Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[bbyrd009]

See what I meant when I posted Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn 2 mins ·
How would one get the other to read the Bible the devil's way? By the one translating the Bible for the other the devil's way. Now the same for your hs lexicons! IT machines now a days in which you do not find the etymology of words, only and exclusively contemporary uses and abuses without distinction.

It took me about 15 years bro, to turn books' pages to ACTUAL OCCURRENCE of just one or perhaps a dozen NT Greek words. And this example is for your precious information: Your favourite and virtually only, dominating Greek 'lexicon' today, Youngs, in the early years before computers and internet, never disagreed with what I have discovered, except that Youngs at that time only gave a few of actual incidences of these words and did not have them in actual context. But since and up until this 21st century, Youngs only functions to the satisfaction of market demands like YOURS, HERE, <<the original term is accessible to any of us via a lexicon, and a six year old could get a decent grasp of any ancient term in about five minutes bro, except for the ones where no one knows, and then they could at least get humanity's most knowledgeable guess>>.

That, is not 'science' or 'scientific'. That, by your definition, is <hs>.

rarely refer to young's sorry; usually use meta-etys, compilations? And i mean obv one ahould usually look for agreement, or a strong argument why not i guess. But i can understand if someone prefers to read through a scribe they trust to interpret into their tongue. "HS lexicons" though? Srsly?

Literally looking at the original word and sentence construction with amplified definitions of each word in your language does not appeal to you, is what you are saying?

bs

ok then

I also have serious concerns regarding your eyesight.

? if you did, you would have quoted the link and pointed out where that was written by now, wouldnt you?

The crux of the matter is, <<facts i dont know k>>

you got that right :)

 

[ReChoired]

...you got that right :)

Your response of 'tl;dr' is not "facts [you] dont know", they are rather "facts [you] choose to not know", choosing to 'dr', based upon your subjective apriori of 'tl' (which you didn't define, and never yet have). In other words, you simply whined in your attempt at justifying your chosen and willing ignorance (not knowing).

 

[bbyrd009]

Your response of 'tl;dr' is not "facts [you] dont know", they are rather "facts [you] choose to not know", choosing to 'dr', based upon your subjective apriori of 'tl' (which you didn't define, and never yet have). In other words, you simply whined in your attempt at justifying your chosen and willing ignorance (not knowing).

sounds about right

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

rarely refer to young's sorry; usually use meta-etys, compilations? And i mean obv one ahould usually look for agreement, or a strong argument why not i guess. But i can understand if someone prefers to read through a scribe they trust to interpret into their tongue. "HS lexicons" though? Srsly?

Literally looking at the original word and sentence construction with amplified definitions of each word in your language does not appeal to you, is what you are saying?

The time is past of full-time research for me, but I have done all mine in libraries from the story books available, directly, like for example the writings of Philostratus from Keiser Verlag, from which I wrote down contextual portions and then translated myself. All the works I have published were done manually and visually. I never until 2000 did electronic research.

 

[mjrhealth]

i dont even get it myself, you bring up a point for discussion and get a roll of floss lol, i never said i knew anything?

Ye that makes to of us

 

[mjrhealth]

"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible"

The best cure for Christianity is that men would seek Christ. But seems filing big hats is far more important.

 

[bbyrd009]

The best cure for Christianity is that men would seek Christ. But seems filing big hats is far more important.

ah well we are discouraged from the moment we start crawling i guess, so a belief in ones own invincibility, and then at least in ones own correctness, is prolly inevitable? I mean im extremely aware of it and no less guilty; humility is a difficult and fleeting emotion imo. Then i seem to notice an emotionless humility, dont really have words for it, someone pointed it out inadvertently like yesterday. A humility i apparently demonstrate when i am otherwise engaged or something, not really clear yet, but strikes me as not engaging my emotions at all.

Anyway the filling of the hats seems bad i guess, but it makes the very best clue one will get imo; Hitler was duly elected yeh :)

 

[Hobie]

Here is one site, directly relating to the question on doctrines, that is interesting..

"One such doctrinal error is found in the mistranslation of Daniel 3:25, "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." For example, the following versions, all taken from the so-called oldest and best manuscripts, say nearly the same thing:

- "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods." (Daniel 3:25, ASV; 1901 American Standard Version)
- "He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods." (Daniel 3:25, MKJV; 1993 Modern King James Version)
- "He answered and said, 'Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!'" (Daniel 3:25, NASB; 1988 New American Standard Bible)
- "He said, 'Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.'" (Daniel 3:25, NIV; 1984 New International Version)
- "He replied, 'But I see four men unbound, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the fourth has the appearance of a god.'" (Daniel 3:25, NRSV; 1989 New Revised Standard Version)
- "He made answer and said, Look! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not damaged; and the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods." (Daniel 3:25, BBE; 1964 Bible in Basic English)
- "He answered, 'But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.'" (Daniel 3:25, RSV; 1973 Revised Standard Version)
- "He was answering and saying: 'Look! I am beholding four able-bodied men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt to them, and the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.'" (Daniel 3:25, NWT; 1984 New World Translation)...

