• We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.

Bible Translations

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
This is an important issue. There are good translations out there for study, terrible ones created to promote cults and false doctrines and ones that are just too hard to read and understand.

Another important issue is that of manuscript source. Are the translations from accurate and true ancient manuscripts or something less accurate? Are they sources, such as the Vulgate or New World Translation created to support false doctrines?

Limiting it down to good manuscript sources, there are three forms of translations:
  • Literal translation (word for word) - Sounds great, but gives false results.
    • Different languages construct sentences and words differently. Word for word results in babble and confusion.
    • Word meanings vary. One example is in American English hand does not include the wrist but in Greek it does. This has lead to serious errors of understanding, in such as seeing crosses with nails in the palms of hand, which will not hold up a body, while through the wrist will.
  • Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) - While great caution must be exercised, this is the most accurate method. You keep the literal flow of the meaning as presented while accommodating or foot noting issues like the meaning of "hand."
  • Paraphrase - Tries to pass along the meaning in modern context but has no demand to preserve the original structure, words or meaning. Definitely not a Bible for study, hence why use it at all since it can be seriously misleading?
If you wish to discuss the issues of this thread, please reply here. If you want to add a specific version for discussion, please add a new thread to the forum instead.
 
Last edited:

Heather Frank

restricted access
You are an "idea log". You must have picked up that mindset in the military. It's amazing, I read a lot of books by people who think they can timeline all of world history. Every last one of them is a "specialist" in some narrow field who thinks he knows all the major events and can fit story arcs focused on and highlighting just the events that he thinks are pivotal to his weltanshaang and his idea of what history means.

You're an ideologue. I'm sure you have no idea where your style of historicism comes from, but I do. I've stood watches before too. I didn't only record just the bits and bobs that I thought were important, I reported and recorded the true events in literal context for real.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
I know exactly where my framework comes from. You practice too much modernism. In many of your claims are not literal truths.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed you know a lot about modernism since that's what you believe. I'll stick with the Bible.
 

Heather Frank

restricted access
Indeed you know a lot about modernism since that's what you believe. I'll stick with the Bible.
I'll stick with University of Oxford and the Army Act. Given that I signed my apprenticeship agreement in 1991 and went through the whole entire program, as well as the fact that my military service's attitudes towards race are more intelligent and integrated than your military service's attitudes towards race, I might as well just stay loyal.
 

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member

The KJV is not the oldest English Bible. Such as the Geneva Bible are far older. An English oath is irrelevant To Bible study. Nor is it the most accurate translation.
 
Last edited:

Heather Frank

restricted access

The KJV is not the oldest English Bible. Such as the Geneva Bible are far older. An English oath is irrelevant To Bible study. Nor is it the most accurate translation.
You have rich desires. Got that much money?
Well, it doesn't much matter. What's important in terms of English intelligence is that you know James. Your loyalty is required.
 
Top