or “God” for the divine name, the Tetragrammaton. The name Jehovah is the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Hebrew verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become".

The Codex Leningrad B 19A, used for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), vowel-points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah´, Yehwih´ and a number of times Yeho·wah´, as in Genesis 3:14. The edition of the Hebrew text by C.D.Ginsburg (Gins.) vowel-points YHWH to read Yeho·wah´. While many translators favor the pronunciation “Yahweh,” the New World Translation continues to use the form “Jehovah” because of people’s familiarity with it for centuries. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the divine name, YHWH or JHVH. James, in speaking on the issue of circumcision in 49 C.E., said that God has "turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."(Acts 15:14) How can God have "a people for his name" if no name is used ?

In addition, Jesus, in teaching us how to pray at Matthew 6:9, said that the most important request should be that God's name be sanctified or "hallowed". How can this be accomplished if there is no mention of his name ? The churches have hidden the name of Jehovah, by not using it and translators have done so by removing it from their Bibles. At Revelation 22:19, it says that "if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll." Anyone tampering with God's word, will "his portion (be taken) away from the trees of life". Jesus condemned the Pharisees for overstepping "the commandment of God because of (their) tradition", and thus making it "invalid", teaching "commands of men as doctrines".(Matt 15:3-9) He then said that their worship was "in vain".

[cyberjosh]

Thank you for the info nadab. And yeah I prefer Jehovah also, thus mentally when ever I see in my NASB, KJV, NKJV, or NIV the word 'LORD' (all caps) I automatically mentally translate it to Yahweh, because I don't like superficial titles, especially when Yahweh has a distinct meaning in comparison to his other names/titles.

[biblecatholic]

the name Jehovah although now is known as one way to call God by His name is actually a mistranslation

I'm not argueing with you, only clarifying, but actually its as good a transliteration as any, simply because we were never given vowel points for how to pronounce Yahweh, and the Jews used the vowel points of Adonai when phonetically pronouncing "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is merely an Anglicanized/Germanized form of Yahweh (YHWH), and the Y into a J is the same thing that happened with "Jesus", (Heb.) Yeshua --> (Greek) Iesous --> (English/Germanic) Jesus. We are however fairly confident of how Yeshua and Iesous were pronounced. As for the W into a V, well that's an Anglican difference in how things are translitterated, but Hebew doesn't have a W anyway, thus V is technically correct, thus : YHVH (and you will see many people write it that way). Some people even write YHWH as Yihweh, any many variations thereof, so Jehovah is not wholely uncalled for. However what's important is that we know what the Hebrew word means, and it means "to be" or "to have life" from the root havah (a.k.a. Eve's name - meaning "life").


Thanks for the clarification....The reason I had stated that was a while ago when reading on the subject I had read how an 8th -12th century(don't remember) monk mistranslated(literated) it and thus the word came into being.... I personally don't have a problem with the word because I use the word God and that is a name to call the Almighty but not being His original Name

[cyberjosh]

Thanks for the clarification....The reason I had stated that was a while ago when reading on the subject I had read how an 8th -12th century(don't remember) monk mistranslated(literated) it and thus the word came into being.... I personally don't have a problem with the word because I use the word God and that is a name to call the Almighty but not being His original Name

Huh, never heard of that monk thing, but I know that since niether Greek nor Latin have a "J" that "I" was used in stead, and when translating into Germanic and English the I then retransformed into a J, although the original Hebrew letter is Y (yod). Either way we really can never be sure of the correct pronounciation. Sometimes in the Psalms you will even see the abbreviation Yah (Jah), which became a commong shortening for Yahweh.

Also yes you are correct that God (Elohim) is a title (meaning "mighty [one]" or "power[ful] [one]" -also see NASB Joshua 22:22), while Yahweh is his proper name.

