EXAMPLE OF AN ALTERED SCRIPTURE

[sky]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I don't understand the point of this.

Surely (by definition) a new translation will express the original text in different terms.

If the new translation used exactly the same words as previous translations then it would not be a new translation. It would be a reprint.

And even the four accepted gospels are not always in agreement with each other.

If people are so concerned about any changes in meaning due to different translations then they could always learn Koine Greek to read the original texts of the New Testament. Or perhaps even Aramaic or Hebrew. And they might be surprised by what they read.

But even so, they would only be reading things written decades after the events, and who knows what distortions might have crept in. Perhaps Jesus really did say "Blessed are the cheesemakers ...".

ειρήνη

Oh yes, I love cheese so cheesemakers are definitely blessed

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

'Left out' implies they were once in the canon. That question should be devoted to another thread.

Left out means they were not included, something removed means they were once included in the Canon....

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Acts 9:5-6 is a scripture taken from the King James Bible that 'some' people love to use for various reasons. The scripture reads:

"And he said, 'Who art thou Lord?' and the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he, trembling and astonished, said, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' And the Lord said unto him, 'Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.'"


The NIV Bible renders the scripture as:

"“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”"


The King James redition came about when Erasmus apparently believed the extra 'parts' inserted in the scripture should be in the Textus Receptus. Virtually all modern translations do not use Erasmus version.

Then we have,

KJ21 And he said, “Who art Thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.”
ASV And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
AMP And Saul said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He answered, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
AMPC And Saul said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting. It is dangerous and it will turn out badly for you to keep kicking against the goad [to offer vain and perilous resistance].
BRG And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
CSB “Who are you, Lord?” Saul said. “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting,” he replied.
CEB Saul asked, “Who are you, Lord?” “I am Jesus, whom you are harassing,” came the reply.
CJB “Sir, who are you?” he asked. “I am Yeshua, and you are persecuting me.
CEV “Who are you?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus,” the Lord answered. “I am the one you are so cruel to.
DARBY And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he [said], *I* am Jesus, whom *thou* persecutest.
DLNT And he said, “Who are You, sir?” And the One said, “I am Jesus Whom you are persecuting.
DRA Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
ERV Saul said, “Who are you, Lord?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting.
EHV He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
ESV And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
ESVUK And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
EXB Saul said, “Who are you, ·Lord [or sir]?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Etc Etc ......

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%209%3A5


So which version is the correct one?

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by sky123

Then we have,

KJ21 And he said, “Who art Thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.”
ASV And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
AMP And Saul said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He answered, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
AMPC And Saul said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting. It is dangerous and it will turn out badly for you to keep kicking against the goad [to offer vain and perilous resistance].
BRG And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
CSB “Who are you, Lord?” Saul said. “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting,” he replied.
CEB Saul asked, “Who are you, Lord?” “I am Jesus, whom you are harassing,” came the reply.
CJB “Sir, who are you?” he asked. “I am Yeshua, and you are persecuting me.
CEV “Who are you?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus,” the Lord answered. “I am the one you are so cruel to.
DARBY And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he [said], *I* am Jesus, whom *thou* persecutest.
DLNT And he said, “Who are You, sir?” And the One said, “I am Jesus Whom you are persecuting.
DRA Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
ERV Saul said, “Who are you, Lord?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting.
EHV He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
ESV And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
ESVUK And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
EXB Saul said, “Who are you, ·Lord [or sir]?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Etc Etc ......

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%209%3A5


So which version is the correct one?

Why do all words have synonyms, Sky? Shouldn't they? If not, which of the synonyms should be chosen to represent a single concept?

Which holds more meaning in context...a word or the synonym for that word?

Here, we have many synonyms for the word "persecute":
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/persecute

Being synonymous equates to "meaning the same thing".

So, if people are arguing over an alleged "mistranslation" due to a preferred synonym or even the adaptation from Middle English into Standard English, splitting infinite hairs as a result and causing aggravation where before there was none...then people need to look beyond the mere translations and adaptations and into the realm of agenda and motive for going around to different religious forums and accusing the followers of religion (no matter what that religion is) that they are following bogus scriptures which have been written by man and NOT God.

The reason why? Because they are a fundamental Universalist on a recruitment drive... that's what you are all looking at here folks, in a nutshell.

Then the moment one says "I don't WANT to abandon my own religion so that I can follow ALL religions" it becomes "get lost, I have nothing further to say to you so don't even talk to me".

Satan works in insidious ways to lure true believers from the path of the Holy Spirit and lead them astray using peverse "logic"... and this not only applies to Christians, but to Hindus as well...it is our duty to be on the lookout for all of those wolves dressed up as sheep and decry the works of the Devil at every opportunity we get.

[Busby]

Sorry, but every time someone complains of wrong translations from the original my mind takes a jump and asks; 'Why didn't God oversee these words properly, or is it a case really of total negligence?'

