bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Just a short question  (Read 3048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Morten

  • Guest
Just a short question
« on: August 26, 2009, 02:37:17 PM »

How many words do you guys think is wrong translated in the bible, or should have been interpreted correctly.
Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2009, 03:25:44 PM »


Hi Morten,

Here are few emails where Ray answered this, it should help with your question.


http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6261.0.html ------

My main study and teaching Bible is the King James. This is because most of the English Bibles of the world are either King James or in the King James "family" of translations. All Bibles contain "the Truth of God."  Granted there are a number of words that are not translated properly in most Bibles, but one can learn what these are without throwing away our Bibles.       

        The Greek word "aion" which means an age or indeterminate period of time with both a beginning and an ending, when used as an adjective "aionios" does NOT change into "everlasting, for ever and ever, evermore, or eternal." That is grammatical foolishness. Learn this one fact well, and you won't have a major problem with ANY Bible translation.  See my article: "Is EVERLASTING Scriptural" on our home page.

       
http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3239.0.html ---

There is no giant difference in most texts. Most translations from the oldest manuscripts compare all the best manuscripts in their Versions. I consult a dozen or more versions in my study, however, truth is not found in the "most perfect manuscript." The spiritual teaching is found in all manuscripts. The only really GIANT problem with most modern Versions is one of interpretation, not translation. There is no equivalent in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts to justify the use of such words as "for ever and ever," "everlasting/evermore," and "eternal." That's it!  Translate olam/aion/aionios properly, and ALL translations will contain the truths of God regardless as to whether some are better or more accurate than others.

           
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,10187.0.html --------

Sounds simple enough, however, there is a lot more to it than what you state.

First, what do you mean by "THE Bible (God's Word)?"  There are hundreds and hundreds

of "different" Bibles.  Yes, "different."  So how can one "let the Bible say what it says and mean

what it means?"  There are any number of "bibles" which do not contain the English word "hell"

even one time.  So what are we to make of that?  I John 5:7 appears in most modern English

Bibles, yet there is not one example of this verse in any manuscript dated before the 15th

Century.  The words "evermore," "everlasting," and eternal are found in most modern English

bibles, yet "eternal" has no equivalent whatsoever in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  So

there we have a few bits of "bible" that are NOT "God's Word" at all. So in reality, many bibles

don't "say what the original manuscripts say."  I agree that we should let God's Word "mean what

it means," but then again, WHO decides what it "means" in the first place?  And so, there is a

need for teachers, and it behooves all students to study and compare carefully what all these

"different" teachers teach.   Etc., etc.  Too big a subject for an email, and so that is why we

started "bible-truths.com."

God be with you,

Ray

Logged

Morten

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2009, 03:40:12 PM »

thanks for your answer, but i was wondring more about the number, not the exact number, because that's impossible. I was thinking more like, is it 5000-10000 words or is it 500-1000 etc.?
Logged

sansmile

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
  • my beautiful grandchildren
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2009, 04:57:12 PM »

Hi,

I think i read something Ray wrote once, which stated that the KJV has corrected over 50000 words since it was first published.

In Christ
Sandie
Logged
Walk in the Spirit

Extol

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 614
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2009, 12:36:14 PM »

I was just reading last night [The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel] about all of the textual variants among the Greek N.T. manuscripts. A prominent agnostic pointed out that there are hundreds of thousands of variants. Sounds alarming, but almost all of them are virtually insignificant: for example, one manuscript will say "God" while the other says "Lord"...one manuscript will say "a" while another says "an"...one manuscript spells John with one N, another with two, etc. In other words, hardly any of these variants change the Scripture at all.
 The few mistakes that do change the text still are not terribly significant. In Romans 5:1, some versions say "We have peace", others say "Let us have peace". In 1 John 1:4, some manuscripts have "we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete"; others say "..so your joy may be complete". These are different words and mean different things, but is the overall message changed? No. In Romans, the message is that peace comes through being justified by faith. In 1 John, joy comes through the writing of 1 John.
These minor differences do not change the foundational truths that we believe. It's not like the ancient manuscripts say "Christ did not die for the ungodly", and somehow our modern translations twisted it to "Christ died for the ungodly".

 Apart from the words "aion/aionios" in the N.T. and Sheol/olam in the O.T., as well as some later additions (see list of spurious passages: http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6638.0.html), I don't think there are any major problems with how our modern English Bibles are translated.
Logged

Akira329

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 718
  • "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2009, 01:16:22 PM »

How many words do you guys think is wrong translated in the bible, or should have been interpreted correctly.
thanks for your answer, but i was wondring more about the number, not the exact number, because that's impossible. I was thinking more like, is it 5000-10000 words or is it 500-1000 etc.?

Which bible are you referring to?
Why just a general range?

Antaiwan
Logged
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
-Albert Einstein
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
- Jesus

Kat

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2009, 01:56:58 PM »


Hi Morten,

Here is a quote from the paper below "the words "hell" and "eternal" have no equivalent in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts!"

