Translations.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, Jayne said:

Yes, I think it is somewhat of an issue.

I bought a hardback copy of the Message when it first came out.  I was going  to use it as my primary Biblefor that particular year.

There were too many alterations of words and phrases that either added to or deleted the literal message of the Bible for my taste.  To me, it's the mind of Peterson, not the words of God.

I'm not going to go around burning these books.  Just suggesting that people use something else.

 

Personally, I’m a big fan of The Message. However, I never read a passage from it without reading the same passage from a different version. 

[JimmyB]

15 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

Well I haven't read every translation out there but one thing I have understood so far is that a version ( such as ) the King James is highly instrumental in conducting an in depth study of God's Word. The only way we can understand truth is to compare scripture with scripture. Not a paraphrase, not someone's footnotes on the bottom of the page. Essentially we can blame Wescott and Hort for this current barrage of confusion with all these translations!

Blaming Wescott and Hort for anything is a favorite line of the KJVO crowd, but there is no basis for that accusation.  Modern translations are based on many manuscripts from history and other relevant data, as well as increased knowledge of the ancient languages and customs.

[JimmyB]

14 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

May I suggest the book " New Age versions" by Gail Riplinger. It is essentially a comparison between the 1881 Revised edition ( the "mother" of all newer translations) and the Authorized Version. 

Here is part of Amazon's description: "This book is the result of an exhaustive six year collation of new bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscripts, editions, and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion ... The Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind the new versions are examined, revealing their occult origins, contents, and yet unreleased material - a blueprint for the Antichrist's One World Religion and government. Presented also is the latest research proving the Authorized King James Version represents not only Christianity's earliest and most widely used Greek text, but is the easiest version to read according to computer analysis based formulas from the Flesch-Kincaid research firm." (my emphasis)

I wouldn't even consider buying such biased trash.

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I have a New Testament dated 1865.  It was a soldier's Bible from the Civil war era.

I read a Bible from 1852 by James Murdock he translated the syriac peshitto to English quite fascinating 

[BeyondET]

The New Heart English Bible is cool too.

Edited June 13, 2022 by BeyondET

[teddyv]

12 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

I loved it. 

Of course. 

Are you KJVO?

[teddyv]

20 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

I have made scripture comparisons over the years primarily with the NIV (arguably the most popular version next to the KJV) so I really haven't considered other translations. I will make comparisons with other versions on a parallel Bible app. I am just at peace with the KJV. God the Holy Spirit has shown me ( and a great many others) many truths with this version.

That's fine , I guess.

20 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

Oh, I would never depend on the NIV, or any Bible that paraphrases the Holy scriptures.

Are you calling the NIV a paraphrase here?

[Alive]

This may be of interest to some. Not complete, but informative.

https://carm.org/the-bible/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations/

[OneLight]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

This may be of interest to some. Not complete, but informative.

https://carm.org/the-bible/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations/

That is a pretty long read, but well worth it if you like history.  I'd be interested to see some sort of work in the progression from one translation to another, as to see the differences between them.  As expected, not all texts were available for translation, so they had to be satisfied with a smorgasbord of text from different languages.

This does, however, cast a shadow over the accuracy of scripture, throwing fuel on the fire of doubt.  Though I fully trust the Holy Spirit to bring us the truth, not all readers have this privilege. 

[Alive]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

That is a pretty long read, but well worth it if you like history.  I'd be interested to see some sort of work in the progression from one translation to another, as to see the differences between them.  As expected, not all texts were available for translation, so they had to be satisfied with a smorgasbord of text from different languages.

This does, however, cast a shadow over the accuracy of scripture, throwing fuel on the fire of doubt.  Though I fully trust the Holy Spirit to bring us the truth, not all readers have this privilege. 

Yes--there is no possible way that the Lord does not give His own, what is needed for His purposes. I am actually more and more encouraged by the various sources of study on these things, than doubtful. I see the Lord in all of it.