Translated Bibles or Word-for-word Interlinear

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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. 

[OneLight]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[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.

[alien224]

I agree with Shiloh and love the NASV.

[other one]

NASV?????   is that the same as NASB?

[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.

[OneLight]

 

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

 

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.

 

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?  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?

[dscapp]

Putting a comma in Luke 23:43 doesn't really help the situation.

 

If I could read Hebrew or Greek, I would definitely my English translations in the garbage.

[JohnD]

Imperfection lies in human language(s). Even with secular koine Greek (a very precise language) expressions, idioms, figures of speech that vary from region to region etc cause what was said or written to be misunderstood by the reader or hearer. 

 

This is why we must needs the Holy Spirit to tutor us.