Have our commonly known, and accepted english bible translations been mistranslated? (scriptures, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians agree the Bible is inspired. Do they believe it is unerring? Or do they believe it is mistranslated?
What is your opinion?
I believe the Bibles are accurately translated for the methods of their individual translations. We must remember the Holy Spirit still protects His Word and we must always read it and listen to the Holy Spirit. Each different translation is translated to be understood by different level of faith. I for one like to use several different translations as well as Hebrew/Greek literal translations and Strong Concordance.
Quote:
Just as there are many armchair quarterbacks during every football game, there are armchair Greek experts on the forum. Many disagree with the way a passage is translated. They say they must go to the original Greek to get the right translation. In other words, they do not trust the commonly, accepted English translations we have.
What an impossible positition we find ourselves in, in relation to our salvation, if we needed to have knowledge of the Greek language.
Would God have neglected the preservation of His pure word? If so, He certainly could not hold us responsible. Has He left us without a Bible in which we could not place our trust?
It is not that I don't trust the individual translations but that I want a much clearer understanding of what I read and study.
No God would not neglect the preservation of His pure word, He gave us His Holy Spirit for Clarity and guidance.
We can trust the Bibles but not ourselves, we need the Holy Spirit, the problem is that we ignore the Holy Spirit more than we listen.
Quote:
Psalm 12: 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Katie
The Psalms have got it right and we should pay better attention.
. Each different translation is translated to be understood by different level of faith. I for one like to use several different translations as well as Hebrew/Greek literal translations and Strong Concordance.
That is an interesting point, perhaps that is why some bibles do not contain the word Hell at all.
That is an interesting point, perhaps that is why some bibles do not contain the word Hell at all.
I'd say it's more so because the words translated as "Hell" in modern day Bibles, have absolutely nothing to do with "Hell" in the conservative Christian sense.
Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and 1 or 2 uses of Tartarus have all been translated as Hell. None of them are, especially the first 3.
That is an interesting point, perhaps that is why some bibles do not contain the word Hell at all.
Gosh, I guess that would make some translations a whole lot more accurate than others. Oops! Not what some people want to hear, but unfortunately, it is what it is. All translations have not been created equal, and no translation is a 100% accurate expression in English of the original Greek (or Hebrew).
I'd say it's more so because the words translated as "Hell" in modern day Bibles, have absolutely nothing to do with "Hell" in the conservative Christian sense.
Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and 1 or 2 uses of Tartarus have all been translated as Hell. None of them are, especially the first 3.
So that could mean that common "accepted" bibles are mistranslated.
Gosh, I guess that would make some translations a whole lot more accurate than others. Oops! Not what some people want to hear, but unfortunately, it is what it is. All translations have not been created equal, and no translation is a 100% accurate expression in English of the original Greek (or Hebrew).
Yes a thread on that would be great as it would also provide evidence that the modern canon of the bible is questionable which can help us understand that some modern common interpretations may be inaccurate as well.
God never preserved interpretation, just so you know.
Our modern day Bible is not questionable in the least. There are some translations which are not as good as others, but there are very good translations. And there are some which cannot really be called translations, but rather interpretations. Some translations attempt a literal word for word translation, and others aim to present the literal meaning which often requires adding words in the English in order to bring the meaning from the Greek into the English.
The doctrine of inspiration applies only to the original autographs of the Bible. Yet, God has preserved His word despite the fact that probably every manuscript copy varies in some way from every other manuscript copy. The variations are mostly minor. Differences in word order. Spelling differences. The omission of words or sentences. Some things such as the Johanine coma, that portion of 1 John 5:7-8 which reads 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' is generally thought by scholars to be an insertion. Whether it is are not is irrelevant because it does not change the fact that the Bible teaches that God is triune. The doctrine of the trinity does not depend on that passage.
What about John 1:1 which says 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.' Many manuscripts do not contain the words 'the Son of God'. But whether the original autograph included those words, or didn't, again is irrelevant, since it doesn't change any point of doctrine. The Bible teaches elsewhere the Jesus is the Son of God.
What about Mark 9, verses 44 and 46, both of which are identical with verse 48 which reads 'where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. Some of the best manuscripts do not include verses 44 and 46. And again, it is irrevelant. Whether verses 44 and 46 were in the original autograph changes nothing. Verse 48 does belong.
What about Mark 10:7 which reads 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother. Some manuscripts add 'and shall cleave to his wife'. The King James which is based on Textus Receptus includes 'and shall cleave to his wife.' The NASB which is based on earlier manuscripts doe not include those words. Once again, the presence of absence of those words does not change any point of doctrine. The following verse makes it clear that the two shall be one flesh. Mark 10:7 is a quotation of Gen 2:24.
Those are just a few examples of how variations, and insertions do not affect God's recorded message to man. God has preserved His word by insuring that there are thousands of manuscript copies (in various degrees of completion, some only fragments) which despite the errors and variations do not alter God's recorded word. The science of textual criticism compares the available manuscripts and such comparisons can see which manuscripts greatly differ from the others.
By having thousands of manuscript copies available, this insures that no one person or group could have gotten their hands on all of them in order to change and obscure God's word. Manuscript copy can be compared with manuscript copy, and thus, despite the variations and errors, we can be sure that we have God's preserved word.
Our modern day Bible is not questionable in the least. There are some translations which are not as good as others, but there are very good translations. And there are some which cannot really be called translations, but rather interpretations. Some translations attempt a literal word for word translation, and others aim to present the literal meaning which often requires adding words in the English in order to bring the meaning from the Greek into the English.
I appreciate the time you spent on that post, but you misapplied your words to what was actually said and I will elaborate more so that it is clear.
Questioning the bible is not the same as questioning the canon in which formed what is typically found in a book store today.
When the canon is questioned and rightly so, you can therefore question the intepretational history of religious assertions that have come about through that.
That is not the same as trying to say we cannot trust the written words.
The written words are not interpretations in most cases unless a "translation" is known and documented by the translators to be made for that specific purpose. Usually that intepretational nature is just claimed by people who find a particular translation troublesome to their beliefs.
I personally find no conflict of intepretation from any translation I have ever read, because to claim a belief and have to pick and choose among translations is convenient rather than a belief resulting from studying "the word of God" and I prefer to find harmony and balance from them all.
Last edited by Phazelwood; 10-29-2011 at 01:38 PM..
Our modern day Bible is not questionable in the least. There are some translations which are not as good as others, but there are very good translations. And there are some which cannot really be called translations, but rather interpretations. Some translations attempt a literal word for word translation, and others aim to present the literal meaning which often requires adding words in the English in order to bring the meaning from the Greek into the English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phazelwood
I appreciate the time you spent on that post, but you misapplied your words to what was actually said and I will elaborate more so that it is clear.
Questioning the bible is not the same as questioning the canon in which formed what is typically found in a book store today.
When the canon is questioned and rightly so, you can therefore question the interpretational history of religious assertions that have come about through that.
That is not the same as trying to say we cannot trust the written words.
The written words are not interpretations in most cases unless a "translation" is known and documented by the translators to be made for that specific purpose. Usually that interpretational nature is just claimed by people who find a particular translation troublesome to their beliefs.
I personally find no conflict of interpretation from any translation I have ever read, because to claim a belief and have to pick and choose among translations is convenient rather than a belief resulting from studying "the word of God" and I prefer to find harmony and balance from them all.
Another conception of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oops! Not what some people want to hear, but unfortunately, it is what it is. All translations have not been created equal, and no translation is a 100% accurate expression in English of the original Greek (or Hebrew).