P.S. This has turned out to be an interesting discussion thread. :)

God Bless,

~Josh

[cyberjosh]

BibleCatholic,

Here are two links to threads I've made in the past which you might be interested in. They didn't have many posts in them so you should be able to read all of them with no problem. :)

Why learning the original languages would be beneficial.... (http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27332)

The meaning of the word "God"... (http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=26392)

Enjoy, and tell me your thoughts if you like (if you do, maybe you could revive those threads since they've sunk several pages deep :D).

God Bless,

~Josh

[biblecatholic]

Huh, never heard of that monk thing, but I know that since niether Greek nor Latin have a "J" that "I" was used in stead, and when translating into Germanic and English the I then retransformed into a J, although the original Hebrew letter is Y (yod). Either way we really can never be sure of the correct pronounciation. Sometimes in the Psalms you will even see the abbreviation Yah (Jah), which became a commong shortening for Yahweh. The source that I read about the "monk" was not a source that I would deem authoritative...I can't really remember where I read it....


Also yes you are correct that God (Elohim) is a title (meaning "mighty [one]" or "power[ful] [one]" -also see NASB Joshua 22:22), while Yahweh is his proper name.

P.S. This has turned out to be an interesting discussion thread. :)

God Bless,

~JoshTo be honest I didnt know that God meant Elohim....I'm glad I was right without knowing it..lol.. I was just kind of making a general statement that I don't think it is a necessities to call the Almighty by His proper name.....although His name should be Known and reviered

Blessings
Mike

[biblecatholic]

BibleCatholic,

Here are two links to threads I've made in the past which you might be interested in. They didn't have many posts in them so you should be able to read all of them with no problem. :)

Why learning the original languages would be beneficial.... (http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27332)

The meaning of the word "God"... (http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=26392)

Enjoy, and tell me your thoughts if you like (if you do, maybe you could revive those threads since they've sunk several pages deep :D).

God Bless,

~Josh

I'll check them out

[kenan]

well the discussion in this thread seems to be over so this is sorta a pointless post, but there is a good bible called "The Scriptures", published by the Institute for Scripture Research (link (http://www.isr-messianic.org/pubs/pubs.shtml)). It's interesting because its restored the Name of our Lord יהוה and our Saviour יהושע Messiah throughout the book. Plus the books in the Tanakh have been arranged into their original order, and all the hebrew names of people appearing in the book have been restored (EG "Yirmeyahu" for Jeremiah, "Yeshayahu", for Isaiah and "Mosheh" for Moses)

[cyberjosh]

To be honest I didnt know that God meant Elohim....I'm glad I was right without knowing it..lol.. I was just kind of making a general statement that I don't think it is a necessities to call the Almighty by His proper name.....although His name should be Known and reviered

Amen. And you don't have to know scholarship to discern these things, but many times studying the original languages helps reveal things not otherwise readily discernable.

:)

God Bless,

~Josh

[nadab]

Down through the centuries, the correct pronunciation of the divine name of Jehovah in Hebrew has been lost. Hence, it is uncertain what vowels should be used to fill in the name. By combining vowel signs of the two Hebrew words A·do·nay´ (Lord) and El·o·him´ (God) with the Tetragrammaton, the pronunciation Ye·ho·wah´ was formed. Eventually, in a Latinized form, this became “Jehovah", just as the name Pontius Pilate is a Latin name. Nevertheless, many Hebrew scholars say that “Yahweh” is more correct. But Rudolph Kittel, editor of Biblia Hebraica, vowelizes the Hebrew tetragram as “Yehwah,” in all his editions.

The name “Jehovah,” however, is far more widely known and used. For centuries, it has appeared in Bible translations and literature of all kinds. It also appears in various inscriptions. For example, a Latin inscription on the municipal coat of arms of the city of Plymouth, England, reads Turris Fortissima Est Nomen Jehova, meaning: “The name Jehovah is the strongest tower.” (See Proverbs 18:10.) The late Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: “Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree, ‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”

[cyberjosh]

Nadab,

Out of curiousity, where did you study? Or are you self taught? And what resources do you use for your information? I ask because I'm interested.

~Josh

[nadab]

Josh,
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I use an in-depth library called the Watchtower Library. I make extensive use of this library to assist others to understand what the Bible really teaches, unlike many who attend a theological seminary, and come out with some formal training. As Peter and John were outspoken for the Creator, Jehovah God and his Christ, though they were "men unlettered and ordinary",(Acts 4:13) so likewise, I too speak out, being taught by what Jesus called a "faithful and discreet slave" at Matthew 24:45-47, with this "slave" providing ""meat in due season"(King James Bible)

Jesus, when speaking of himself as the "bread of God"(John 6:33) before the Jews, told them of a prophecy that is being fulfilled in our day, saying: "It is written in the Prophets,(at Isaiah54:13) ' And they will all be taught by Jehovah.' Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me".(John 6:45)

I am sure you have read the prophetic account at Isaiah 2:2-4, whereby it says that "it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream. And many peoples will certainly go and say: "Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."

Hence, there is worldwide educational work going forth in these "final part of the days", teaching people of all nations to know the God of the Bible and of which I am a part.

[AVBunyan]

1. Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv,
2. but which version of the kjv?
3. ANy other version?..
4. Some say it is not that important? What do you say?
1. Yes, it is found in the one perfected in English in 1611 and from thence blessed and miraculously used it for almost 400 years. 8-)

2. Go down to Wal-Mart and take out $5.95 a you can buy it. :lol:
Yes, I know about the revisions and editions - been covered over and over.

3.. No, but You can find some of the words of God in some of the other versions but I wouldn't call them the word of God though.

4. Important? Yes, outside of justification the most important issue to settle. 8-)

God bless

[biblecatholic]

1. Yes, it is found in the one perfected in English in 1611 and from thence blessed and miraculously used it for almost 400 years. 8-)

2. Go down to Wal-Mart and take out $5.95 a you can buy it. :lol:
Yes, I know about the revisions and editions - been covered over and over.

3.. No, but You can find some of the words of God in some of the other versions but I wouldn't call them the word of God though.

4. Important? Yes, outside of justification the most important issue to settle. 8-)

God blessthanks for sharing!!!(long time no talk)......your opinion is noted
glad to hear from you

[Catholic Crusader]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?
There is no perfect English version. But I believe that the RSV-CE is the English version most faithful to the original texts.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/library/bible_t ... _guide.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/bible_translations_guide.asp)

[nadab]

The King James Bible is read by many. Yet, it has had many changes over the course of almost four centuries since it was first published in 1611. Today, no one reads the King James Bible in it's original form. Explaining why this is so, the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! Many should appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. There was the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; for who would want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it.

King James of England set forth certain rules of procedure when he authorized this version. These the translators followed. One of those rules was that “the old Ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept.” Thus the translators were bound to follow the Bishop’s Bible in using certain ecclesiastical words, whether or not these words represented an accurate translation of the original Bible. For example, the ecclesiastical word “bishop” (Greek e·pi´sko·pos) appears in the King James Version, although the original word, correctly translated, merely means “overseer", as at Philippians 1:1.

Some other words used by the King James translators are not even used today. When we encounter these, our rate of understanding may considerably slow down. So mentally a reader of the King James Version may have difficulty when he encounters obsolete words. For example, at Jeremiah 4:22, the King James Bible reads: “They are sottish children.” What kind of children are these? A modern translation clears the meaning of an obsolete word out of our pathway of understanding: “They are stupid children"(Revised Standard Version), "unwise sons", (New World Translation) The King James Version also uses the word “overcharge" at 2 Corinthians 2:5. What does the phrase “that I may not overcharge you all” mean? The obstacle to understanding is removed by a modern English translation reading: “not to be too harsh in what I say.”(2 Cor. 2:5, New World Translation), "not to be severe on all of you."(William's New Testament)

