ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Theology Bible Translations

Has theology affected Bible translations? Can we be sure that our choice of translation is unaffected by doctrinal bias?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---scott on 7/1/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



strongax, I suggest that you repent from your falsehood and get right with God, then you will be able to bear true witness and be in fellowship with the Christians, rather than as you are now in standing with the bulls of Bashan.
---Eloy on 7/9/10


cluny, yes, you have shown yourself to be deluded by your words that you post. But there is good news remaining for you. As long as you have a breath, you still are able to call out to Jesus to save you. And that is the beauty of freewill, you can choose Christ's life and to have his sound mind, or else you can choose to remain in your delusions and in alienation onto condemnation.
---Eloy on 7/9/10


MarkV

"Another blog that closed."

Although closed, most of them can still be searched, so your accusation remains false unless you prove otherwise.

Footnotes

Citing the NIV footnote is to simply show what most bible scholars and translators understand about 1 John 5:7. (The Johannine Comma).

So what is your answer?

Since they are not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century...

...are the words added to the KJV, "these three are one", based on grammar or theology?
---scott on 7/8/10


Eloy:

Cluny and I and several others have often commented on many wild theories that you have posted here without any kind of proof, yet which you insist on quite strongly - even though nobody else believes these things, nor provides any corroboration of these claims (per the whole biblical 2-3 witness requirement).

Several that come to mind are:
- that Matthew wrote his chapter about Jesus's birth as it happened because he was an eyewitness (which would have made him an old man at the time Jesus called him)
- pinpointing the exact year, day (and even hour) of Jesus's birth as being explicitly stated in scripture
- pinpointing the exact year, day (and even hour) of the creation as being explicitly stated in scripture
---StrongAxe on 7/8/10


\\cluny, You assume to much in delusionally thinking that you speak for others on this site, for I know that there are people on this site whom strongly disagree with your blasphemies and falsehood.\\

You claim to speak God's direct words, but **I** am deluded?
---Cluny on 7/8/10




Scott, you did answer me with an translation from the N.W.T, on another blog that closed. I do not remember now which answer you gave from the Old Testament. I was going to bring that to your attention since you do write, RSV, KJV and others, and the blog closed. What the footnotes states are not considered God's Word. They are footnotes only, to help others, but you can check if they are right or not. Most of the NIV's footnotes are Arminain in context. Written by those who are following Arminian believes. Other footnotes for Rev. are many times from those who are pre-trib or post-trib and so on. The New World Translation has removed the deity of Christ, but not completely. I suppose in later revisions they will make sure to remove them all.
---Mark_V. on 7/8/10


cluny, You assume to much in delusionally thinking that you speak for others on this site, for I know that there are people on this site whom strongly disagree with your blasphemies and falsehood. And the truth I post may seem like silliness to you, but that is because you abide in darkness. "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Is.5:20. And what is "even a pope"? If you mean the leaders of idolatry, that is completely nothing to me and completely nothing to God, "even a cluny".
---Eloy on 7/8/10


mike, professing Christ is not the same thing as following Christ. Satan professes Christ, Satan believes in Christ, but Satan does not follow Christ. The difference is, many false religions and cults profess Christ, they give lip-service, and talk-the-talk, but none of them WALK-THE-WALK.
---Eloy on 7/8/10


In my experience in translating liturgical texts--a task not unlike translating the Bible itself--there are frequently many ways that a passage can be properly rendered.

Translation is not the cut-and-dried issue that some people think. English syntax is hardly the same as that of Greek or Hebrew. A glance at the many italicized words (added by the translators for grammatical clarity) in the KJV will make this clear in a second.

Furthermore, the transmission of the very text of the Bible itself is, to be honest, just a little bit messy.
---Cluny on 7/7/10


\\cluny, when you by yourself replied to me, whom is "we", when "you" yourself are the only one posting to me?
---Eloy on 7/7/10\\

Actually, I'm not the only one who has noticed your silliness here and commented on it, despite your statement above.

