Aloha! New with a big question!

[WackyWicky]

"Those idiots"......
If you would be good enough to show how we are incorrect in what we said Danny that would be great.

Certainly mate.

There is no such thing as the original bible.
All extant versions are copies, mistranslations or plagiarisms of other copies, mistranslations or plagiarisms and so on and so forth.

Well you're categorized that incorrectly.

We have copies, yes, and translations also. We also do have mistranslations.

But not all in the one place. We have 5,800+ manuscripts in Greek, and over 20,000 in Latin - and more still in other languages. Even without any of those, if you were to lock them all in a very large vault, we'd still have almost the entire Bible preserved in the quotations of church fathers, and other early historical figures, in Greek, Latin and other languages. So yes, we has lots and lots of copies, quotations even and translations too (starting with Latin, Cyrillic, etc).

Mistranslations - let's assume we're talking about the Vulgate, for instance, yes there are mistranslations eg Rev 22:19 where it says " God shall take away his part out of the book of life", I illustrate this error because it was copied by Erasmus, and that's because he didn't have the last leaf of Revelations in the 7 Greek manuscripts that he borrowed, and thus he copied it from the Vulgate and translated it back to Greek. And thus because it appeared in the Novum Instrumentum omne (as did the Comma Johanneum), it appears in the Geneva Bible, and subsequently the KJV. Note that it wasn't the translators of the Geneva Bible or the KJV who "mistranslated" it, they translated it from the Novum Instrumentum omne (3rd Edition), and it was either Jerome who made the error back in the 4th century - or it was the person who made the first copy we have.

The idea that this process is a cycling one is wrong. With each new critical Greek editions, less and less errors are reproduced in the original texts, and almost all modern translators no longer use the critical texts as the sole underlying textual basis for the NT; they consider all relevant early manuscripts alongside the science of textual criticism where they feel necessary to avoid copying mistakes found in the text.

Aractus

Are you suggesting the "bible" is the absolute word of God? If not which one is?

As a past Christian I was taught that the King James Version (what's this version thing?), was the actual word of God , (suggesting that all other bibles [that weren't word for word the same] were false), therefore un-questionable. hock:

There are some other things in the King James Version that bother me but are not germane to this post which, if any one is interested I will be happy to address in another thread.

BTW I am an a-theist as opposed to atheist. (Perhaps a rather fine distinction).

Robert

[Neo-Scholastic]

Each translation has its pluses and minuses. The NASB is more word for word, but that does not always capture the connotations of the original Hebrew. I like the KJV for memorization. Its language is so elegant. NIV is easy to read but I understand some doctrinal influence from Evangelicalism.

[Minimalist]

Are you suggesting the "bible" is the absolute word of God? If not which one is?

I'm sure Danny means "his bible." Everyone knows that all of the others are full of shit, right?

[Aractus]

As a past Christian I was taught that the King James Version (what's this version thing?), was the actual word of God , (suggesting that all other bibles [that weren't word for word the same] were false), therefore un-questionable. hock:

The KJV (hereafter referred to as the AV - ie Authorised Version) was based on the wrong Greek to begin with. Yes, about 98.5% of the Greek was totally correct, but 1% was erroneous (didn't belong in the Bible) and 0.5% were errors in the text. Also, it wasn't just based on the Greek, the translators were told to use certain existing English translations too (but not the Catholic version - the Douay–Rheims version of course). The Catholics were translating from the Vulgate - which became scripture at the Council of Trent in the 14th century.

The biggest difference between the Geneva and the AV of course is the study notes from the Geneva Bible were removed. But the text itself of the AV is something like 80% similar to the Geneva, it is abundantly clear that it was built off the back of it, just as the Geneva Bible was built on-top of the Tyndale Bible. So from a purest POV you could argue that the translators shouldn't have had to look at any other translation and work only from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

[WackyWicky]

As a past Christian I was taught that the King James Version (what's this version thing?), was the actual word of God , (suggesting that all other bibles [that weren't word for word the same] were false), therefore un-questionable. hock:

The KJV (hereafter referred to as the AV - ie Authorised Version) was based on the wrong Greek to begin with. Yes, about 98.5% of the Greek was totally correct, but 1% was erroneous (didn't belong in the Bible) and 0.5% were errors in the text. Also, it wasn't just based on the Greek, the translators were told to use certain existing English translations too (but not the Catholic version - the Douay–Rheims version of course). The Catholics were translating from the Vulgate - which became scripture at the Council of Trent in the 14th century.

The biggest difference between the Geneva and the AV of course is the study notes from the Geneva Bible were removed. But the text itself of the AV is something like 80% similar to the Geneva, it is abundantly clear that it was built off the back of it, just as the Geneva Bible was built on-top of the Tyndale Bible. So from a purest POV you could argue that the translators shouldn't have had to look at any other translation and work only from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

I didn't really make myself as clear as I thought I did. What I meant to imply was I was taught that the KGV was the direct word of God; that there was no translation from anything. Of course that assertion went against everything I ever read and certainly contributed strongly to my rejecting "The Bible".

