I am not ashamed!

[cwes99_03]

My suggestion Turtle is to get away from any version that does not base itself off of the Greek Septuagint and other early or original texts. There are lots of version out there that are re-translations of the King James version, which only extend the misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew tongues that those early Bible translators had.

 

When looking for an accurate version, perhaps a little homework is due. I saw this website in a very simple google for accurate bible translations. The author of the site points out one interesting note that I think should be considered for every translation

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm

It was translated by a group of scholars representing a diverse group of denominations, most of which are conservative on social and political issues. It is published by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, which is not affiliated with any denomination or Bible society. This translation has an enthusiastic following among some of the readers of my web site, but I don’t find it particularly compelling. (The term ‘standard’ in the name can give you the wrong impression.)

 

He uses the idea that a politically active and conservative group translated this Bible. Anyone who translates the Bible should be completely apolitical. Politics does not and should not play a role in a true christian religion, and a true christian religion should not play a role in politics.

I also would not trust any new translations that are produced by church groups who obviously worship in a way that is against scripture, such as those that celebrate Christmas, Halloween, etc. as these are obviously not based on scripture and in many cases are anti-scriptural practices. Since these are willing to go against scripture simply for tradition, then they are also likely to not accurately translate the original scriptures, but to adjust them to fit their own beliefs.

 

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

This site reveals that many latin copies of the Bible around the time of Guttenberg were completely corrupt and unuseable (having been corrupted by Roman Catholic priests and monks.) See Thomas Linacre.

 

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/maturity/online.asp?id=4536

From this site we get a few recommendations, but I disagree with what they see.

 

Some Tips to Keep in Mind Before Starting Your Bible Hunt

 

1. Any English version of the Bible is a translation from the original documents written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Certain Bibles might be more literal translations than others, but practically all of them are translations from the originals. In other words, don’t fall into the trap of picking a more traditional biblical translation because you believe it to be more “authentic.”

 

2. No one Bible has it all. Some study Bibles come with concordances, biblical dictionaries, colorful maps or important scripture application tools. Few come with all of them. Similarly, not all Bible translations fit every use. This doesn’t mean you have to buy hundreds of Bibles, but it does mean that you should be a careful consumer. Buy a Bible that is appropriate for the way you use it.

 

3. Any translation too cumbersome to read on a daily basis isn’t the right Bible for you. Find a version you feel comfortable using. The most important thing about picking a Bible is finding one you will read!

First, not every English translation is from the original texts. Many are based upon earlier translations that were based upon earlier translations that were based upon the Latin Vulgate (which we already showed to possibly be flawed.)

Second, there are Bibles that have it all. While the Bible I use does not have a complete concordance of every word, it does have an appendix that serves as a dictionary, cross-references to other scriptures, maps, and important tools. The book I have has thousands of footnotes explaining why certain words, or phrases were translated the way they were and what the original word-for-word rendering was of the original text.

Third, I do agree that a translation should not be cumbersome, in that it should be in a language that you have a firm grasp on. If you do not understand Koine greek, Aramaic, or ancient Hebrew, then you'll have to settle with a translation in (for your case English) your native tongue if there is one. There are Bible societies constantly working on new language translations for the many Asiatic and African languages. Thus I do agree that any version in Olde English, is nearly valueless because most people do not read or understand it well at all. Even if they do, I don't trust their translation abilities back then anyway. However, I disagree with the last part of that third point. The most important part about picking a Bible is not whether you like it, but whether it is accurate. There are some scriptures that cannot be dumbed down, because they lose their full importance and significance. If you wanted to be a particle physicist, would you read particle physics for dummies and be satisfied?

 

Lastly, I would not use a Bible that has God's name omitted. Two reasons. 1) it is not accurate and causes confusion when reading the New Testament, particularly when they start using Lord in the place of it.

2) it was removed by Hebrew scribes who became superstitious about the use of God's name. Superstition is part of what the Bible describes as false worship, or spiritism. It has no place in a Christian's Bible.

3) YHWH is not impossible to translate. If the translator would just leave those letters there and let someone else decide how to pronounce it, that would be somewhat okay. However, those same letters appear in many other names in the Bible, such as Jehu, Jehoram, and others. To go along with this is the wiki article on the name Jehovah which says the following:

 

In the dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms, such as in Jehonathan and Jonathan. Therefore, Professor Buchanan says regarding the divine name: “In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as ‘Ya,’ but never as ‘Ya-weh.’ . . . When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was ‘Yah’ or ‘Yo.’ When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been ‘Yahowah’ or ‘Yahoowah.’ If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been ‘Yaho.’” [7] Therefore a two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as “Yahweh” would not allow for the o vowel sound to exist.

 

Thus I use the Bible with references produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), because it covers all these elements mentioned above.