You claim an infallibility and inspiration for yourself that not even the Pope (yea, even Pio Nono) claims.

BTW--"whom" is objective, not nominative. It is not the subject of a clause, as in your erroneous "whom is 'we'..."

That would have gotten a red mark in even the 4th grade in my day.
---Cluny on 7/7/10




---mike on 7/7/10 they profess christ
What do you mean with this statement?
---michael_e on 7/7/10


Professing christ is 1/2 of the equasion:

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God,AND have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, AND the faith of Jesus.

Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
---francis on 7/7/10


both catholics & protestants can say their church is the true church bec. they profess christ.
---mike on 7/7/10


Has theology affected Bible translations? Can we be sure that our choice of translation is unaffected by doctrinal bias?

regardless of the translation used, God is consistant abut one thing:
GOD DOES NOT CHANGE

If we truely believe that God doe snot change, then no translation or pastor can deceive us

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Hebrews 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.
---francis on 7/7/10


The basis for this choice must necessarily come from outside the books.
1.The Bible does say it is inspired
2.Many nonchristian books say it is not.
3.By faith I believe Rom. 3:4 to be true.

Many other NON-Christian holy books say the same thing.
You answered for me.
---michael_e on 7/7/10


michael_e:

Why do you think that your bible is inspired? Is it because it says that it is? Many other non-Christian holy books say the same thing. Yet clearly they can't ALL be right. How do you choose between them? The basis for this choice must necessarily come from outside the books.

It's the same with the canon of scripture - the Bible does not, itself, contain a list of which books are considered inspired or not. The compilation of such a list is, itself, extra-biblical.
---StrongAxe on 7/7/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


---mike on 7/7/10 so which one is the TRUE church?

Eph.1:22,..Christ,.the head over all things to the church," 23 "Which is his body..
1 Cor 12:27 "Now you are the body of Christ,..

The Body of Christ is the TRUE church, hope this helps.
---michael_e on 7/7/10


cluny, when you by yourself replied to me, whom is "we", when "you" yourself are the only one posting to me?
---Eloy on 7/7/10


1st cliff, Inspired to the world means motivated with emotions to do something or being exhilarated, but God's inspiration means words spoken by God himself or God-breathed. Inspired writings are writings proven to be true, and writings proven to be false are not inspired. ALL religions are idolatry, and only the living Lord Jesus Christ is proven to be the Almighty and worthy of all acceptance and worthy of all worship. Christianity is proven to redeem lives and convert souls and heal the sick and raise the dead, no other false religion of the world can equal the real virtue of the real person Jesus Christ.
---Eloy on 7/7/10


The Holy Scripture bears witness to itself that the scripture is true. All the so called holy books of all the religions in the world are idolatry. Religion is man's attempt to reach up to God: but the Holy Scripture and Christianity is God reaching down to man to save him.
---Eloy on 7/7/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


mike, you will know them by their fruits. People can claim that they are the right way, but look at their fruits that they produce, are they good or rotten fruits, from Christ or not from Christ.
---Eloy on 7/7/10


michael e

so which one is the TRUE church? the catholics can say they are the TRUE church, 'protestants' can say they are the 'TRUE' church, mormons can say they are the 'TRUE' church, and all say they worship one god.
---mike on 7/7/10


\\cluny, My preaching is indeed inspired, because my words I do not speak from myself but my words are the words of him who sent me.\\

**I post the truth, and I site historical records and references to validate what I post**

Well then, we know who that is, especially considering the historical misinformation and even disinformation in your posts, Eloy.
---Cluny on 7/7/10


cluny, My preaching is indeed inspired, because my words I do not speak from myself but my words are the words of him who sent me. As for any sinner heeding my words, that is their own free choice to do so and become blessed, or else not and not become blessed.
---Eloy on 7/6/10


Send a Free Valentine's Day Ecard


I post the truth, and I site historical records and references to validate what I post, but until a disser gets saved they will continue to dis the truth and blaspheme and bear false witness onto their own shame and foolish condemnation.
---Eloy on 7/6/10


Eloy, I appreciate the labor you put in to lining up scripture, but it doesn't answer the question "who" today has the authority to declare any writing "inspired?"
Example: Quran inspires a billion Muslims to action.
Book of Mormon,
Vedas (Hindu)
Science and Health Key to the Scriptures (Christian Science)
Does that qualify them as "inspired?"

