Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Translated Bibles or Word-for-word Interlinear

36 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

 

 

That isn't really true.

 

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

 

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations)  You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations.  They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought.   The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations.  And that makes a difference.  Not only that but they work from different sources. 

 

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text.   The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

 

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

 

 

That isn't really true.

 

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

 

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations)  You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations.  They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought.   The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations.  And that makes a difference.  Not only that but they work from different sources. 

 

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text.   The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

 

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

 

 

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence.  I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%.  At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect.  It is always wise to do your own research.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The TNIV was an obvious attempt to change the original meaning, though they tried hard to say that was not their intent.  One of the absolute worst so-called Bibles, which I suppose is really a paraphrase, is "The Message."  Even if the translators aren't intentionally perverting the text, you can still translation shop until you find one that says things they way you want to make your point.  It is like with John 3:16 and the use of the word "should" in some translations and "shall" in others.  If you believe in eternal security, you would want the one that says "shall." 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

 

 

That isn't really true.

 

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

 

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations)  You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations.  They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought.   The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations.  And that makes a difference.  Not only that but they work from different sources. 

 

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text.   The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

 

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

 

 

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence.

Those disagreements are not theological, necessarily.   There is some confusion among scholars because Greek has changed over the centuries since the first century. Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language and translation of it  isn't easy.  The disagreements are over syntax and grammar, and yes that can change the meaning of a sentence, but the translators are not trying to make the Bible agree with their theology.  That notion is just a conspiracy theory

 

 

I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%.

 

Based on what???

 

 

At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect.  It is always wise to do your own research.

 

 

Yes, but all of the resources you use are based on the work of the translators.   It is translators who author all of your dictionaries, commentaries and word studies.  Your resources are based on their work.  So....

 

On what basis do you determine they are incorrect?? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

That isn't really true.

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations) You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations. They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought. The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations. And that makes a difference. Not only that but they work from different sources.

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text. The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence. I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%. At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect. It is always wise to do your own research.

Much like Groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Those disagreements are not theological, necessarily.   There is some confusion among scholars because Greek has changed over the centuries since the first century. Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language and translation of it  isn't easy.  The disagreements are over syntax and grammar, and yes that can change the meaning of a sentence, but the translators are not trying to make the Bible agree with their theology.  That notion is just a conspiracy theory

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

 

 

I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%.

Based on what???

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

 

 

At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect.  It is always wise to do your own research.

Yes, but all of the resources you use are based on the work of the translators.   It is translators who author all of your dictionaries, commentaries and word studies.  Your resources are based on their work.  So....

 

On what basis do you determine they are incorrect??

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context. Every bible that has been printed is derived from the word for word translation, placed into the language of the day for ease of reading for the populaces.

Take the shortest verse in scripture, John 11:35. We read in our bibles "Jesus wept." The word for word translations says "weeps THE JESUS" Something as simple as this will allow one to get a glimpse of how they used to speak. Learning how they use to talk will assist in understanding scripture that is translated word for word. After time, one does see the difference between how they spoke it to how we read it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

That isn't really true.

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations) You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations. They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought. The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations. And that makes a difference. Not only that but they work from different sources.

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text. The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence. I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%. At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect. It is always wise to do your own research.

Much like Groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

I guess that is a way to label the idea. I have heard of it, but it did not click when trying to describe what I meant.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

 

No, that's not how translators think.    Furthermore, since the translators are from differing denominations, you have a filter that keeps each other honest.  Syntax doesn't create theology or belief.  Syntax  and grammar speak to the clarity of the text. Translators are not trying to insert their theology in the Bible. Translational methods are object and don't allow for that. 

 

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

 

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses. 

 

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

 

 

There is no such thing as a pure "word for word" translation.   Basically you don't have a Bible that you can really trust.

 

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context.

 

No, context has nothing to do with that.  Context pertains to the line of thought and that preserved in all genuine translations.  Context and linguistics are two different things.

 

Every bible that has been printed is derived from the word for word translation, placed into the language of the day for ease of reading for the populaces.

 

No, that's not exactly true, either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

No, that's not how translators think.    Furthermore, since the translators are from differing denominations, you have a filter that keeps each other honest.  Syntax doesn't create theology or belief.  Syntax  and grammar speak to the clarity of the text. Translators are not trying to insert their theology in the Bible. Translational methods are object and don't allow for that.

 

 

Let's cut to the chase then.  Why are there so many different translations?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses.

When there is a question, I return to the word by word translation. What do you do when you find a question about how something was being translated?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

There is no such thing as a pure "word for word" translation.   Basically you don't have a Bible that you can really trust.

You would like the readers to believe that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately for your sake, you are wrong. As for the word for word translations, they are closer to how the word was preached than the bibles we read today. Personally, I would rather have one filer than many. IN the end, the Holy Spirit shows each of us the truth, if we are willing to humble ourselves before Him and admit that our understanding is never favored over His knowledge.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses.

 

When there is a question, I return to the word by word translation. What do you do when you find a question about how something was being translated?