Language change can distort God’s Word if we use a Bible that is not up to date. These distortions either give a reader an entirely wrong idea or may cause him, in despair, to give up trying to understand at all. Take, for example, Jesus’ words at Matthew 11:12 according to the King James Version: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Will God allow one to attain his kingdom by violent means? No. So what is the right understanding? A modern translation removes the distortion: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.”(New World Translation)

At Matthew 5:3, the King James Bible says: " Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What would one draw from these words, as rendered by the King James Bible ? That perhaps one lacks energy, vitality, determination or will power. A modern translation correctly renders it: “Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need.” (Matt. 5:3, New World Translation) Today's English Version reads: "Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor."

Sometimes words change so much that they take on a meaning entirely opposite from that which they once had. When this happens to words in the King James Bible, the reader gets just the opposite from the truth. How would you understand, for instance, the word “let”? Today it means “allow", yet in the days of King James, it meant to "hinder". How then would today’s reader understand the scripture of 2 Thessalonians 2:7,8 in the Authorized Version: “The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" ? Does this mean that the apostles of Christ, when still alive, allowed lawless, apostate Christians to come into and remain in the Christian congregation?

A modern translation renders this as: "The mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed.”(New World Translation) The International Standard Version reads: "For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed."

[Free]

No, there is no perfect English translation as common sense, among other things, tells us that no language can be perfectly translated into another without some loss. But some translations are better than others, for sure, and the New World Translation is not one of them.

[Swish727]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?

Just to throw in my two cents here...

A lot of people will say the KJV, but as more manuscripts have been found in the last 400 years, the KJV is not necessarily as accurate as some more modern translations (not to mention the difficulty in reading it for many people today). Personally I use the English Standard Version (ESV). Whenever I have translated from Greek, the ESV has been the closest on nearly every occasion. It does a good job of translating the specific words and getting across the sense moreso than other versions that I've read.

[Righteousone]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture? Some say it is the kjv, but which version of the kjv? ANy other version?..Some say it is not that importatant? What do you say?


KJV has so many errors it isn't funny..

[Righteousone]

Josh,
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I use an in-depth library called the Watchtower Library. I make extensive use of this library to assist others to understand what the Bible really teaches, unlike many who attend a theological seminary, and come out with some formal training. As Peter and John were outspoken for the Creator, Jehovah God and his Christ, though they were "men unlettered and ordinary",(Acts 4:13) so likewise, I too speak out, being taught by what Jesus called a "faithful and discreet slave" at Matthew 24:45-47, with this "slave" providing ""meat in due season"(King James Bible)

Jesus, when speaking of himself as the "bread of God"(John 6:33) before the Jews, told them of a prophecy that is being fulfilled in our day, saying: "It is written in the Prophets,(at Isaiah54:13) ' And they will all be taught by Jehovah.' Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me".(John 6:45)

I am sure you have read the prophetic account at Isaiah 2:2-4, whereby it says that "it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream. And many peoples will certainly go and say: "Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."

Hence, there is worldwide educational work going forth in these "final part of the days", teaching people of all nations to know the God of the Bible and of which I am a part.

Nadab,
Just curious, why are you called "Jehovah's Witness" and not Christian since JW appeal to Isa 43:12, 44:8 for Scriptural support that they should be called "JW", then what was the new name prophesized in Isa 62:2? It can't be JW, for God already used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be Christian after our Savior, Christ?
Why would the name God gave to his people not be Christians since Acts 11:26 says "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch?" Why is the name JW found nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God's Divine name for his new people under the new Covenant?
Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name JW?
And why if you have the truth and nothing to fear from self-investigation, why are you officially forbidden from reading any materials that cross-examine your doctrines?
Is it not hypocritical when you chide the "poor deluded Catholic" that his faith cannot find a bible passage to support it when the same goes for you and 1935?

Just curious...