Get my point Eloy?? "Who?"
---1st_cliff on 7/7/10


michael_e: How can you know, authoritatively, whether or not Collossians 1:14 contains any specific words or not?
Simple, I can read, and take it by faith.

The critical analysis of a biblical manuscript for authenticity must necessarily be performed using evidence obtained outside that manuscript (typically from non-Biblical sources).
So what you are saying, is you base your belief in Bible truth on what you read from outside the Bible?

Do you have a perfect Bible?
---michael_e on 7/7/10


\\God's words are inspired or in-spirited, and words not from God are noninspired or unspirited.\\

You don't actually think that your words are inspired, do you, Eloy?

Because if you don't, why should we heed them, because according to your own statement, your uninspired words can bring about nothing good spirituallly.
---Cluny on 7/6/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


michael_e:

How can you know, authoritatively, whether or not Collossians 1:14 contains any specific words or not? The critical analysis of a biblical manuscript for authenticity must necessarily be performed using evidence obtained outside that manuscript (typically from non-Biblical sources).

(As an extreme example, if you have two manuscripts, one says Tom's father is Dick, and another one says Tom's father is Harry, you must look to an external source to determine whether his father was REALLY Dick, or Harry, or someone who used both names).
---StrongAxe on 7/6/10


cliff, When Scripture proves itself, that is proof of inspiration or words spoken from God: but if a writing does not prove itself, that is proof of Noninspiration. When God says, I made man in my own shape, and Jesus our God comes walking on top of the water and raises himself from the dead, that is proof of inspiration: but when a writing says man evolved from apes and our ancestors are fish, that is Noninspiration. Words can be tested for virtue and known whether they are truly from God or not. Please Read- Psalm 19:7-11+ 34:8+ 119:129-160, Isaiah 8:10,20, Jeremiah 14:14,15+ 23:21,22+ 29:31+ 30:2, Isaiah 55:6-11, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 7:15-20, John 8:47+ 10:3-11, I John 4:6, Galatians 1:8,9, Hebrews 4:12, II Peter 1:21.
---Eloy on 7/6/10


God's words are inspired or in-spirited, and words not from God are noninspired or unspirited. There is life and Spirit in God's words, and there is emptiness and no Spirit in words not from God. You can read a multitude of worldly books and none of them words will regenerate nor lighten your life, but reading God's words in the Holy Bible can bring you to salvation and convert your soul and give you a new life.
---Eloy on 7/6/10


1st cliff, You should know by now that I give straight answers, and that my answers are truth. When you truly become Christianed, then my Christianed words will be received more readily by you and not seem to be as though they are screaming at you.
---Eloy on 7/6/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


\\strongax, you can post contrariness and falsehood all you deire, but historical truth is not broken.
---Eloy on 7/5/10\\

One day you'll learn that for yourself, Eloy.

Nothing you've posted here about the LXX is historically true.
---Cluny on 7/6/10


If you want to know if you have a corrupted Bibles turn to Col.1:14. If this verse does not include the phrase "through his blood" then you have a bible that has been translated from a corrupt text.
---michael_e on 7/6/10


Eloy, Can you give me a straight answer to a simple question???
Who,person or group, have the authority to declare any writings..."inspired or uninspired"
Gut feeling?
General consensus ?
Dreams and visions?
Assumptions??

Don't shout at me in red ink,please!
---1st_cliff on 7/6/10


Eloy:

As mentioned in many places, truth is established by the testimony of 2-3 witnesses.