Robert

[Aractus]

Why would you be taught that? Even the KJO movement acknowledge it as a translation...

[WackyWicky]

Why would you be taught that? Even the KJO movement acknowledge it as a translation...

I suppose you are right I wasn't taught I was told. I was told (on more than one occasion by various ministers) that the author of the bible was in fact God. The persons who wrote the various books were in direct contact with God when they wrote them so there was no translation from other sources.

It's all bullshit of course but the people who told me things were either woefully ignorant of their own faith, were themselves informed incorrectly at their seminaries, didn't want to get into a discussion with me or were just lazy and didn't want to debate with me.

Robert

[Neo-Scholastic]

So now that years have passed for me since reading randomly throughout bibles and littles bits here and there of church, I feel like I'm in a place to better understand the bible, and actually read the damn thing. I want to read it. Problem is, which one!!!!!!!!

BIG QUESTION: Which bible is the one that hasn't been completely jacked with. I'd rather go all original (obviously I know it's not original, but ya know) but there are waaaay too many. I've even tried to research it and can't come up with which one. I'd appreciate any help if possible!

Many Mahalos!

Hi and welcome. The simple answer, though the above idiots refuse to admit it, is that none are "completely jacked with". Not even the NWT is "completely jacked with".

I'd avoid the Catholic translations - or any translations that favour "the septuagint" in any way (JB, NJB, etc). If you want to avoid translations that are more "loose" with the translation style, then avoid NIV, NLT and MSG, and instead read ESV, NRSV, HCSB, or even the NKJV.

I generally agree. Each has its merits. For general study I use the NASB but switch to KJV for memorization. For really deep study I use a Hebrew-English interlinear.

[Haipule]

Aloha Everyone!  I won't make my story/introduction too long, I'll try for short and sweet.  My name is Amanda, I'm 31.  I live on and island....ah, love!  Never been baptized, went to church randomly growing up with some family and some friends up until I was about 15.......none of it EVER clicked for me, not even for a second.  Every time I went to church with anyone, I left with the feeling that I was going to hell, for sure, no questions asked, and not because I was "bad" but because I wasn't one of them, I wasn't "saved."   I tried to have it make sense and be open to the possibilities, still nothing ever panned out.  I suppose I even kept things "somewhat open" up until last week.  I knew how I've felt for the last 20 years or so, and now I've solidifying it completely.  No ifs ands or buts....plain and simple, I don't believe in it at all, I know this.  

So now that years have passed for me since reading randomly throughout bibles and littles bits here and there of church, I feel like I'm in a place to better understand the bible, and actually read the damn thing.  I want to read it.  Problem is, which one!!!!!!!!  

BIG QUESTION:  Which bible is the one that hasn't been completely jacked with.  I'd rather go all original (obviously I know it's not original, but ya know) but there are waaaay too many.  I've even tried to research it and can't come up with which one.  I'd appreciate any help if possible!

Many Mahalos!

Nui Aloha Manda:

I think I can help. There are no English translations that honestly reflect any of the author's intent. The English translations are all very protestant which means manipulation. If fact, it is gross! The English book of Romans is the Bride of Frankenstein--hacked! And the English book of Ephesians is burned beyond recognition.

However, we can look at the bible from the standpoint of it's autographed language. However, if we cannot honor Greek grammatical inflections, sentence structure and syntax then, we too risk manipulation. EVERYONE who studies has a theological prejudice which they have every manipulative high sounding tool to validate there nonsense.

Your own life is far more valid than any theological prejudice! Because God and His Word is all about your life and your relationship with Him.

If you like, I can show you what the bible says without prejudice because I only honor the language--not theology and certainly, not my own notions which you can freely challenge. Your life is more valid than anything I can show you. And that is true with everyone. I prefer to be student and learn from you and everyone.

I'll give you and example of how I translate Hyper-Literally honoring every aspect of the authors written inflection:

Hyper-Literal: For(conjunction assigning a reason) thusly, (2)thee God, (1)He-agapaO-loves* (3-)thee kosmos-world even-as-and thee Son of-Him-same, namely--thee uniquely-begotten, He-gives* that(purpose) any thee one-keeps-on-trusting(not a “one shot” decision but continuous, repeated, customary action--do not argue with Greek present participles!) into Him-same no he-might-be(acting upon themselves--stupidly)-rendered-useless (keep-on trusting into Him and you cannot screw it up!) but-rather he-might-be(and continue)-having zOE-life(feminine), breath-being-belong-to-her(right here, right now!). John 3:16

That is just gorgeous! Ain’t it good!

I also live on Maui and would love to chat

Mahalo Nui Loa, Bill

[Aegon]

^ You've resurrected a 4 year old thread, friend.