[Catholic Crusader]

Is there perfect english translation of Sacred Scripture?.....

No, but my understanding is that the RSV-CE is the best translation from the original languages.

Here is a good article on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp

[Vic C.]

You said that already! :smt064 (Well, sort of anyway) Now which post would you like me do delete? 8-)

[Catholic Crusader]

You said that already! :smt064 (Well, sort of anyway).....
I just noticed that. LOL. This must have been an old thread. Ooops.

Delete one. It doesnt matter which.

[Vic C.]

[quote="vic C.":72246]You said that already! :smt064 (Well, sort of anyway).....
I just noticed that. LOL. This must have been an old thread. Ooops.

Delete one. It doesnt matter which.[/quote:72246]
I was just joking... two different links in the posts. :-D I was expecting that to be your response. 8-)

[Righteousone]

I am still waiting for an answer here... :smt015

[Catholic Crusader]

.........why if you have the truth and nothing to fear from self-investigation, why are you officially forbidden from reading any materials that cross-examine your doctrines? Is it not hypocritical when you chide the "poor deluded Catholic" that his faith cannot find a bible passage to support it when the same goes for you and 1935?

Just curious...

Can't argue with that

[nadab]

Hello Righteousone,
The nation of Israel were called to be Jehovah's "witnesses", for these represented him before all the nations. God had told Moses, following their exodus from Egypt in 1513 B.C.E., that "they must place my name upon the sons of Israel, that I myself may bless them."(Num 6:27) Then almost 40 years later, just before the Israelites entered into the land of Canaan, in 1473 B.C.E., Moses said that "all the peoples of the earth will have to see that Jehovah's name has been called upon you, and they will indeed be afraid of you."(Deut 28:10) Naaman, after having been cleansed of his leprosy, recognized that Israel's God, Jehovah, was the the "true God", saying that "I certainly know that there is no God anywhere in the earth but in Israel."(2 Kings 5:15)

Hence, at Isaiah 43:10,12, the nation of Israel are called 'Jehovah's Witnesses', these being "precious in (his) eyes".(Is 43:4) These were his "witnesses", representing him before all nations and the "gods of the peoples".(1 Chron 16:26) Truly as God himself said to them, that "you are my witnesses."(Is 44:8)

Who today are willng to do the "bidding" of the true God, Jehovah, to be his "witnesses" ? The word "witness" means to "testify" or "speak publicly about religious beliefs"(Encarta Dictionary) Jesus himself is called "the faithful and true witness".(Rev 3:14) Of whom was Jesus a "witness" or 'spoke publicly' to everyone ? Of his Father, Jehovah God. Hence, he was one of "Jehovah's Witnesses". All who follow in his "footsteps" then, would likewise "testify" or "speak publicly" about the true God, Jehovah, becoming therefore his "witnesses", teaching others what it means to "observe" all of what Jehovah has said , as Jesus himself said: "every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth."(Matt 4:4)

Then, moments before his ascension to heaven, he tells the ones there present that "you will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me....to the most distant part of the earth."(Acts 1:8) Those that obey this command, would do just as Jesus did, to be a "witness" for his Father, Jehovah. Jesus said that "what I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."(John 7:16,17) Thus, Jesus spoke his Father's words, publicly. He was a "witness" for his Father.

Those who imitate Jesus are indeed called Christian, or "christ-like" and comes from the Latinized Greek term Khri·sti·a·nos. Just as Jesus was Jehovah's "witness", so likewise are those who follow closely the "model" he set, becoming Christians.(1 Pet 2:21) The apostle Paul gave a list of loyal indivduals that were Jehovah's Witnesses in pre-Christian times, starting with Abel who exercised faith in Jehovah.(Heb 11) At Hebrews 12:1, Paul now says that "we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us". These gave "witness" or "spoke publicly" about the true God, Jehovah. James, in 49 C.E., told the older men in Jerusalem that God has "turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name."(Acts 15:14) Hence, in the first century, from the "nations" were those who would also accept the responsibility of carrying God's name and his assigned work of witnessing to all they met about God's kingdom. The churches have certainly not accepted this task, but have tried to hide God's name.

