Which translation is correct?

[Dani H]

Anyone who would handle the Word of God carelessly would have a serious problem with his relationship with Christ.

Carelessly ... according to whom? Do you have proof of carelessness?

Were you there when those manuscripts were translated? Did you see how they were handled and what all took place in the process of translation?

Or do you interpret certain things as careless ... that may or may not be?

Question: What's your profession in real life? (not a trick question)

[whitetiger]

The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is God. The Word was manifested in flesh. God was manifested in the flesh. And yet, thanks to the Alexandrian texts, for which they will not let us see the Old Testament portions, with the exception of the Sinaiticus, which is only a portion of the Old Testament, God manifested in the flesh is now, he, or which was manifested in the flesh. Does that change doctrine? At the least it attacks it.

The Bible is not God. That is a very dangerous idea and close to, bible worship. The Bible was only inspired by God, it is not God

[rejoice44]

Carelessly ... according to whom? Do you have proof of carelessness?

Yes, it becomes self evident when examined

Were you there when those manuscripts were translated? Did you see how they were handled and what all took place in the process of translation?

Usually a manuscript is not a translation, but an original, or a copy of an original.

Or do you interpret certain things as careless ... that may or may not be?

Changing the Word of God is careless.

Question: What's your profession in real life? (not a trick question)

I don't make my living translating from English to English, does that help?

[rejoice44]

The Bible is not God. That is a very dangerous idea and close to, bible worship. The Bible was only inspired by God, it is not God

If your bible is the Word of God, it is God. If your bible is not the Word of God, then it is not God.

[Dani H]

Yes, it becomes self evident when examined

Not to me. Not to a lot of people. So no, it does not. It's a personal issue to you, and it would be immensely helpful if you could just come out and say it.

Changing the Word of God is careless.

Define "the Word of God".

Because there are millions of born again believers alive today that do not own a Bible, may have never even seen one nor know how to read one, yet manage to live right and serve Christ. Because He happens to be the living Word of God, not words on a page/manuscript.

[rejoice44]

In other words, you don't trust them and/or it's a conspiracy. Norman, what in the world did you do before the internet when none of this was available? Using your approach, no one could have trusted the KJV because they couldn't look at any manuscripts. So why trust the KJV? You use a lot of circular type reasoning.

Perhaps some of the reason we don't see it is because of the massive amount of funding it takes to get all this stuff photographed and online. Are you going to fund it? I'm sure scholars would be glad to put it online if someone puts up the massive funds to get it to where you'd like it all to be.

I'd like to see it all too. However, while I'm doing well, I'm not super rich. Your distrust astounds me in regard to issues that are able to be cross-examined by scholars of all stripes that easily could have exposed any issues, but instead the Evangelical linguistic scholars don't dispute this. I guess they must be part of the conspiracy?

I just asked where I could get a copy of the Old Testament from the manuscripts that have given us the reason for changing the New Testament. Simple enough, it doesn't have to be on the internet, it can be in print, but there has to be copies out there somewhere.

Why hasn't any of the New translations replaced the Hebrew with the Septuagint? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are superior, why not put the Septuagint in their translations?

You know what else I found to be odd? Going through the list of Unicals, only the first four had the Septuagint within them. (01) has one/half or less of the Old Testament, and has the New Testament complete, with the exception of the verses they omitted. (02) has more of the Old Testament than the New Testament, with only 11 leaves missing. (03) has all but 51 leaves of the Old Testament. (04) has 64 leaves of the Old Testament, although Tischendorf claimed he transposed the entire manuscript in the mid nineteenth Century.

Then I went down the list of Unicals from (05) to (061) and not one was listed as containing the Old Testament. Don't you find that strange? How could the four oldest contain the Old Testament and then those that follow come up blank?

I have legitimate questions that deserve an answer.

[whitetiger]

If your bible is the Word of God, it is God. If your bible is not the Word of God, then it is not God.

Your saying the Bible (a book) is God is almost the same as the Catholics over reliance on Mary. The Word of God is Christ as John 1 tells us:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

John 1:1

The Bible is a word of God, not the Word of God

[TrustGzus]

Whitetiger is 100% correct.

Norman, you're idea of the Bible being God . . . that has never been orthodox Christian doctrine. Where did you learn this?

[Dani H]

I have legitimate questions that deserve an answer.

I'm not even disagreeing with you that you do.

Can I make a suggestion?

I too am linguistically minded and anal retentive when it comes to certain things. I love word studies and findng the root of a word and its history. Not for a living but a matter of personal interest.

I do believe I understand where you're coming from and about the passion you have.

My suggestion to you is this: If you were to not treat this matter as your hill to die on and crusade to wage over, and if you were to let the preservation of truth be God's business (which it is), that would in turn free you up to pursue your passion by way of personal interest and hobby and open the door for you to gather with others who are of a like mind, and it would become something for you to ... I don't know ... actually rejoice over and enjoy?