 

I consult the resources written by translators and scholars who understand why certain English words are used in the translation.  I don't just assume that they picked a certain word just because it agreed with their theology.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context.

No, context has nothing to do with that.  Context pertains to the line of thought and that preserved in all genuine translations.  Context and linguistics are two different things.

Context has everything to do with how we understand scripture, no matter what language we read.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Every bible that has been printed is derived from the word for word translation, placed into the language of the day for ease of reading for the populaces.

No, that's not exactly true, either.

Why, because you say so? Come on Brother, this whole reply of yours is no more than you trying to demean what I say without offering any reason why it is not better to rely more on an word for word interlinear than on the bibles one can purchase in any store. I have always believed you do be someone who really dug deep into how scripture was originally spoken/written. Was I wrong?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

There is no such thing as a pure "word for word" translation.   Basically you don't have a Bible that you can really trust.

 

You would like the readers to believe that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately for your sake, you are wrong. As for the word for word translations, they are closer to how the word was preached than the bibles we read today. Personally, I would rather have one filer than many. IN the end, the Holy Spirit shows each of us the truth, if we are willing to humble ourselves before Him and admit that our understanding is never favored over His knowledge.

 

But going by what you posted, the logical conclusion would be that there is no trustworthy translation.   A word for word translation is produced by the same kind of fallible men who produce any other translation.   And besides the NASB is a word for word translation, what we call a formal translation and it isn't the only one.

 

You simply don't have the grounds to claim that the word-for-word translation, as you call it,  is any more accurate than say, the NASB.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context.

No, context has nothing to do with that.  Context pertains to the line of thought and that preserved in all genuine translations.  Context and linguistics are two different things.

 

Context has everything to do with how we understand scripture, no matter what language we read.

 

yes, but you said that getting closer to the original language gets you closer to the context and that is not how it works.   You don't understand how hermeneutics works.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses.

When there is a question, I return to the word by word translation. What do you do when you find a question about how something was being translated?

I consult the resources written by translators and scholars who understand why certain English words are used in the translation.  I don't just assume that they picked a certain word just because it agreed with their theology.

So, you don't go back yourself, as the Berean, and see for yourself, but take their word for it? I am surprised.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

There is no such thing as a pure "word for word" translation.   Basically you don't have a Bible that you can really trust.

You would like the readers to believe that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately for your sake, you are wrong. As for the word for word translations, they are closer to how the word was preached than the bibles we read today. Personally, I would rather have one filer than many. IN the end, the Holy Spirit shows each of us the truth, if we are willing to humble ourselves before Him and admit that our understanding is never favored over His knowledge.

But going by what you posted, the logical conclusion would be that there is no trustworthy translation.   A word for word translation is produced by the same kind of fallible men who produce any other translation.   And besides the NASB is a word for word translation, what we call a formal translation and it isn't the only one.

 

You simply don't have the grounds to claim that the word-for-word translation, as you call it,  is any more accurate than say, the NASB.

The NSAB does is not written in the same context as the word for word translation, which reads as it was spoken. That alone is one reason why I prefer using this means to study.

So you don't beat yourself up over your train of thought that I do not trust the bible, let me set you at ease. I do find the NSAB and NKJV very helpful and do read them both, but when it comes down to it, I return to the interlinear for a deeper understanding.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context.

No, context has nothing to do with that.  Context pertains to the line of thought and that preserved in all genuine translations.  Context and linguistics are two different things.

Context has everything to do with how we understand scripture, no matter what language we read.

yes, but you said that getting closer to the original language gets you closer to the context and that is not how it works.   You don't understand how hermeneutics works.

That seems to be your last line of defense when someone looks at things different then you do. I understand that when I do a deep study in how the writers wrote and how they use to speak, I sometime walk away with a deeper and different understanding than if I just read the bible as written for today.

Please don't turn this into a debate of you knowing more than anyone else and sit in the judgment seat of who knows and understand what. That is getting old, my friend.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

No, that's not how translators think.    Furthermore, since the translators are from differing denominations, you have a filter that keeps each other honest.  Syntax doesn't create theology or belief.  Syntax  and grammar speak to the clarity of the text. Translators are not trying to insert their theology in the Bible. Translational methods are object and don't allow for that.

 

 

 

Let's cut to the chase then.  Why are there so many different translations?

 

some of the reasons are copy-write laws and money.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses.

 

When there is a question, I return to the word by word translation. What do you do when you find a question about how something was being translated?

 

I consult the resources written by translators and scholars who understand why certain English words are used in the translation.  I don't just assume that they picked a certain word just because it agreed with their theology.

 

So, you don't go back yourself, as the Berean, and see for yourself, but take their word for it? I am surprised.

 

Huh??   You asked me what I do if I have a question about how something is translated.   The way you do that is to consult the people the people who translated it to see why they picked that word.

 

You seem to assume that they pick words that suit their theology.  I at least do them the service of letting them explain why they picked the word they picked.   Being a Berean applies to checking someone's doctrinal claims, which is a different concept.

 

The NSAB does is not written in the same context as the word for word translation, which reads as it was spoken.

 

And you know this... how?

