its important to know that there are two types of translation. A Paraphrased translation, and a Literal translation. All bibles will have a 'Forward/Preface' note at the front of the book indicating the type of translation it is.
I would always prefer a literal translation over a paraphrased because its sticks closely to the original language that its being translated from.
In the Preface to the paraphrased Living Bible, the following statement is made: â€œWhenever the authorâ€™s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say. .Â .Â . For when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide.â€
As an example, During the Church of Englandâ€™s Synod in July 1978, an altercation developed between some bishops about the value of the popular Good News Bible. One claimed that the translation was too full of paraphrases and particularly in its rendering of the Greek word sarx at Galatians 5:19. Sarx means â€œflesh.â€ But rather then translating "erga tis sarkos" as â€œworks of the flesh,â€ the Good News Bible paraphrases the three Greek words, attributing the vices listed in Galatians 5:19-21 simply to â€œhuman nature.â€
the problem here is that it implies that sinful activities are merely human nature as opposed to something we must strive to avoid.
On the other hand a literal translation such as the King James for insance, keeps this verse in line with its original greek word..."the works of the flesh are manifest..."
Can you explain in much more detail what you mean by a "literal translation"?
I can tell you that using the common usage of the words "literal translation" among at least some (and I think most) translators they will tell you that a "literal translation" is impossible and only produces unreadable and partially incomprehensible output.
Interlinear translations are literal translations prepared directly from the original language manuscripts and often have both
i probably should have said 'interlinear' rather then literal to save confusion....they are the same thing.
A good example is the 1857 Benjamin Wilson translation called 'The Emphatic Diaglott' It has a left-hand column with the Greek text, and under each Greek word is presented its English equivalent. In the right-hand column is the modern English translation as made by Benjamin Wilson.
So a literal translation like this will allow the reader to see the greek word and what that word originally meant. There is less room for error.
no, the translation is also literal, except that it is as literal as possible in the language it is being translated into. So if the greek verse is talking about walking down a long stretch of road, the literal translation is also relaying the message of walking down a long stretch of road.
thats what a literal translation is. It doesnt mean 'word for word'...because that would be very difficult to read due to the differences in grammer
the verse still needs to be translated into readable english, but the context and subject is as close as possible to the original.
there are so many very old manuscripts in existence, that you can be 100% confident that what we have today is as authentic as what the 1st century christians were reading.
the long and short conclusions of mark is evidence of how well documented the bible is. Those two conclusions are not to be considered as authentic because they are not found in some of the key ancient manuscripts.
Of course we dont have any original writings anymore, but what we do have are copies of the originals...some manuscripts date back to the 1st century and so of course we have some very old specimens with which to keep as templates of all of todays translations.
hi bluescat there are a few things that show its not merely man's words
prophecy, and there are many very accurate prophecies that have come true. And the writers of prophecy even admitted they did not know what they were writing. eg. Daniel's writings show that he had no idea what the 'wild beast' prophecies were about.
The truthfulness of the writers - they spoke openly about their own sins and their failings. Even Moses was punished by God and forbidden to see the promised land. Do you really think that if he was creating a new religion he would tell everyone how his God punished him? Leaders of nations dont usually do that.
Laws - laws that man cannot enforce such as 'covetousness'- Its one of the 10 commandments, 'thou shalt not desire anything of your fellowmans' . Do you really believe that a man would invent a law that in unenforceable? And how could anyone know if someone was coveting their fellow mans possesions? How could a person be judged on such a law?
Can you show me where 'Jesus' is called 'Immanuel/Emmanuel'? Or do you think the Isaiah quote mine might be wrong?
its certainly not a quote mine. In verse 23, mathew is applying the scripture to jesus, hence why he says 'emmanuel'
in verse 21 of my kjv, it uses the name 'emmanuel'
and vs 25 explains that after joseph had accepted mary and the child, he called his name Jesus.
Christians today to not have to interpret these things because quite clearly, the bible writers themselves provide the interpretation and the application of such prophecies. Mathew does in this instance, he says that the prophecy of Isiah is fullfilled in Jesus. As a christian, i must accept their interpretation.
Other names were foretold for the Messiah too. Isaiah 9:6 states â€œHis name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.â€
Yet none of these were used as personal names for Jesus. Emmanuel was never meant to be a personal name for jesus either. The significance is in the meaning of the name...'with us is God'
Every single Old Testament book is anonymous, no one knows who wrote any of them. This is basic Sunday School level stuff Peg.
There is no question as to who wrote Genesis. â€œThe book of the law of Mosesâ€ and similar references to the first five books of the Bible, of which Genesis is one, are to be found often from the time of Mosesâ€™ successor, Joshua, onward. In fact, there are some 200 references to Moses in 27 of the later Bible books. Mosesâ€™ writership has never been questioned by the Jews.
I know for a fact that we have discussed Mosaic authorship before and that I have mentioned the multiple authorship of the Pentateuch to you before. Look here. You know perfectly well that Mosaic authorship is disputed.
Ask yourself, what could have made you conveniently forget this fact?
i dont have any doubt that these 'disputes' are the falsehoods. The authoriship of the old testament writers were never questioned by the jews...the people who actually know...
higher skeptics of the 19th century do not make for valuable reading in my books and i dont fall for their baseless claims.