Errors in Various Bible Translations

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That isn't really true. Quakers spoke like that as did the English. And it is written on a 5th grade reading level. It's a totally excellent book for phonetic instruction - totally a phonetic work.

When I give tongues and interpretation, I start out with - "Forsooth!" I guess I shouldn't joke around about that.

You didn't read my post and we discussed me starting this thread! You and I discussed me starting this thread and you didn't read it?!!! We discussed this and you didn't read it?!!! You didn't even try to read it?! You didn't look at it?! You glanced over it?!!! We discussed this and you didn't read it?!!!

There's that continual, dripping and contentious woman rearing her head!

The T&I crack? Not to scold you, but I'm not a tongues guy and I wouldn't ever say that. You better watch it. If it gets stormy in your area today, God is sending lightning upon you!!

The great Dr. Dan Segraves taught me that the KJV lingo has never been used. Now, there have been cultures who attempted to copy the KJV in their speaking, but KJV language was not taken from any dialect of speaking....ever.

And I promise to read it! I will.

I will.


I will.


I will.


I will.

That's a nagged man!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Why is everyone laughing at me today? Even Timmy!! I'm hurt.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thought I would start a thread about the various errors we feel we have come across while reading various Bible translations.

This is in the New Living Translation (NLT). I have issue with verse 20 and using the word "shame". I feel it takes away from the total point being made - forgiveness, generosity and acts of kindness.

I, therefore, feel that the NLT is incorrect in their interpretation. Not only because verse 20 contradicts verses 19 and 21, but the reference in the Amplified lends a good supporting argument.. Another point being, in Bible lands almost everything was carried on the head, i.e., water jars, baskets of various food items, or any other article. In many homes they kept a brazier which they used for simple cooking and for generating warmth. They always planned to keep it burning. If the Brazier should go out, a member of the family would go to a neighbor's house to borrow fire. They would then put the Brazier on their head and start for home. If the neighbor was very generous, she would heap the Brazier full of coals - hence - "Thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."

It is not an act to bring shame, IMO, but a beautiful act of forgiveness and of generosity in the face of evil.

Actually, I'm familiar with this. I've read this verse in my Amplified bible and while it sounds nice, it doesn't appear to be true. There are actually several differing lyrical views of this verse available and you can find then on the web, but by the pure meaning of the word, it appears to be for the purpose of heaping shame on their head. There are some who connect Leviticus 16 with the "Coals of fire" concept, but this seems to be strictly a personal opinion and not validated by scripture.

I remember once I saw TD Jakes preach about "They that wait upon the Lord". He had a towel over his arm and talked about serving. "They that wait" as in "They that serve". It was incredible. I cried. What a marvelous understanding it was!!!

Only thing was, the next day, I looked it up and found out the word "Wait" didn't mean "To serve" at all. It meant to "wait patiently and endure."

Some of these opinions seem beautiful and eloquent. But it's not always true. Sometimes we have to do what Timmy says....take it for what it says.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

uhh no.... major change in focus.

Gen 15:6 And he(Abraham) believed the LORD, and he(Abraham) counted it to him(God) as righteousness.

Thus it is not God doing the accounting but Abraham that God's promise was righteous. It would not be God justifying but Abraham, counting to God that HE(God) was just.

Yes, I see that. That's interesting. So, Abraham is saying that God is just for keeping His (God's) promise and not God calling Abraham "just" because of His (Abraham's) faith.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

The T&I crack? Not to scold you, but I'm not a tongues guy and I wouldn't ever say that. You better watch it. If it gets stormy in your area today, God is sending lightning upon you!!

Yeah, I don't need that!

The great Dr. Dan Segraves taught me that the KJV lingo has never been used. Now, there have been cultures who attempted to copy the KJV in their speaking, but KJV language was not taken from any dialect of speaking....ever.

The lingo or wording has never been used? I'll have to think about that one.

And I promise to read it! I will.

I will.


I will.


I will.


I will.

That's a nagged man!

I learned that from Delilah. Nag, nag, nag until the answer comes!