Many testify to the age of Qumran manuscripts. Many testify to the periods during when New Testament books were written (i.e. decades after Jesus's death, when written witness was necessary as eyewitnesses were dying off). (Google qumran septaguint jeremiah). Also, anyone can compare NT, LXX and Masoretic Hebrew themselves to see the truth. (Google new-testament quoting old-testament).

You say NT does not use LXX, and outlandish ideas like Matthew writing his gospel when Jesus was born. Can you show anyone else who believe these things, and show any evidence (other than unsubstantiated opinion) that they are true?
---StrongAxe on 7/6/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


I forgot to mention that until the discovery of the DSS, the oldest mss of the OT were in the Greek LXX.
---Cluny on 7/6/10


"The question you ask is to support your use of the N.W.T" MarkV

This 'conspiracy theory' is even beneath you.

To support your claim I would challenge you to find one time that I cited the NWT rather than the NASB, ESV, RSV, etc. (unless there was some specific discussion about the NWT that I don't recall).

"We can be sure that our choice of translation is unaffected by doctrinal bias". MarkV

Ok. The NIV footnote says: [the words are] "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century", however the KJV and NKJV add the words "and these three are one" to 1 John 5:7.

Is this translational decision based on grammar or theology?
---scott on 7/6/10


Also, contrary to what Eloy said, there is a story in the Talmud about the translation of the LXX at the request of King Ptolomey Philadelphius.

And then there's the letter of Aristeas, which refers to the translation of the LXX.

I know what the Talmud and Letter of Aristeas are.

I know who Philo and Josephus are.

But who is Paul Kahle?

As regards the Apocrypha in the KJV--and Geneva Bible, for that matter--do you actually think the order of books in a Bible (which actually vary widely) is of any significance?
---Cluny on 7/6/10


strongax, you can post contrariness and falsehood all you deire, but historical truth is not broken.
---Eloy on 7/5/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. Why shouldn't we think there is one true Bible,and many false bibles?
---michael_e on 7/5/10


Eloy:

Quite to the contrary. The Dead Sea Scrolls (which contained many scrolls that dealt with discipline of the Essenes in Qumran, but which ALSO included fragments of ALL the Old Testament books except Esther) dates to the first century B.C. Many of these fragments differ slightly from our accepted Masoretic Text.

It is very intereting to note that in these circumstances, the LXX also disagrees with the Masoretic text, but the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts AGREE WITH THE LXX.

This means that the LXX version (which is quoted often in the N.T.) is a translation of a DIFERENT VERSION than our Masoretic, and which predates the Masoretic by hundreds of years - proving that it is MORE accurate than the Masoretic, not LESS so.
---StrongAxe on 7/5/10


I personally use the NIV, which theology was unlikely to effect, since groups of scholars translated it, and then other scholars revised those translations, making continuous reference to the earliest available manuscipts. So one persona opinion couldn't affect it. Plus, it's easier to read than the KJV since we don't use the Old-English language anymore.

I'd like to just point out also that, as far as I can tell, Americans tend to prefer the KJV, whereas the British tend to use the NIV or TNIV.
---Dan on 7/5/10


Scott, the question you ask is to support your use of the N.W.Translation. Yes, we can be sure that our choice of translation is unaffected by doctrinal bias. How? By the fact that all Bible translations, with the exception of the New World Translation, have translated meanings in passages to make it understandable by all who read it. The meanings God wanted to convey does not change. With the New World translation, their agenda was to change the deity of Jesus Christ, so they went through it and changed the meaning where ever possible to make it say what their agenda want it to say, that Jesus Christ is not God. That is why when you quote answers, you are trying to put doubt in people. Your work will not deceive the Elect. Maybe others.
---Mark_V. on 7/5/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


\\Cluny, You continue to post falsehood. For there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the OT into Greek between 250-150 B.C.\\

Except for the testimony of Josephus, Philo, ancient historians, and the like.

People, if Eloy accuses me of falsehood, you can be sure I'm accurate.

