Thought for the day...

[MrsSealedEternal]

Even so, if he was intending to bring them forth, one day or 10 days after Easter, the text is still correct. It doesn't matter what the Jewish believers celebrated. After Easter is still after Easter. If I were to say I was leaving on my next trip after Tuesday, and I went Thursday, I would be accurate, though someone else might claim an innacuracy because I didn't say after Wednesday.

No, it would be more like planning on having a get-together after football game yet saying that the get-together is after the hockey game.

[Anne]

I'd rather stick as close to the original as I can.

How will you know when you're close?

Okay, bare with me on this pointer, What language(s) was the Bible originally written in?

[pointer]

I'd rather stick as close to the original as I can.

How will you know when you're close?

Okay, bare with me on this pointer, What language(s) was the Bible originally written in?

Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.

[Anne]

And believe me pointer if I could read it in those languages, that is the way I would choose to study the Bible. However I can't, the Bible was then translated into English, in 1611 was it? I'm only speaking from a very sleepy head here, so I could be wrong on the date, and that was the authorised King James Version. I'm not denying that there is a possibility of mistakes, however I strongly doubt it, I myself have not come across any.

The KJV is the closest I have to the original text, it is one closest to the starting point in my language, am I making sense here pointer?

Now as time goes on, and society develops and changes, so do peoples views and ways of looking and understanding things. If by some chance the world continues for another 2,000 years there will be a vast difference in how people understand things and interpret them, and the Bibles of then would be virtually unrecognisable from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The KJV is in my opinion, not every one feels this way though pointer, is the best translation I can read, sure it's hard to understand sometimes, but as i've said before, just because somethings are hard to grasp doesn't mean we should stop reaching for it. Hope I've made some sense here.

God Bless you

Anne

[Anne]

Butero is that written in "Ye olde english?"

[pointer]

And believe me pointer if I could read it in those languages, that is the way I would choose to study the Bible. However I can't

Of course you can. Is God's Word to you not worth the trouble?

the Bible was then translated into English, in 1611 was it?

What do you mean, then? It was not first translated into English in the seventeenth century, but well before, when English was in a state of change from Early English, through Middle English, to Modern English. The complete translation made by John Wyclif and his friends, the first to gain currency and indeed immense influence, was written in the fourteenth century. If your hypothesis that translations become more unreliable with time, Wyclif's translation must be the best in English. So I wonder, will you transfer your loyalty to that version? Or how about the Geneva Bible, that was the runaway best-seller of the Elizabethan period and beyond? Or the Catholic Douai Bible? They and others pre-date the 'KJ'V.

I'm only speaking from a very sleepy head here, so I could be wrong on the date, and that was the authorised King James Version.

The version you refer to was never authorised by king or parliament. It doesn't actually have a name, the description 'King James' being entirely unofficial- and well it might be. It is dishonestly named after a man who practised bear-baiting and homosexuality, who was indolent and a spendthrift, who would have traitorously turned his country Catholic if parliament had let him.

Moreover, it is hardly a translation, but a compilation of many earlier translations. The translating team was commanded to keep as close as possible to the Bishops' Bible, a version that was known to be difficult to read (probably deliberately). The 'KJ' version was an exercise in PR, backed up by the military might of a king- a king, moreover, who persecuted Christians, some of whom fled to America and eventually founded the USA. It is so very ironic that it is Americans who are now so keen on the 'KJ'V! Perhaps poacher has turned gamekeeper.

I'm not denying that there is a possibility of mistakes, however I strongly doubt it, I myself have not come across any.

How can you possibly comment, if, as I suppose from your previous comment, you cannot read those original languages? You did not even know what they are!

The KJV is the closest I have to the original text, it is one closest to the starting point in my language, am I making sense here pointer?

None whatever. If you don't understand original texts, you cannot possibly know which translation is better or worse.

