Translated Bibles or Word-for-word Interlinear

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.

 

 

To you, and your train of thought, since what I believe does not align with what you believe, you accuse it as being a false assumption.

 

 

No, that's not true.   This has nothing to do with what I believe.  I understand the translation process and the kinds of things a translator has to think about in terms of grammar, syntax and other issues of linguistics.   The reason I call it a false assumption is that you don't understand the actual translation process and so you make assumptions about the translators inserting their own theology into the translations, which could not be further from the truth.   There are a plethora things a translator has to consider in translation that virtually nothing to with actual theology.

 

The difference is, I am not calling what you believe a false assumption.

 

That is because I haven't made any false assumptions.  I am trying to explain why your assumptions about the translators are wrong.

 

 

I realize we approach studying from different angles, both arriving at the same spot, Christ.  I also realize that due to our different paths, we arrive at different understanding along the way.  From what I remember, you are far more scholastic then I am.  I approach it with more of a hands on, grassroots means.  The easiest way to see this is to look at each of our lives.  From what I remember, you have lived within a church established family, always following God.  I come from a very dark past, learning through the school of hard knocks. 

 

That is completely irrelevant to the issue of the process of translation that scholars use.

 

It is easy for you to trust scholastic means, relying of those who are learned.  Me, I question everything, even the translators, and realize that different words chosen leads to different conclusions.

 

It is one thing to question what you read or hear.   It is another thing to claim that translators are simply choosing the words that fit their theology.  It shows that you don't understand how the translation process actually works. 

 

Let's take James 5:19-20 as an example. 

 

The NKJV, which is almost like the NASB, reads:

 

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, ²⁰ let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soulfrom death and cover a multitude of sins.

 

The AKJV, like the KJV, states:

 

¹⁹ Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; ²⁰ let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

 

Now, since, as you claim, the translators do not choose to follow what they believe is the true meaning, why is there a difference?

 

What difference??  Both verses are saying the exact same thing.   Your example doesn't really illustrate the point you are trying to make.   if one verse said one thing and the other made completely different assertion you might have a point, but both translations are in complete agreement. 

 

One claims that we are to turn back a brother from his sins and another says we are to convert someone, as if he never knew the truth. 

 

The word epistreyh means both, to convert unto a belief - to turn upon, or to turn back again - to cause to return from error.  Either one is converted to a new way, or returned to a way they once held.  Why does one group choose to show one way and not the other?

 

 

 

You are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.   Conversion isn't merely a change in belief.  Conversion carries the connotation of a complete change belief and behavior.   A convert will bear the fruit that accompanies his or her conversion, otherwise their conversion was not genuine.   You are trying to create a false dichotomy between those translations, as if conversion only refers to belief and turning back only refers to actions and that is simply not the case.

[OneLight]

 

An interesting way to interpret  ורבו or u∙rbu.  When reading Genesis 1:28, it fits in really well, "to increase", pointing back to His creation, male and female, created in His own image.  Given enough time, I guess we could "fill" the earth, but then again, as long as there is space, the earth would not be full, would it.I

 

I do understand the meaning behind what you are saying, which is what I had been saying myself.  The words chosen are done so from the consensus of those who are translating. 

 

While studying, and searching for the root of words, keep in mind that the Hebrew language is circular in nature, where the Greek is not, more linear in nature.  To say "fill" is done so in the Greek nature, for it is an end of a process.  To use "increase" would mean a continuance, circular.

   

Welcome to the discussion.

thats not the word used in strongs. Where did you get that word? And I am unsure about urbu, is that hebrew too? In my strongs I have maw-lay' or maw-law. Sorry I cant get the hebrew writing on here for that, but it looks different. Its 4390. Its spelled aleph, lamed, mem. Do you know of a website that would allow me to copy and paste hebrew or greek? I am on a tablet and as of right now I dont have a lot of my study material on here, its on my laptop which wont get on the internet anymore. I would like to be able to copy amd paste greek and hebrew on here as in certian threads it could be helpful.

I am also wondering if you are refering to another word in hebrew entirely and I just missed a part of the convo.

I would like to add"fill" could be used as in to fill or to be full of and its meaning has a wide application, which is why I chose that one.

I didnt know that hebrew was circular which maybe where much of the hebrew is confusing to me. I understand straight lines better than circles, if you get what I mean. I will keep that in mind for later refrence.

 

 

You are right, I was one word off.  I was looking at the word "and multiply" came from, not "and replenish".  I apologize.  The correct word, as you say, is male' or maw-lay or malae  "ומלאו", which does read "and∙fill-you".

 

Sorry ...

[Guest Geoff Primanti]

Personally I go by the KJV for my studies in the English language and where words have changed in meaning over time in English I trust the NKJV to tell me the difference (such as with the word "let" in Romans 1:13 which in the day it was translated meant "hindered" and this is how the NKJV translates it).

 

I also like the way the NKJV translates Psalm 81:15, and believe that in this particular instance it is in a superior fashion to the KJV as regards to a specific application while the KJV's rendering is certainly not an untruth.  And the NKJV is also superior in its translation of Genesis 22:1 in light of James 1:13, keeping Malachi 3:10 where certain translations have the Lord saying, "Test me now in this" as opposed to the KJV's rendering, "prove me now in this." in mind.

 

I also don't trust any of the modern translations that deliberately take out such important things as half of Romans 8:1 and 13:9, all of 1 John 5:7, the latter half of Mark 16, the first section of John 8, and also do other things where they take away concepts in specific and tell themselves they aren't sinning because they added the same concepts in other verses where they were not originally included.

 

I know these things from my experience in the KJV-only controversy forum at CARM as well as my own studies of reading many different translations  And I testify that since I have returned to the KJV my walk with the Lord has been closer and more inclined to desire holiness not only out of love but fear (see Jeremiah 32:39-41 for my favorite verse on the fear of the Lord which also convinced me that 1 John 4:18 does not completely refer to this kind of fear: although love for the Lord is definitely superior to it as a motivation for obedience imho).

 

Understanding what I'm saying might take a little but of study but it's worth it.  I tend not to give all of my knowledge away by throwing it all out there so that it can be understood apart from actual study because of what Jesus said in Matthew 7:6 and while I do not consider every onlooker to be swine it remains that most of the people I have ministered to have responded either with anger because they don't want to hear it or else they try to argue with me because they didn't study it out for themselves and haven't seen my point of view as I ascertained it from its original context.  So I don't normally quote my proof-texts but will reference them and will also reference them if it might be considered offensive to quote them outright as I did above with Matthew 7:6.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Geoff Primanti