The Bible is known as 'The Word of God' - so where's the problem, God should have taken the trouble to ensure that the translations into all languages were 100%. If he didn't bother to get his message over properly (so that all of mankind understand without a university degree or having someone nailed on a cross) then the repercussions are, and always have been (and will be) utterly confusing.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by sky123

Then we have,

KJ21 And he said, “Who art Thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.”
ASV And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
AMP And Saul said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He answered, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
AMPC And Saul said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting. It is dangerous and it will turn out badly for you to keep kicking against the goad [to offer vain and perilous resistance].
BRG And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
CSB “Who are you, Lord?” Saul said. “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting,” he replied.
CEB Saul asked, “Who are you, Lord?” “I am Jesus, whom you are harassing,” came the reply.
CJB “Sir, who are you?” he asked. “I am Yeshua, and you are persecuting me.
CEV “Who are you?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus,” the Lord answered. “I am the one you are so cruel to.
DARBY And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he [said], *I* am Jesus, whom *thou* persecutest.
DLNT And he said, “Who are You, sir?” And the One said, “I am Jesus Whom you are persecuting.
DRA Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
ERV Saul said, “Who are you, Lord?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting.
EHV He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
ESV And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
ESVUK And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
EXB Saul said, “Who are you, ·Lord [or sir]?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Etc Etc ......

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%209%3A5

So which version is the correct one?

Great examples!

And I can't remember the difference between a Bible Version and a Bible Translation.

Hope that wasn't off topic.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Busby

Sorry, but every time someone complains of wrong translations from the original my mind takes a jump and asks; 'Why didn't God oversee these words properly, or is it a case really of total negligence?'

The Bible is known as 'The Word of God' - so where's the problem, God should have taken the trouble to ensure that the translations into all languages were 100%.if he didn't bother to get his message over properly (so that all of mankind understand without a university degree or having someone nailed on a cross) then the repercussions are, and always have been (and will be) utterly confusing.

Why is it that it is only "utterly confusing" for some and not everyone?

Here is where, I believe the concept of "God's Chosen" comes into play and those who find the Bible to be confusing according to an alternate translation from the "original" which isn't the "original" anyway because it was translated from Hebrew and/or Arameic would be offended in that a God would NOT choose THEM to be able to understand His Word.

The game Satan loves to play the most is "let's guilt trip this Divine Child of Light by appealing to conditioned emotional sensitivities and then applying blackmail in the name of 'fair play' and the whole world has fallen for that trick and the "Chosen Ones" who know all of Satan's lurks and perks become less and less because the way of the Devil has become the "socially acceptable" way.

Those who can understand the Word irrespective of translation are meant to understand it and those who cannot understand it are simply NOT meant to, or God Himself would have bestowed that ability through His Grace.

[Miss Hepburn]

'Why didn't God oversee these words properly, or is it a case really of total negligence?'
God should have taken the trouble to ensure that the translations into all languages were 100%.
If he didn't bother to get his message over properly...

Ok, this is just my opinion - free will is the point isn't it?
I'm thinking complaining about God is not where we should be headed.
Now understanding why He gave us free will instead of taking charge all the time - that's a worthy pursuit - again, imo.
Is He supposed to be sure men don't make mistakes?

Did Pilate make a mistake?
Did Judas make a mistake? Where do we stop questioning, "Why didn't God bother to intervene?"
Slippery slope.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Ok, this is just my opinion - free will is the point isn't it?
I'm thinking complaining about God is not where we should be headed.
Now understanding why He gave us free will instead of taking charge all the time - that's a worthy pursuit - again, imo.
Is He supposed to be sure men don't make mistakes?

Did Pilate make a mistake?
Did Judas make a mistake? Where do we stop questioning, "Why didn't God bother to intervene?"
Slippery slope.

If you look at the core teachings of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus: they are in many cases very unique. But over time, the teachings became obscure. In modern times, older manuscripts have been found and verified. The manuscripts, etc. have shed new light that some things were added to the scriptures, altered, etc. Some of those previous changes/additions altered what the Bible was rally saying. Today, many of the new Bibles have availed themselves to make the corrections.


One such correction is the scripture found at 1 John 5:7–8 which reads in the King James Bible as:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."


Most newer translations such as the Revised Version (RV) do not use this scriptures. The reason: this scripture is not found in older manuscripts, etc.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

They decided what books to chose and what to discard, it's well known that the Book of Revelation was very close to not make it in the "final" set of books that make today the Bible. They were more inclined to chose the book called: Apocalypse of Peter; and now, this book was completely forgotten, but at that time was quite popular.

Pope Clement (88-99) seemed to accept the Apocalypse of Peter but Irenaeus (130 - 202) did not. There was much dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches during this time period especially over the Book of Revelation. The diversity of thought at that time is uniquely expressed in Irenaeus's reason for accepting only the four gospels.

As for the Apocalypse of Peter, the Book does not appear to be in harmony with the other Books of the Bible.