Now as time goes on, and society develops and changes, so do peoples views and ways of looking and understanding things. If by some chance the world continues for another 2,000 years there will be a vast difference in how people understand things and interpret them, and the Bibles of then would be virtually unrecognisable from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Where is the evidence that time produces increasingly inferior translations? The Greek manuscripts that were used up to the time of the 'KJ'V were very few, and mostly very inferior. Many more mss, and better, have since been discovered, and imv we have only very recently been able to be reasonably certain of what the original autographs contained. There has never been a better (or cheaper) time to discover the great riches of original Bible languages. Anyone who wishes to make serious comment about the Bible must use those languages anyway.

sure it's hard to understand sometimes

No doubt the enemies of Christ consider that a good thing. Do you think that the poor artisans who read or listened to the original Greek koine found that language difficult to understand?

but as i've said before, just because somethings are hard to grasp doesn't mean we should stop reaching for it.

If it is worth the trouble, yes. That is why anyone who wants to make acceptable comment in a scholarly context uses only original languages. But Wyclif's early translation is written in early Middle English, and should prove an interesting challenge for those who value old age in translations.

[Anne]

And believe me pointer if I could read it in those languages, that is the way I would choose to study the Bible. However I can't

Of course you can. Is God's Word to you not worth the trouble?

the Bible was then translated into English, in 1611 was it?

What do you mean, then? It was not first translated into English in the seventeenth century, but well before, when English was in a state of change from Early English, through Middle English, to Modern English. The complete translation made by John Wyclif and his friends, the first to gain currency and indeed immense influence, was written in the fourteenth century. If your hypothesis that translations become more unreliable with time, Wyclif's translation must be the best in English. So I wonder, will you transfer your loyalty to that version? Or how about the Geneva Bible, that was the runaway best-seller of the Elizabethan period and beyond? Or the Catholic Douai Bible? They and others pre-date the 'KJ'V.

I'm only speaking from a very sleepy head here, so I could be wrong on the date, and that was the authorised King James Version.

The version you refer to was never authorised by king or parliament. It doesn't actually have a name, the description 'King James' being entirely unofficial- and well it might be. It is dishonestly named after a man who practised bear-baiting and homosexuality, who was indolent and a spendthrift, who would have traitorously turned his country Catholic if parliament had let him.

Moreover, it is hardly a translation, but a compilation of many earlier translations. The translating team was commanded to keep as close as possible to the Bishops' Bible, a version that was known to be difficult to read (probably deliberately). The 'KJ' version was an exercise in PR, backed up by the military might of a king- a king, moreover, who persecuted Christians, some of whom fled to America and eventually founded the USA. It is so very ironic that it is Americans who are now so keen on the 'KJ'V! Perhaps poacher has turned gamekeeper.

I'm not denying that there is a possibility of mistakes, however I strongly doubt it, I myself have not come across any.

How can you possibly comment, if, as I suppose from your previous comment, you cannot read those original languages? You did not even know what they are!

The KJV is the closest I have to the original text, it is one closest to the starting point in my language, am I making sense here pointer?

None whatever. If you don't understand original texts, you cannot possibly know which translation is better or worse.

Now as time goes on, and society develops and changes, so do peoples views and ways of looking and understanding things. If by some chance the world continues for another 2,000 years there will be a vast difference in how people understand things and interpret them, and the Bibles of then would be virtually unrecognisable from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Where is the evidence that time produces increasingly inferior translations? The Greek manuscripts that were used up to the time of the 'KJ'V were very few, and mostly very inferior. Many more mss, and better, have since been discovered, and imv we have only very recently been able to be reasonably certain of what the original autographs contained. There has never been a better (or cheaper) time to discover the great riches of original Bible languages. Anyone who wishes to make serious comment about the Bible must use those languages anyway.

sure it's hard to understand sometimes

No doubt the enemies of Christ consider that a good thing. Do you think that the poor artisans who read or listened to the original Greek koine found that language difficult to understand?

but as i've said before, just because somethings are hard to grasp doesn't mean we should stop reaching for it.

If it is worth the trouble, yes. That is why anyone who wants to make acceptable comment in a scholarly context uses only original languages. But Wyclif's early translation is written in early Middle English, and should prove an interesting challenge for those who value old age in translations.

And the purpose for being rude was what??

[pointer]

And believe me pointer if I could read it in those languages, that is the way I would choose to study the Bible. However I can't

Of course you can. Is God's Word to you not worth the trouble?

the Bible was then translated into English, in 1611 was it?

