Errors in Various Bible Translations

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

ooh boy.... I don't put my faith in any translation. I study the text and cross reference as much as possible and check the Greek and Hebrew. Then check translator notes and compare them and compare it with the whole.

Original copies? LOL! ohhh can't wait to see that.... HAHAHAHA

But, I do lean more toward the KJV.

Now we are getting into Bible Translations that we prefer and the thread is supposed to be about scriptures we read that we think are translated wrong.

[PMBrown]

Not to be a pot-stirrer, but isn't there an inherent weakness in most of our exegesis considering that (1) the vast majority of Christians aren't fluent in the original Biblical languages, and (2) we don't have access to nor complete agreement on the content of the original texts? If the above is true, how can the average believer discern the real meaning of scripture for themselves? Is it even possible? If not, doesn't that have huge implications for the average Christian? Can we even choose between literal Bible translations confidently?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, I do lean more toward the KJV.

Now we are getting into Bible Translations that we prefer and the thread is supposed to be about scriptures we read that we think are translated wrong.

I'm an NLT bible-thumper. Literal translations like the KJV can never truly capture the real meaning of what is being said...in my opinion. When speaking with a translator, the only way that translator can relate the content of what is being said, is to give "Thought Translation", which is what the NLT is. If a speaking translator were to give a literal word for word translation, it wouldn't make any sense to the hearer. This is why I feel the NLT is a much more accurate translation and the "experts" are starting to jump on board.

But really, the KJV contains some "Thought" translation as well, just not nearly as much.

But Pressing-On, I'm really surprised you'd want to read a bible that was translated by 44 trinitarian theologians for a gay king!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by PMBrown

Not to be a pot-stirrer, but isn't there an inherent weakness in most of our exegesis considering that (1) the vast majority of Christians aren't fluent in the original Biblical languages, and (2) we don't have access to nor complete agreement on the content of the original texts? If the above is true, how can the average believer discern the real meaning of scripture for themselves? Is it even possible? If not, doesn't that have huge implications for the average Christian?

I don't see us as missing the essence of what God wanted us to know - creation, first sin, law, worship and faith taught in the many books, the Gospel for our salvation, how to maintain our Christian character and life, the resurrection of our bodies, etc.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

your first problem is you are using NLT which is about on the same level as NIV which like many allows way to much personal view and subjection to the text....

thought-for-thought is not literal which allows for more for theology base translation. Again just my opinion. I never use them for quoting or serious argument.

When people start quoting "The Message" and others like it. I just ignore pretty much everything they just said because it is pretty much a theological opinion piece disguised as what the Bible says.

Your analysis just isn't accurate. And you don't have a faint clue how much personal opinion was actually inserted into any of the translations, including the KJV. And...the NLT nor the NIV is NOTHING like "The Message" bible, although I do enjoy The Message.

But just to make sure, I don't use any of the translations one can find in the store. I went to the Middle East and dug up original manuscripts. Then I learned to speak every language. Now I only preach in those languages because I insist on being accurate. It sucks for the audience because they don't have a clue what I'm saying, but what the heck, I'm accurate!

[PMBrown]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't see us as missing the essence of what God wanted us to know - creation, first sin, law, worship and faith taught in the many books, the Gospel for our salvation, how to maintain our Christian character and life, the resurrection of our bodies, etc.

True, but when it comes to the essential message virtually all Bibles are the same. The differences are in the details.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'm an NLT bible-thumper. Literal translations like the KJV can never truly capture the real meaning of what is being said...in my opinion. When speaking with a translator, the only way that translator can relate the content of what is being said, is to give "Thought Translation", which is what the NLT is. If a speaking translator were to give a literal word for word translation, it wouldn't make any sense to the hearer. This is why I feel the NLT is a much more accurate translation and the "experts" are starting to jump on board.

But really, the KJV contains some "Thought" translation as well, just not nearly as much.

But Pressing-On, I'm really surprised you'd want to read a bible that was translated by 44 trinitarian theologians for a gay king!

You're a nut, NOW!

Seriously, I try to read other translations on a daily basis and I can't get into them and I don't quite feel I understand them as well. The KJV is written on a 5th grade reading level. That might be why it suits me so well.

How can you say that the NLT is more accurate after my first post? What did you think about the translation in Romans?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by PMBrown

True, but when it comes to the essential message virtually all Bibles are the same. The differences are in the details.

Yes, true, but some of the differences annoy me. LOL!

[PMBrown]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, true, but some of the differences annoy me. LOL!

Point well made!!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You're a nut, NOW!

Seriously, I try to read other translations on a daily basis and I can't get into them and I don't quite feel I understand them as well. The KJV is written on a 5th grade reading level. That might be why it suits me so well.

How can you say that the NLT is more accurate after my first post? What did you think about the translation in Romans?

Anything that is thought-for-thought is going to be more accurate, in my opinion. No one with any scholastic integrity has ever favored the KJV for its accuracy.

As far as the reading level...I wouldn't agree with the 5th grade level thing, not in practical purposes, anyway. In fact, the language style used in the translation of the bible has never been spoken in the history of this planet. It's a completely "made-up" style in an attempt to sound spiritual. Speaking of, I always crack up when someone prays in "King James English."

I didn't really read the examples you posted. I'm not in a good place right now to research it if I need to. However, as anyone else who is defending a position no matter what, if I try hard enough I can explain it away!