 

That seems to be your last line of defense when someone looks at things different then you do. I understand that when I do a deep study in how the writers wrote and how they use to speak, I sometime walk away with a deeper and different understanding than if I just read the bible as written for today.

Please don't turn this into a debate of you knowing more than anyone else and sit in the judgment seat of who knows and understand what. That is getting old, my frien

 

That's not a line of defense.  It's the truth.  The way you misuse the concept of context is a good indicator of that.  All of the resources you use to determine the correct meaning of a word are created by the very people who you claim are translating according to their theology, including your interlinear.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Every bible that has been printed is derived from the word for word translation, placed into the language of the day for ease of reading for the populaces.

No, that's not exactly true, either.

 

Why, because you say so? Come on Brother, this whole reply of yours is no more than you trying to demean what I say without offering any reason why it is not better to rely more on an word for word interlinear than on the bibles one can purchase in any store. I have always believed you do be someone who really dug deep into how scripture was originally spoken/written. Was I wrong?

 

The difference is that I don't operate from a conspiracy that says that the translators pick the words that fit their theology.   The word for word interlinear are produced by the same resources used to translate mainline translations.  They are not some special Bible that is somehow better.   Word for word doesn't really cut it anyway.  If you really don't understand how a word is use and what it meant to the original author that penned, it doesn't really matter how literal the translation is.

 

You put too much emphasis on linguistics, which is really only a small part of the overall body of literary analysis.  There is way more that goes into translation than linguistics.

 

There a lot of words in the original languages that have no English equivalents.   And not only that, while you can use a word for word translation for pure linguistical study, they fail in other areas especially in terms of comprehension.   Word for word translations on their own have a lot of weaknesses, just as those translations which are less linguistically accurate but do convey the intent and message of the text. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses.

 

When there is a question, I return to the word by word translation. What do you do when you find a question about how something was being translated?

 

I consult the resources written by translators and scholars who understand why certain English words are used in the translation.  I don't just assume that they picked a certain word just because it agreed with their theology.

 

So, you don't go back yourself, as the Berean, and see for yourself, but take their word for it? I am surprised.

 

Huh??   You asked me what I do if I have a question about how something is translated.   The way you do that is to consult the people the people who translated it to see why they picked that word.

 

You seem to assume that they pick words that suit their theology.  I at least do them the service of letting them explain why they picked the word they picked.   Being a Berean applies to checking someone's doctrinal claims, which is a different concept.

 

The NSAB does is not written in the same context as the word for word translation, which reads as it was spoken.

 

And you know this... how?

 

That seems to be your last line of defense when someone looks at things different then you do. I understand that when I do a deep study in how the writers wrote and how they use to speak, I sometime walk away with a deeper and different understanding than if I just read the bible as written for today.

Please don't turn this into a debate of you knowing more than anyone else and sit in the judgment seat of who knows and understand what. That is getting old, my frien

 

That's not a line of defense.  It's the truth.  The way you misuse the concept of context is a good indicator of that.  All of the resources you use to determine the correct meaning of a word are created by the very people who you claim are translating according to their theology, including your interlinear.

 

 

You must spend hours upon hours reviewing why someone chose a certain word to use since there are many different variations of how scripture is written.  I do not have that time, so I depend on the Holy Spirit to show me how it fits with the rest of scripture, taking in consideration the whole discussion and relevant cross-referencing. I try to understand the best I can about the culture of the time, how people communicate and live amongst each other, and reviewing how they spoke is doing no less than those whom you accept, and possibly you yourself, but with far less expertise and involvement.  They also are led by the Spirit, I believe.  He will not lie, and it is up to us, those who sit at His feet to learn, to have an open heart and mind, not closed to one way or meaning because of someone or some group we happen to of been following.

 

I do not discard others, nor do I place myself above them.  I follow how I am taught, as I have always done.  I do not participate in scholastic  learning techniques, nor have I any other formal education of scripture, yet scripture has been taught to me in a clear manner by others and God.  For me to say I refer back to the word for word interlinear should not be look down upon for I am sure those whom you read about do the same.

 

It seems you are trying to judge the fullness of how I study by my defense of using a word for word interlinear as one means to seek the truth, as if that is the only why I study.    That, to me, is unfair.  I do not judge how you study by a few posts.  All I can know in a few posts is how you reply and, perhaps, a glimpse of how you view a subject or a person.  Your means of how you come upon your belief remains unknown, even if you mention something like the NASB.  I don't take it upon myself to assume that is all you use, not should I.  I would appreciate the same respect back from others.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It seems you are trying to judge the fullness of how I study by my defense of using a word for word interlinear as one means to seek the truth, as if that is the only why I study.    That, to me, is unfair.  I do not judge how you study by a few posts.  All I can know in a few posts is how you reply and, perhaps, a glimpse of how you view a subject or a person.  Your means of how you come upon your belief remains unknown, even if you mention something like the NASB.  I don't take it upon myself to assume that is all you use, not should I.  I would appreciate the same respect back from others.

 

i am not trying to judge anything you do, or how you study.  I am addressing your false assumptions about the translators and how they set about choosing which English words to use.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I agree with Shiloh and love the NASV.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0