[Brad Murphy]

My definition of infallible would mean that any attempt to write other than the original verbatim text in the original language(s) would not be possible... your pen would keep running out of ink, or your hand would physically not move to write the letters, or your computer would blow up, etc. as you were trying to write it. A few lightning strikes here and there wouldn't hurt either. But I guess I'm just more conservative than ye all.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Actually, I'm familiar with this. I've read this verse in my Amplified bible and while it sounds nice, it doesn't appear to be true. There are actually several differing lyrical views of this verse available and you can find then on the web, but by the pure meaning of the word, it appears to be for the purpose of heaping shame on their head. There are some who connect Leviticus 16 with the "Coals of fire" concept, but this seems to be strictly a personal opinion and not validated by scripture.

Well, the interpretation that I posted in the NLT doesn't really go in sync with verses 19 and 21. So, I can't really accept the NLT's interpretation of that scripture.

I remember once I saw TD Jakes preach about "They that wait upon the Lord". He had a towel over his arm and talked about serving. "They that wait" as in "They that serve". It was incredible. I cried. What a marvelous understanding it was!!!

Only thing was, the next day, I looked it up and found out the word "Wait" didn't mean "To serve" at all. It meant to "wait patiently and endure."

Had someone preach that at a church I attended. I thought it was cool, looked it up and - NOPE - it doesn't mean that.

We had an evangelist come through and he preached a message about David in I Samuel 21:13. He said he was worshiping so much the people thought he was mad and that he was spitting on his beard. LOL! I was thinking, "Uh, that is not what the scripture is saying." He was really getting into the message about sincere worship and some were responding. LOL! I mean, read the passage. LOL!

Some of these opinions seem beautiful and eloquent. But it's not always true. Sometimes we have to do what Timmy says....take it for what it says.

I agree. Some things do sound really awesome - IF - they actually meant what is being taught.

As for Timmy, hmmmm...., I'll have to read his posts, on each point, before I agree or disagree. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

My definition of infallible would mean that any attempt to write other than the original verbatim text in the original language(s) would not be possible... your pen would keep running out of ink, or your hand would physically not move to write the letters, or your computer would blow up, etc. as you were trying to write it. A few lightning strikes here and there wouldn't hurt either. But I guess I'm just more conservative than ye all.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, the interpretation that I posted in the NLT doesn't really go in sync with verses 19 and 21. So, I can't really accept the NLT's interpretation of that scripture.


Had someone preach that at a church I attended. I thought it was cool, looked it up and - NOPE - it doesn't mean that.

We had an evangelist come through and he preached a message about David in I Samuel 21:13. He said he was worshiping so much the people thought he was mad and that he was spitting on his beard. LOL! I was thinking, "Uh, that is not what the scripture is saying." He was really getting into the message about sincere worship and some were responding. LOL! I mean, read the passage. LOL!

I agree. Some things do sound really awesome - IF - they actually meant what is being taught.

As for Timmy, hmmmm...., I'll have to read his posts, on each point, before I agree or disagree. LOL!

Wait a minute...hold the phone. I just looked this up on my trusty online NLT, AND in my NLT that's in my backpack.

Here are verse 19-21 of Romans 12 in the NLT:

Rom 12:19 Dear friends, never avenge yourselves. Leave that to God. For it is written, "I will take vengeance; I will repay those who deserve it," says the Lord.


Rom 12:20 Instead, do what the Scriptures say: "If your enemies are hungry, feed them. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink, and they will be ashamed of what they have done to you."


Rom 12:21 Don't let evil get the best of you, but conquer evil by doing good.

Are you sure you're looking at the NLT?

That David worshipping story is great! In bible school, we actually had a guy preach the 5 smooth stones that David used stood for J-E-S-U-S, and he was dead-serious. That would make a good book...or thread..."Worst Preaching gaffes ever."

Timmy often says, "Just read it for what it says". I don't think he said it in this thread.

But go look at that bible again and make sure what version it is.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The lingo or wording has never been used? I'll have to think about that one.

I would say neither. For example, "On the morrow, thou wilt go thy way to thine house for thou wilt cooketh thy dinner." No one has ever spoken like that.