Because honestly it seems to me right now that you treat this as a threat to faith or truth (which it isn't) which seems to be sucking the fun right out of it for you.

Like I said, just a suggestion. To do with as you wish.

[awestruckchild]

This is a very interesting thread.
I have always wondered at the whole idea of copyrighting a translation in the first place.
It makes me uncomfortable that men demand recognition and will sue other men for using their translation without acknowledging which translation they are quoting from.
It's probably just me, but it gives me a little bit of a hinky feeling. It doesn't feel right to me...

[rejoice44]

Whitetiger is 100% correct.

Norman, you're idea of the Bible being God . . . that has never been orthodox Christian doctrine. Where did you learn this?

I was speaking in the figurative sense and not the literal. Lets not get off on a rabbit trail.

Why will you not have a dialogue on--(a) Why the translators do not use the Septuagint in their translations?

(b) Why are there no copies to be found of the (02)Codex Alexandrinus, the (03)Codex Vaticanus, or the (04)Codex Empraemi Recriptus containing the Old Testament in Greek.

(c) Why the first four Unicals contain the Old Testament and the next fifty Unicals do not?

Not desiring to go the way of conspiracy, what logical answer to these questions have I missed? Do you have any answers?

[logos7]

I would have to agree with must of what Rejoice44, has stated but than again I'm a KJVP.

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindess and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy Word above thy Name. Psalms 138:2
David speaks of God's Word being magnified above His Name, probably because though it we get the knowledge of God and His plan of Salvation (Psalms 19:7-8; II Timothy 3:14-17). I find it interesting the biggest chapter of the Bible is about the Bible itself--Psalms 119, all 176 verses glorify the Word of God.

I would also have to say that the Word of God has been handle carelessly all though the history of the Church. Even during Paul lifetime the Word of God was being use deceitfully for he stated there were many who corruptted the Word of God (II Corinthians 2:17). These were the men that Paul had wrote to Timothy about (II Timothy 3:1-6). For thee men were: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. II Timothy 3:7 For the Bible is Truth (John 17:17)

We need to remember when Jesus was tempted by the devil in the wilderness for forty days, that the devil quote Scripture at Jesus (Matthew 4:5-6; Luke 4:9-10).

I'm not accusing anyone here of carelessy handling the word of God, but we should be careful about what version we give so high of credit to until we have researched there history, so in this sense great thread, Rejoice!

[awestruckchild]

Had another thought I wanted to add real quick.
It doesn't seem to matter for me, which translation I am using at any particular time, if God does not seem to be presently illuminating it for me, none of them make a difference. Honestly, it might not be the best response and maybe I should try to struggle along anyway, but I have to admit, at those times, I just set my bible down and don't try to force a reading, because I get too carried away with the letter then. Do you guys think that is the wrong response to take?

[Dani H]

Had another thought I wanted to add real quick.
It doesn't seem to matter for me, which translation I am using at any particular time, if God does not seem to be presently illuminating it for me, none of them make a difference. Honestly, it might not be the best response and maybe I should try to struggle along anyway, but I have to admit, at those times, I just set my bible down and don't try to force a reading, because I get too carried away with the letter then. Do you guys think that is the wrong response to take?

No ma'am. I do the same thing. No sense reading just to read. What's the point??

The point of reading or hearing a person's words that you're in relationship with ... is for the purpose of the relationship.

I used to force myself to read Scripture. I went so far as to make a covenant to read X amount of Bible every day. You know what that turned into? A chore. Did it teach me discipline? Sure. Nothing wrong with that. Wish more people were more disciplined when it comes to pursuing God.

Was it life-giving?

Gotta say ... not so much.

The day I gave Jesus not only the key to the car but also the car and the title ... everything changed. Including Scripture reading/studying. Chore no more.

[TrustGzus]

This is a very interesting thread.
I have always wondered at the whole idea of copyrighting a translation in the first place.
It makes me uncomfortable that men demand recognition and will sue other men for using their translation without acknowledging which translation they are quoting from.
It's probably just me, but it gives me a little bit of a hinky feeling. It doesn't feel right to me...

The bottom line with copyrighting is that translating costs money --- a lot of it. Millions of dollars. Translators have to eat and feed their kids and pay the mortgage too. Copyrights have time limits. Eventually they become public domain. So either private companies need copyrights to recoup the millions or we'd have to have governments tax us to pay for translations. Copyrights are better in that sense since those who choose to use the translations are the ones who cover the expenses.

There is nothing innately malicious or greedy about this. Even the KJV had a British copyright of sorts on it that's been talked about it. KJVO folks deny it every time, but it's a matter of verifiable fact that isn't hard to research.