What do you mean, then? It was not first translated into English in the seventeenth century, but well before, when English was in a state of change from Early English, through Middle English, to Modern English. The complete translation made by John Wyclif and his friends, the first to gain currency and indeed immense influence, was written in the fourteenth century. If your hypothesis that translations become more unreliable with time, Wyclif's translation must be the best in English. So I wonder, will you transfer your loyalty to that version? Or how about the Geneva Bible, that was the runaway best-seller of the Elizabethan period and beyond? Or the Catholic Douai Bible? They and others pre-date the 'KJ'V.

I'm only speaking from a very sleepy head here, so I could be wrong on the date, and that was the authorised King James Version.

The version you refer to was never authorised by king or parliament. It doesn't actually have a name, the description 'King James' being entirely unofficial- and well it might be. It is dishonestly named after a man who practised bear-baiting and homosexuality, who was indolent and a spendthrift, who would have traitorously turned his country Catholic if parliament had let him.

Moreover, it is hardly a translation, but a compilation of many earlier translations. The translating team was commanded to keep as close as possible to the Bishops' Bible, a version that was known to be difficult to read (probably deliberately). The 'KJ' version was an exercise in PR, backed up by the military might of a king- a king, moreover, who persecuted Christians, some of whom fled to America and eventually founded the USA. It is so very ironic that it is Americans who are now so keen on the 'KJ'V! Perhaps poacher has turned gamekeeper.

I'm not denying that there is a possibility of mistakes, however I strongly doubt it, I myself have not come across any.

How can you possibly comment, if, as I suppose from your previous comment, you cannot read those original languages? You did not even know what they are!

The KJV is the closest I have to the original text, it is one closest to the starting point in my language, am I making sense here pointer?

None whatever. If you don't understand original texts, you cannot possibly know which translation is better or worse.

Now as time goes on, and society develops and changes, so do peoples views and ways of looking and understanding things. If by some chance the world continues for another 2,000 years there will be a vast difference in how people understand things and interpret them, and the Bibles of then would be virtually unrecognisable from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Where is the evidence that time produces increasingly inferior translations? The Greek manuscripts that were used up to the time of the 'KJ'V were very few, and mostly very inferior. Many more mss, and better, have since been discovered, and imv we have only very recently been able to be reasonably certain of what the original autographs contained. There has never been a better (or cheaper) time to discover the great riches of original Bible languages. Anyone who wishes to make serious comment about the Bible must use those languages anyway.

sure it's hard to understand sometimes

No doubt the enemies of Christ consider that a good thing. Do you think that the poor artisans who read or listened to the original Greek koine found that language difficult to understand?

but as i've said before, just because somethings are hard to grasp doesn't mean we should stop reaching for it.

If it is worth the trouble, yes. That is why anyone who wants to make acceptable comment in a scholarly context uses only original languages. But Wyclif's early translation is written in early Middle English, and should prove an interesting challenge for those who value old age in translations.

And the purpose for being rude was what??

Where have I been rude?

[Anne]

so you weren't being rude? My misunderstanding then.

[Tribulation]

And who are you? Do you know anything at all? Those versions are ancient relics. Scholarship has moved on a long way, as any real scholar knows. The only modern version that translates like the KJV is the NKJV, no doubt for commercial reasons only.

Who am I? I am a child of God - who seeks to read his word as accurately as possible. I don't care if the older style English is harder to understand as long as it's accurate and doesn't meddle with God's Word.

So which verse would you rather have? A verse that's accurate but takes a bit longer to read OR a verse which is inaccurate, changes the meaning of God's Word but is quick and easy to read. I know which one I want.

Why anyone would want to use a translation beats me anyway, unless they have to.

Well, as Anne said, If I could, I would read God's Word in the original language - but unfortunately I am not fluent in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic!

By the way, altering the quotes of others on the 'net is almost a criminal act.

Where have I done that?

The only thing I am guilty of is highlighting certain words in your post. Is that a criminal act? Really? Well send me off to jail, 'cause I've been doing it for years and nobody has ever kicked up a fuss about it until now!