Of course different translations have these words placed differently and they interchange the words useage, but this is what E-Sword has for the KJV.

Eternal - 47 times
Everlasting - 91 times
forever and ever - 46 times
Eternity - 1 time in Isa.

Isa 57:15  For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Here is a link to a paper Ray wrote - Is "EVERLASTING" Scriptural?

http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm -----

E-Sword
Hell - 54 times in the KJV.

Here is a excerpt from the article no. 7  'The Seven Symbolic Churches of Revelation.'

http://bible-truths.com/lake7.html --------

IS THE KING JAMES BIBLE INERRANT?

Many feel that the King James Bible is "inerrant" (incapable of error). It is, in fact, a doctrine of some denominations. There have been over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND changes in the King James Bible. Most of them are relatively minor changes such as spelling, grammar, etc. Nonetheless, I think all should agree that any translation requiring a hundred thousand corrections hardly could be called perfect and inerrant. In the front of my 1611 Edition of the King James there is an eleven-page dissertation entitled: "THE TRANSLATORS To The Reader." And in it the translators freely confess their inability to translate the Scriptures flawlessly.

This 1611 KJV also has notes in the margins. Unfortunately, these have all been removed from most modern printings. Hundreds of times you will find in the margin, notes stating what the Hebrew or Greek literally said even though they saw fit to translate it otherwise. I am not criticizing this practice. Often it is necessary because it is not possible to translate word for word and have it make sense in English. Most of the corrections made over the centuries have been positive, however, there still remains a few major errors that desperately need correction. Example: the words "hell" and "eternal" have no equivalent in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts! (Read the first ten pages of my Letter to John Hagee on this site).

THERE AIN’T NO HELL IN THE MANUSCRIPTS

Let’s consider the use of the word "hell" in Scripture. The Jewish Publications avoid the word "hell" in their translating. And just maybe Jewish scholars understand their own language better than others. In the KJV we regretfully still read "hell" in a number of Old Testament Scriptures:

"The wicked shall be turned into hell [Hebrew: sheol], and all the nations that forget God" (Psalm 9:17).

Next from the most popular selling Bible today, The New International Version:

"The wicked return to the grave [Hebrew: sheol], all the nations that forget God."

Many modern English translations are dropping the word "hell," more and more from their translations. Why? Because it should have never been used in the first place, and honest scholars are beginning to see that clearly.

This is one area where the KJV translators are really inconsistent. The translators of the KJV translate the Hebrew word sheol, 31 times as, "hell." But ... BUT, did you know that they also translate this same word sheol, 31 times as, "grave?" Oh really? Yes, really! And 3 times, "pit." That looks like a toss of the coin, doesn’t it? Thirty-one, "hell" and thirty-one, "grave." Do you think that maybe that is how they determined which it should be—"heads for hell" and "tails for grave?" And maybe three times "pit" when they dropped the coin?

Now let me show you how you all can have greater wisdom than even the modern translators. The same New International Version that I quoted above has this in Luke 16:32:

"In hell, where he was in torment…"

But by the word hell there is a superior letter "c" indicating a marginal notation which says: "23 Greek Hades" I thank these translators for their partial honesty. Why "partial honesty?" Because hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol, which these same translators translated into the English word "grave" in Psalm 9:17 (and other places), but in Luke 16:23 they revert back to the unscriptural word "hell." By the way, the Holy Spirit inspired the Hebrew word sheol to be translated into the Greek word hades, so we know for sure that they are equivalents:

"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [Gk: hades from Heb: sheol] neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

That, my friends, is a quotation from the Old Testament Hebrew Psalm 16:10. Therefore, hades and sheol are synonymous and should never be translated "hell."

ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES

Those who claim that the KJV is inerrant are not aware of the fact that one edition of the King James left out the word "not" in the seventh commandment. There were, in fact, three different corrections and revisions of the KJV in its very first year of publication.

FIRST KILL THE CHILDREN

There have been countless mistakes in all the editions of the KJV. I will give you just a few. The 1716 Edition had Jesus commanding the adulteress to, "sin on more" instead of "sin no more" In a 1795 Edition Jesus is reported to have said to the Syro-Phoenician woman, "Let the children first be killed" instead of "Let the children first be filled." They called that Edition "The Murderer’s Bible." In the 1792 Edition of the King James Bible has Phillip denying Jesus instead of Peter denying Him.

STRAINING "AT" A GNAT?

And there are still obvious errors remaining in the KJV after four hundred years of corrections, revisions, and editing. In Matt. 23:24 we read this in the KJV, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." So what’s wrong with that? It’s incoherent! It’s "apples and oranges." Christ is speaking of "swallowing," as in "swallowing a camel." But "straining at a gnat" has nothing to do with swallowing a gnat. In four hundred years, the revisers of the KJV have not caught that slip. Most other translators have caught it and translate it properly:

"…strain out the gnat…--American Standard Version.