Those who were loyal in carrying God's name in the past, has been followed in these "last days" with a people that would also be "witnesses" for Jehovah God. Days before his death, Jesus told his apostles that "this good news of the kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."(Matt 24:14) Following his resurrection from the dead, he says that these are to "go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations....teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you."(Matt 28:19,20) The name Jehovah has been, for the most part, removed even from many of the Bibles, due to an apostasizing (Greek a·po·sta·si´a, having the sense of "desertion, abandonment or rebellion.”) of the Christian congregation, especially after the death of the apostles. Jesus had already foretold that this would occur, for he gave the illustration of the "weeds and wheat" at Matthew 13:24-30.

Therefore, over the course of almost two thousand years, there was practically no one that was a "witness" for Jehovah. However, God had prophetically stated that true worship would once again be reestablished in the "last days", our time period. Isaiah 2:2,3 says that "it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream. And many peoples will certainly go and say: “Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths."

Thus, once again, Jehovah God would have his "witnesses", that would "speak publicly" for him before the "end" comes.(Matt 24:14) This work is being done on a global scale. Anyone who wishes to examine our religious beliefs are welcome, for we encourage open discussions about the Bible, just as Jesus did.(Luke 8:1) However, there are those who have no interest in learning what the Bible really teaches, but rather to attack what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching others to put into practice from the Bible, to be "no part of the world".(John 15:19) These wish to break our integrity to the true God, causing "divisions".(Rom 16:17) If you knew that certain food was unsafe for consumption, would you eat it ? Likewise, we have to recognize that there are those who try to use "wicked reasonings" to corrupt the our thinking.(Matt 15:19) The religious leaders tried this on Jesus, but failed.

We do not "chide" the "poor deluded Catholic", but rather we seek to "witness" to all, including Catholics, encouraging them to learn what the Bible really teaches, in imitation of Jesus. That is why he is called the "The Word of God", for he is Jehovah God's chief spokesperson.(Rev 19:13; John 1:1)

[Vic C.]

[attachment=0:79e42]stop.jpg[/attachment:79e42]

The topic is, Is there perfect English translation of Sacred Scripture? not "why is nadab's religion called Jehovah's Witnesses?"

8-)

[Righteousone]

Listen Nadab, I don't want a 'sermon' here, just answer the questions in a clear definitive way.
Another thing is, if the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt. 10:28?
The NT translates John 1:1 as "and the word was WITH god, and the word was God".
How can the word (Jesus) be a "God" if God says in Deut. 32:39, "See now that I-I am He, and there are NO Gods together with me?
If Christ will not have a visible return to earth, then how will he be seen by "ALL tribes of the earth"? (Mt. 24:30) and by "Every eye" (Rev.1:7) when he returns?

Just answer the questions.

[Righteousone]

And Vic, we are talking about Scripture.

[nadab]

Rightousone,
I will follow vic C and will not go off-topic. If you wish, this could be done in PM.

[Catholic Crusader]

I still say its the RSV-CE
.

.

.

[Free]

And I still say there is no perfect translation--there cannot be. Some are better than others, for sure.

[Catholic Crusader]

I still say its the RSV-CE

And I still say there is no perfect translation--there cannot be. Some are better than others, for sure.

Thats what I meant. I was not clear.

(BTW: That is why people who parse words in English Bibles are spinning their wheels, in my opinion.)

[GuitarIntro]

Wouldn't that be reading Hebrew?

[kenan]

Wouldn't that be reading Hebrew?

yes, it would, and theres greek in there too. but as far as I know we don't have an intact copy of the entire new testament, so we have to make do with the translations that were made from it before we lost the originals