Translated Bibles or Word-for-word Interlinear

[OneLight]

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.

[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.

[OneLight]

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.

[OneLight]

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.

[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.

[OneLight]

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.

[OneLight]

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.

[other one]

 

 

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.