"Blind leaders! You filter your wine to get rid of a gnat, and you swallow a camel"—C. H. Rieu. (Although Mr. Rieu uses too many uninspired words, he nonetheless, does translate the idea properly).

"…strain off a midge, yet gulp down a camel"—New English Bible

"…you call yourselves leaders, and yet you can’t see an inch before your noses, for you filter out the mosquito and swallow the camel"—Phillips Translation. (Again, Mr. Phillips uses too many uninspired words, however, he too nails the meaning quite well).

JESUS OR JOSHUA?

One more: Two obvious mistakes that were made in the 1611 Edition of KJV also have not been corrected to this very day. In both Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8, the name "Jesus" appears where "Joshua" is actually meant. Actually Jesus and Joshua are spelled the same in Greek, but, nonetheless, the translators were inattentive or they would have caught this error.

THE KING JAMES AND WILLIAM TYNDALE

I do not point out these errors to disparage the KJV. Not at all, but to merely show that those who claim "inerrancy" in translations are just plain ignorant of the facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

mercy, peace and love
Kat

Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2009, 02:22:48 PM »

I was just reading last night [The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel] about all of the textual variants among the Greek N.T. manuscripts. In other words, hardly any of these variants change the Scripture at all.
 The few mistakes that do change the text still are not terribly significant. These are different words and mean different things, but is the overall message changed? No. In Romans, the message is that peace comes through being justified by faith. In 1 John, joy comes through the writing of 1 John.
These minor differences do not change the foundational truths that we believe.



Lee Strobel could have just stayed out of the whole doctrinal arena where christians are concerned.  He's as orthodox as all fundamentalist preachers.  He believes in every false doctrine of the churches including eternal hell and the trinity (although he believes hell is in degrees.  I guess the temperature is turned up for the Hitlers and such).  He talks about today's bibles teach these fundamental truths that "we" believe.  In fact, bibles never taught these fundamental laws that "we" (they) believe.  And to say that the words forever and hell don't change the message as Strobel contends just shows how blind he really is.  I don't believe Strobel does very objective research anyway.  
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:27:14 PM by musicman »
Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2009, 02:26:25 PM »

Oh, and there are 52,324 mistakes in the modern King James bible.  What's that?  They fixed "strain at a gnat" by writing "strain out a gnat"?  OK, now it's 52,323 mistakes.
Logged

Marky Mark

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2009, 02:48:23 PM »

How many words do you guys think is wrong translated in the bible, or should have been interpreted correctly.


I believe that any and all translations of the bible are what they should be,only because God in His plan of prefection warrants Scripture to have so many variants in accordance to our Gods needs,for the elects sake.Remember,only God can give Spiritual discernment to whom He wants.The rest are blinded to this fact.All is of God.



Peace...Mark
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:50:41 PM by Marky Mark »
Logged

Extol

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 614
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2009, 05:41:28 PM »

I was just reading last night [The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel] about all of the textual variants among the Greek N.T. manuscripts. In other words, hardly any of these variants change the Scripture at all.
 The few mistakes that do change the text still are not terribly significant. These are different words and mean different things, but is the overall message changed? No. In Romans, the message is that peace comes through being justified by faith. In 1 John, joy comes through the writing of 1 John.
These minor differences do not change the foundational truths that we believe.



Lee Strobel could have just stayed out of the whole doctrinal arena where christians are concerned.  He's as orthodox as all fundamentalist preachers.  He believes in every false doctrine of the churches including eternal hell and the trinity (although he believes hell is in degrees.  I guess the temperature is turned up for the Hitlers and such).  He talks about today's bibles teach these fundamental truths that "we" believe.  In fact, bibles never taught these fundamental laws that "we" (they) believe.  And to say that the words forever and hell don't change the message as Strobel contends just shows how blind he really is.  I don't believe Strobel does very objective research anyway.  

Hi musicman,
 I think you misunderstood my post. That was me writing, not Lee Strobel. I was telling Morten that most of the hundreds of thousands of mistakes and manuscript variants are of little consequence, and that hell/forever are the only major ones (plus some spurious additions). I'm aware that Mr. Strobel believes what orthodox Christianity teaches. I was simply listing that book as a source of where I got some of the information I posted.
Logged

musicman

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2009, 11:53:25 PM »

OK, it just sounds the same as what Stroble says.
Logged

daywalker

  • Guest
Re: Just a short question
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2009, 12:14:53 AM »

How many words do you guys think is wrong translated in the bible, or should have been interpreted correctly.


We could throw numbers out all day... If you're looking for a 'perfect' translation, then there are 1,000s of them--the Original Manuscripts. All you gotta do is learn Ancient Hebrew and Greek.

...actually that's not 100% true because the Roman Catholic Church has contaminated many of the Originals by making additions and subtractions, hoping that nobody would ever notice... and nobody probably would have if it weren't for those darn Protestants.. ruined everything!

Dope!  :o >:( :D

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 26 queries.