So, do the new translations, in any way, affect doctrine? Let's make a few more comparisons. There are over 40 differences between the Received Text and the other texts which involve some doctrine of our Christian faith. These differences include omissions of portions containing a statement expressing some point of doctrine, and substitutions of words or phrases which eliminate, or make the text contrary to well understood doctrines of our faith. About 1/2 of these differences relate to the attributes, work, and deity of Jesus. About 1/4 of them relate to the basis and nature of our salvation."...Doctrines Affected by New Translations

 

[mjrhealth]

Anyway the filling of the hats seems bad i guess

Something to do with what do you put in a big hat..??

Pride and arrogance are a terrible thing.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

So, do the new translations, in any way, affect doctrine? Let's make a few more comparisons. There are over 40 differences between the Received Text and the other texts which involve some doctrine of our Christian faith. These differences include omissions of portions containing a statement expressing some point of doctrine, and substitutions of words or phrases which eliminate, or make the text contrary to well understood doctrines of our faith. About 1/2 of these differences relate to the attributes, work, and deity of Jesus. About 1/4 of them relate to the basis and nature of our salvation."

40 is the lowest count I have ever seen.
What do you mean by <texts>-- compilations of Greek manuscripts?
And what do you mean by <<some doctrine of our Christian faith>>-- <our>?

 

[bbyrd009]

Something to do with what do you put in a big hat..??

Pride and arrogance are a terrible thing.

ok, yeh, but also a natural defense against discouragement i think, a self preservation mechanism

 

[Hobie]

Here is the crux of the issue with the changes in these new versions...

"Did the translators strive to put the original language in today’s language, or did they just paraphrase? There is a big difference between a paraphrase and a translation. In a paraphrase, the writer simply says what he thinks the Bible is saying. He does not translate what the Bible actually says. An example of a paraphrase is The Living Bible. It is not really a translation. Therefore, it is not really the Word of God. It is just one man’s idea of what the Bible means. One should beware of using a paraphrase as his main study Bible."...Translations of the Bible

 

[reformed1689]

Here is the crux of the issue with the changes in these new versions...

"Did the translators strive to put the original language in today’s language, or did they just paraphrase? There is a big difference between a paraphrase and a translation. In a paraphrase, the writer simply says what he thinks the Bible is saying. He does not translate what the Bible actually says. An example of a paraphrase is The Living Bible. It is not really a translation. Therefore, it is not really the Word of God. It is just one man’s idea of what the Bible means. One should beware of using a paraphrase as his main study Bible."...Translations of the Bible

Well that's not even the crux of the issue. Paraphrases are a whole different category and not really what is being discussed here. We are talking about modern translations and the philosophy of translation. Functional vs Formal equivalence.

 

[Hobie]

Well that's not even the crux of the issue. Paraphrases are a whole different category and not really what is being discussed here. We are talking about modern translations and the philosophy of translation. Functional vs Formal equivalence.

If you change the meaning, then does it matter?

 

[reformed1689]

If you change the meaning, then does it matter?

What makes you think modern translations (not paraphrases) change the meaning?

 

[amadeus]

The best cure for Christianity is that men would seek Christ. But seems filing big hats is far more important.

Oh my head! That hat is getting to be too tight or..?

 

[reformed1689]

The best cure for Christianity is that men would seek Christ. But seems filing big hats is far more important.

And where do you find Christ? (No that is not a trick question)

 

[The wind]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

If you can't hear the word of God coming out of the King James Bible, it is because you are not of God. The Lord's sheep hear his voice. They recognize the word of God.

 

[reformed1689]

If you can't hear the word of God coming out of the King James Bible, it is because you are not of God. The Lord's sheep hear his voice. They recognize the word of God.

The same can be said for modern translations. That is not unique to the KJV.

 

[The wind]

The same can be said for modern translations. That is not unique to the KJV.

Well I know personally I don't hear the word of God coming out of the NIV. And I have the Spirit of God.

I got saved by hearing the word of God out of the King James Bible. The only other Bible I looked into was the NIV, and all I heard was man's voice.