Tuesday, October 30, 2007



Evaew Discussions Everyones Views Accepted Enhancing Worth "WEAVE"
October 22, 2007
Sorry about the Absence on my behalf.

Today I've really been looking at the core of what we go to in order to draw our relationship close to God. HIS WORD

Do Bible Translations Matter???
Down Bellow I have pasted a small portion of a very large website. But in these couple of weeks I'd like to hear why your version is accurate or if you have taken the time to look at what your reading..... is it God's word??? Does it carry the true message.... or does it loose it's message along translation? Surfing The Web
(all info gathered from "Which Bible Translation?")
Which Bible Translation? Introduction The Bible for any true Christian records the inspired and infallible revelation of God. Jesus and his immediate followers saw the Old Testament in this way, and we would hardly put the New Testament writings on a lower level. One problem faces us, however, as we come to this book. It was not written in English, but in Hebrew and in Greek. Unless we are unusually proficient in both those languages, we must depend on a translation for our study of Scripture. We are not troubled here by shortage of choice. Over 100 new English translations of the Bible have appeared in the last 100 years. What then are the principles that should guide us in choosing the right one, or the best one, or perhaps several for our use? Some aspects of this subject are very technical and I am far from being an expert on it. However I write because I feel that most people are ignorant of the issues involved and many people are using translations which they shouldn't. I trust some may benefit from at least an introduction to the subject. There are, as I see it, three separate main questions we may ask about any translation of the Bible. What original text was translated? What were the principles of translation? What sort of English does it use? What Text ? This question is probably not as important as the second, but logically comes first. The Old Testament, as most people know, was written mainly in Hebrew but with passages mostly in Daniel in Aramaic, which is a very similar language. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, though parts may have been previously written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated. Obviously today we do not have the original manuscript, but copies of copies of copies ... These copies, alas, are not identical. The differences are not very significant in the Old Testament, but they are in the new. About 3 per cent of its text varies across all the manuscripts. Today, I understand we have about 1500 complete or partial manuscripts of the new Testament, but which of these, if any, is the correct one? There are two main approaches to this question. The more common one is called the eclectic approach. Scholars put together a text from all the available manuscripts using various rules to sort out differences. For example: what do the oldest manuscripts say? What do the majority say? What do the best say? Which reading is more likely? This approach is rejected by some as giving too much scope to human reason. Man can easily inject his own thoughts. These people who form a very sincere minority hold to the view that the text underlying the Authorised or King James version of the Bible (KJV) is essentially the correct one. This text is known as th Received Text and is based on the manuscripts of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church that were available at the time the KJV was translated. The Eastern text is stronger on the doctrine of the Trinity. Its supporters tend to regard other texts and their translations as attacks on the truth. This view rejects the older manuscripts of the Western Church which have been discovered since.A few versions.... but not all.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) This is the version I mainly use myself. It is generally acknowledged to be the most accurate translation available. Its attempt to keep as closely as possible to the original results in rather unnatural English. It suffers also from retaining outdated English where often there is current terminology that is just as accurate. The New International Version This is essentially an accurate translation, though not as literal as the NASB. Its English however is more natural and contemporary. It is perhaps better than the NASB for new believers children or those for whom English is a second language. It is good also as a second version to consult. The King James Version The Authorised or King James Version has some points in its favour. It follows the Greek and Hebrew more closely than many modern translations. This has the advantage of not adding to or changing the meaning; but the disadvantage of at times producing unnatural or obscure English. Many of its translators were accomplished linguistic scholars and godly men and without doubt they made a vast contribution to later translations. They were a mixed group of Anglican clergymen, who at times showed denominational bias. Inevitably they lacked knowledge of large amounts of archaeological and linguistic discoveries made since their time. Unlike nearly all modern translations the KJV is based on the less accurate Eastern text. Its English, needless to say, is now archaic even if it was current at the time of writing. Like most other translations they followed the tradition of translating aiwnioV (aionios) as eternal rather than age-lasting and eiV aiwnaV aiwnwn (eis aionas aioonoon), and similar phrases, as 'for ever and ever' rather than 'for ages of ages.' The Living Bible This translation also needs mentioning because of its popularity. It has no right to call itself a Bible. It is full of the translator's own thoughts and interpretations. You have only to compare it with a literal translation to find significant differences of meaning on every page. One small example out of hundreds is Hebrews 10:25. 'Let us not leave off the assembling of ourselves together' becomes 'Let us not neglect our church meetings'. Many people these days, with complete scriptural backing, assemble to worship God in their own homes. According to this paraphrase they are wrong. "God speaks to me through the TEV and the Living Bible", people say. "Can they really be that wrong?" Of course God can and does speak through these versions. They contain a lot of Scripture! In the communist days in Russia the believers happily accepted anti-Christian literature, so that they could read all the Bible verses in it! The troubles come when you start to ask controversial questions. Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit for today? Is Roman Catholic teaching compatible with Scripture? How should we run our fellowship? Does God heal everybody? You will not get accurate answers to these questions if you use an inaccurate Bible. In addition, if you want to move on into further realms with God and deeper truth you will frequently find that paraphrase translations of this kind have destroyed the deeper meanings of Scripture and replaced them with ideas more acceptable and comprehensible to the carnal man.

Another Question to look at
Is there a such thing as a Bible Code???????Here is a bit of talk on the bible code from the same site:

The Bible Code Most of my readers will have heard of a book called The Bible Code by Michael Drosnin, published in March of this year (1998). It has been on display in every major book shop in this country, and doubtless in many other countries too. This book describes the discovery of hidden information in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. This information is encoded into the Bible simply by having words spelt out with their letters at equal intervals in the normal Bible text. All the major events of this century have been found encoded, with the names of the people associated with them. A few events were discovered before they happened, particularly the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He was even warned about it, but he ignored the warning. Other events are predicted for the future. Two mathematicians published a scientific paper calculating the probability of all this information being there just by chance. The odds are so enormous that they go far beyond what is normally regarded as scientific proof. Someone (to us God) deliberately encoded all this information.

No comments: