Hello everyone! :)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/

http://www.mardel.com/bible-translation-guide.aspx

http://www.stpatricksguild.com/page.htm?PG=BibleComparison

Here are at least 3 websites that provides info on bible translations that are either word-for-word or thought-for-thought along with some that are mixed with both.

I want to have a discussion on this here but I need to have a final draft written before placing it on here but I would love to hear from ya'll with the issue on this, word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

Mod Note:

This thread has been moved to Bible Chat for feedback and discussion.

Thank you Dani H!
I apologize for not putting this in the appropriate forum section.

I love the KJV, even though I'm not a KJV-onlyist. Many times, when I read a passage I've read before, I see more into what I read than what I thought I read before. I don't like "thought-for-thought" translations, mostly because you are only getting one thought from whoever wrote it, instead of the many possible thoughts you can get from it otherwise. For instance, Gen. 22:8, Abraham told Issac that God would provide Himself a Lamb for sacrifice.

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
(Gen 22:8)

I see that as not just the Lord providing an animal to Abraham but also as a prophecy of God providing Himself (Jesus) as the Lamb of God at the cross. This idea of the prophecy is totally lost in a 'thought-for-thought' translation such as the NIV:

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

The prophecy of "God will provide Himself a Lamb" is totally lost. You want to really loose the meaning, look at the Douay-Rheims version:

8 And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.

These are great study tools. I was reading online the NKJV and it almost reads as easily as the NIV with a few words changed. The study tools are very helpful. I like the Fausset Brown Commentary Critical explanation of the bible. The notes are very helpful.



Hello everyone! :)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/

http://www.mardel.com/bible-translation-guide.aspx

http://www.stpatricksguild.com/page.htm?PG=BibleComparison

Here are at least 3 websites that provides info on bible translations that are either word-for-word or thought-for-thought along with some that are mixed with both.

I want to have a discussion on this here but I need to have a final draft written before placing it on here but I would love to hear from ya'll with the issue on this, word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

When translating, the idea, voice, and sense of the passage is more important than word for word or even thought for thought.

I love the KJV, even though I'm not a KJV-onlyist. Many times, when I read a passage I've read before, I see more into what I read than what I thought I read before. I don't like "thought-for-thought" translations, mostly because you are only getting one thought from whoever wrote it, instead of the many possible thoughts you can get from it otherwise. For instance, Gen. 22:8, Abraham told Issac that God would provide Himself a Lamb for sacrifice.

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
(Gen 22:8)

I see that as not just the Lord providing an animal to Abraham but also as a prophecy of God providing Himself (Jesus) as the Lamb of God at the cross. This idea of the prophecy is totally lost in a 'thought-for-thought' translation such as the NIV:

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

The prophecy of "God will provide Himself a Lamb" is totally lost. You want to really loose the meaning, look at the Douay-Rheims version:

8 And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.

Both the KJV and the NIV give us a “thought-for-thought” translation for the first part of Genesis 22:8. They both do so because in the Hebrew text from which the verse is translated we have a Hebraic idiom, which is literally translated as “see for himself,” giving us, “God will see for himself the lamb for a burnt offering….”

We find the same Hebraic idiom in 1 Sam. 16:1,

16:1 And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. KJV.

The last part of this verse is literally rendered, “I have seen for myself a king among his sons.”

The translation of Gen. 22:8 in the KJV, however, is so poor that you mistakenly interpreted it to be “a prophecy of God providing Himself (Jesus) as the Lamb of God.” Genesis 22:8 is no more saying that God will provide “Himself (Jesus) as the Lamb of God” any more than 1 Sam. 16:1 is saying that God will provide “Himself (Jesus) a king among his sons.” The New Revised Standard Version gives us a very accurate and very easy to understand translation of Gen. 22:8 and 1 Sam. 16:1,

Gen. 22:8 Abraham said, "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.

1 Sam. 16:1 The Lord said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul? I have rejected him from being king over Israel. Fill your horn with oil and set out; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons."

As for Gen. 22:8 in the Douay-Rheims version, we have there a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, which reads,

Gen. 22:8 dixit Abraham Deus providebit sibi victimam holocausti fili mi pergebant ergo partier.

Well, I knew I marked these verses for a reason. Now I know why.

The following I found in the "new international version" copywrite 1978

At the end of John 7 and the beginning of chapter 8, I found the following statement.

(The earliest and most reliable manuscipts do not have John 7:53-8:11)

Here are those verses.
Then each went to his own home.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Phaisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

If the earliest and most reliable manuscrpts do not have these verses, then what others differences are there?

What translationals are the true original verses.

MORE OVER from Rev 22:18-21
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues descibed in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen

If the earliest and most reliable manuscrpts do not have these verses, then what others differences are there?

Any other differences are clearly noted in most bibles. And the differences don't make any change to the bible.


MORE OVER from Rev 22:18-21
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues descibed in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen

To keep it in context, this is only referring to the book of Revelation.

[B][COLOR="#008080"]To keep it in context, this is only referring to the book of Revelation.
There are good arguments both ways.

There are good arguments both ways.