[InfiniteNow]

It's so humorous... There's only one truth, as evidenced by the bible, yet there are tons of different versions of the bible. :hyper:

 

 

Here's one that I always thought was a fun version. I picked it up in college and it's quite an interesting read:

 

 

http://jupiterscientific.org/science/bae.html

The Bible According to Einstein is a scientifically based work about the Universe, Earth and life in the form of the Bible. Unlike the expository style of most popular science books, it uses a narrative, almost poetic, sometimes metaphorical and almost biblical language. Its "Old Testament" tells the complete story of the world from the initial moments of creation to the emergence of mammals and man. The "New Testament" provides the laws of Nature and humanity's intellectual, spiritual and scientific development. The Bible According to Einstein reveals the extraordinary workmanship of the Universe and ends with predictions for the future and a message, "the last commandment," for the reader.

[learnin to learn]

wouldnt it be interesting if some1 wrote a version of the bible that agreed with the big bang and evolution?

[stanleyg]

I beg to differ stanley. The bible is full of words written by man. it is full of stories that show gods greatness through the eyes of man. And we know that everyone interprets things differently. Also during the middle ages, the bible was written in Italian, so that only the clergy could read it. The Church was know to rewrite the bible to fit their teachings. The catholic church was ,and still is, very good at only letting us hear and see what they want us to.

I am a devoted Christian, but stanley this is a forum for the sciences not a church pulpit. So don't treat it like one!

Religion is what one believes and science is what one can prove. If one can't talk about what they believe in a religious forum, then why include the forum under science?

[Turtle]

Religion is what one believes and science is what one can prove. If one can't talk about what they believe in a religious forum, then why include the forum under science?

 

The Theology Forum (not religion forum) is relatively new to Hypography; it is a compromise in response to so many "religious" people joining the forum to argue "proof" of theologic claims, e.g. creationism.

At least Stan you have engaged in discussion here for once with this post, instead of preaching. I have to wonder why you chose to come to a science forum to discuss religion in the first place given your characterization above.:)

[cwes99_03]

I too wonder why some come to a place like Hypography just to spout unsupported religio/philosophical wanderings.

I am like Turtle says. I prefer to offer proof. Of course, I have been hobbled slightly by some of the rules initially set in place, but have been given leeway as my citations have not been to put others down but to show truth and provide proof. I strive for understandings of the scriptures, and if I am wrong, I will readily admit it.

What I have read of your works StanleyG is nothing of this sort. You come in spouting brimstone and fire and speaking of a personal savior, but you have no discussion of the matter. You spout, not invite and discuss. Others have done similarly.

 

I am not ashamed! - 07-25-2006, 05:36 AM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am not ashame to proclaim myself before our Christian assembly as steward of our King Christ. I know that if I am ashame of him that he too will be ashamed of me.

 

Luke9 [26]

 

Pharoah had learned of Joseph's anointing to interpret the meaning of his dreams. Pharoah appointed Joseph as the king' s steward to oversee charge of his storehouse.

 

Does our King Christ, whose kingdom is in heaven, not have equal powers to appoint stewards? We have been anointed by our Father God with the gift of interpretation to oversee the coming of our Lord?

 

Gen37 [5]

Gen40 [8]

Gen41 [42]

Rev2 [17]

 

I see above one question, which isn't really a question. And a statement with a question mark after it. The rest is a bunch of scripture quoted to attempt to support your position that you have been chosen a steward of Christ.

I could really care less if you are ashamed or not. I am not ashamed of doing many things either, but that doesn't mean that I pray loudly on the street corner like the Pharisees did so that everyone would believe them pious.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of a steward.

steward - The man responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the castle in the absence of the lord.

Sounds like a steward is chosen by the master.

Generally, claims of being placed as a steward over an unseen kingdom by an unseen individual will get you put into a looney bin. Here it will generally get you laughed at or have your posts tossed into strange claims. Since it has nothing to do with a proof (as none of your citations of scripture lend any proof to your claim of being a steward) your claim will just get you booted from the site.

 

Try instead to ask questions about understanding of scripture. Generally that will begin a discussion.

[Southtown]

It's so humorous... There's only one truth, as evidenced by the bible, yet there are tons of different versions of the bible. :lol:

Yeah, I've run into a similar situation trying to quote Pascal. It seems that the only way to be sure you're reading an accurate translation is to learn the penned language, which then of course defeats the purpose.

[learnin to learn]

Yeah, I've run into a similar situation trying to quote Pascal. It seems that the only way to be sure you're reading an accurate translation is to learn the penned language, which then of course defeats the purpose.

 

:hihi: :smart:

[learnin to learn]

Religion is what one believes and science is what one can prove. If one can't talk about what they believe in a religious forum, then why include the forum under science?

 

Stanley what is theology? Theology is the study of god and the relation between God and the universe. Nowhere in the definition of theology does it mention to preach to others about god, or about how god has influenced your life. If you have a hypothesis about creationism or how we ended up on this planet then I am sure that we would gladly listen, and give you our views on the subject matter.