No, there are not. Rev 22:18-21 cannot be referring to the Bible as a book because the Bible as a book did not yet exist. Indeed, the concept of Bibles with an Old and New Testament was not yet conceived.

This thread, however, is not about textual criticism; it is about how the Bible should be translated.

No, there are not. Rev 22:18-21 cannot be referring to the Bible as a book because the Bible as a book did not yet exist. Indeed, the concept of Bibles with an Old and New Testament was not yet conceived.

This thread, however, is not about textual criticism; it is about how the Bible should be translated.
I stated "there are good arguments both ways." The point you made is part of one argument, but definitely by far not a nail in the coffin of the opposing view.

I see that as not just the Lord providing an animal to Abraham but also as a prophecy of God providing Himself (Jesus) as the Lamb of God at the cross. This idea of the prophecy is totally lost in a 'thought-for-thought' translation such as the NIV:
But since it's not defined as a prophecy anywhere in Scripture... is the 'prophecy' really being 'totally lost' if it may not have been a prophecy to begin with? (No matter whether God said 'a lamb' or 'the lamb', either way it's specifically said to be 'for a/the burnt offering'. Jesus wasn't a 'burnt offering'.)

I'm fine with interpreting what God said to Abraham in midrash to be about Jesus, but as an actual 'prophecy' (read: 'prediction', which is not the same thing as 'prophecy'), the text never specifies it as such, so it just can't be something to criticize a translation for.


You want to really loose the meaning, look at the Douay-Rheims version:

8 And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.Now, 'victim' means 'someone who suffers'. Formerly, 'victim' meant 'sacrifice'.

Now, 'holocaust' means (almost singularly) 'horrifying massacre of eleven million people in World War 2'. Formerly, 'holocaust' meant '[a sacrifice] consumed by fire'.

The DR says exactly the same thing as the KJV. The problem is not in the translation, so it cannot be said that the DR 'lost' the meaning of what God was saying. The problem is that the definitions of 'victim' and 'holocaust' have changed since the DR was first published.

But since it's not defined as a prophecy anywhere in Scripture... is the 'prophecy' really being 'totally lost' if it may not have been a prophecy to begin with? (No matter whether God said 'a lamb' or 'the lamb', either way it's specifically said to be 'for a/the burnt offering'. Jesus wasn't a 'burnt offering'.)

I'm fine with interpreting what God said to Abraham in midrash to be about Jesus, but as an actual 'prophecy' (read: 'prediction', which is not the same thing as 'prophecy'), the text never specifies it as such, so it just can't be something to criticize a translation for.

Now, 'victim' means 'someone who suffers'. Formerly, 'victim' meant 'sacrifice'.

Now, 'holocaust' means (almost singularly) 'horrifying massacre of eleven million people in World War 2'. Formerly, 'holocaust' meant '[a sacrifice] consumed by fire'.

The DR says exactly the same thing as the KJV. The problem is not in the translation, so it cannot be said that the DR 'lost' the meaning of what God was saying. The problem is that the definitions of 'victim' and 'holocaust' have changed since the DR was first published.

Regarding the use of the word “holocaust” in the Douay-Rheims version, we find the word still being used in the New American Bible, a dynamic equivalence translation (thought-for-thought translation) produced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1970. Although the New Testament was revised and published in 1986 as a formal equivalence translation, the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE), with a revised translation of the Old Testament and the 1986 revised New Testament, was not released until March 9, 2011. In this revised edition, Gen. 22:8 reads,

“My son,” Abraham answered, “God will provide the sheep for the burnt offering.” Then the two walked on together.

i read the HCSB, NLT, NIV, GWT, CEB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, NCV,

i read the HCSB, NLT, NIV, GWT, CEB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, NCV,

No NASB?

The philosophy of translators of the Bible regarding how the Bible should be translated generally falls into either of two categories.

1. Formal Equivalence (the terms “literal” or “word-for-word” are also used, and sometimes the term “Formal Correspondence” is used)

2. Functional Equivalence (originally called Dynamic Equivalence; the terms “idiomatic,” “meaning-based,” or “thought-for-thought” are also used.


Here is a link to a chart that compares the literalness of 21 popular translations and paraphrases of the Bible:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content/208780378?page=73521&sp=1003

Additional information about Bible translations is also provided.

No NASB?


Thats a calvinist bible

Hello everyone! :)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/

http://www.mardel.com/bible-translation-guide.aspx

http://www.stpatricksguild.com/page.htm?PG=BibleComparison

Here are at least 3 websites that provides info on bible translations that are either word-for-word or thought-for-thought along with some that are mixed with both.

I want to have a discussion on this here but I need to have a final draft written before placing it on here but I would love to hear from ya'll with the issue on this, word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

I always favor a literal word for word translation, for it limits the scribes to a small amount of interpretive license... Word for word, going back as far as we can, keeps the understanding closest as to what the original writers intended.

Thought for thought however, is very interpretive... thus it is the thought of the translator' that are given as the bible, and thus are open and not closed and thus are suspect.

Thats a calvinist bible

OH Pleazzzzzzzzzze. Obviously... that is not your own conclusion, but of someone else that you recant as yours.