In any case, all translations of the Bible have their faults and their virtues.

I prefer the KJV and NKJV and Orthodox Study Bible for ordinary purposes.

The only translations I cannot recommend are the New Word of the JW's, the Living Bible, and the Good News Bible.
---Cluny on 7/4/10


Cluny, the apocrypha is Not Holy Scripture, and it never was, and the 1611 KJV translators knew this full well and therefore purposely kept these writings outside of both the o.t. and the N.T., and instead placed these NonInspired and NonScripture writings between the two testaments. And because some unlearned people as yourself wrongly think that the secular writings are Scripture when they have be proven to be NonScripture, and clearly contradict the content of Holy Scripture, all reputable editors no longer publish these NonScriptures bound together with the Scripture.
---Eloy on 7/4/10


Scott, I would not recommend any English translation after 1611 A.D.
---Eloy on 7/4/10


\\ And the best English translation is the "1560 Geneva Bible" which was translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I.\\

With the exception of the dedication, the same thing can be said about the 1611 Authorized Version.

Of course, the Geneva Bible, like the AV of 1611 was originally published with the Apocrypha.

So it boils down to this: do you want the whole Bible? Or a Bible with a great big hole in it?
---Cluny on 7/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


I'd say it's the other way around. These modern translations are affecting theology.
---dd on 7/3/10


scott
that is not the only danger you ask. what about political bias. there are evangelicals influencing politics and if you do not support a particular party or their political agenda, you are bombarded with guilt.
this is dangerous bec. during the middle ages, when 'believers' oppose the pope & his teachings you are called a heretic. when galileo disagreed with the pope that the earth revolved around the sun, he was called heretic & was put on house arrest.
is this what this country is becoming?
---mike on 7/3/10


Cluny, You continue to post falsehood. For there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the OT into Greek between 250-150 B.C. The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no preChristian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of NT-OT quotation, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text. What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 years after the death of Christ.
---Eloy on 7/3/10


Leslie on 7/1/10///

Exactly how I feel Leslie.
Good post!

---David on 7/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


\\The best Old Testament scriptures is the "Aleppo Codex", being the most authoritative manuscript of the Massoretic text of the Bible,\\

Of course, the MT itself wasn't stabilized until 1100AD.

Much later than the version underlying the LXX.
---Cluny on 7/3/10


The best Old Testament scriptures is the "Aleppo Codex", being the most authoritative manuscript of the Massoretic text of the Bible, the most accurate, and sacred source document, both for the biblical text and for its vocalization, cantillation and Massorah: a hebrew copy can be purchased, called, "The Jerusalem Crown". The best New Testament scriptures are the "Constantinopolitan MSS": a copy can be purchased in the book called, "The English Hexapla". And the best English translation is the "1560 Geneva Bible" which was translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I.
---Eloy on 7/3/10


\\I can't understand why these scholars risked the plagues written in the bible even their names being removed from the lambs book of life, by adding and taking away certain texts from the original bible.\\

1. You don't actually think the Tyndale translation, some 15 centuries AFTER the time of Jesus, was the original Bible, do you?

2. Are you aware that the warning about "taking away from the words of prophecy of this book" cannot be talking about the Bible as a whole, because John wrote his Gospel AFTER he wrote Revelation?
---Cluny on 7/2/10


\\4) Usage- the scripture had to be accepted and read in the Christian temples around the Mediterranean and Palestine and the Middle East.
---Eloy on 7/2/10\\

And that means the LXX with the long Alexandrian canon.

||Charmen toliet paper must ferment too when it is squeezed.
---Elder on 7/1/10||

I don't know about you, but I don't go around squeezing toilet paper to see what comes out or a beverage.
---Cluny on 7/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


I have just got used to reading the Tyndale Bible and find it more to the point, than the King James. I can't understand why these scholars risked the plagues written in the bible even their names being removed from the lambs book of life, by adding and taking away certain texts from the original bible.


A commentary kept separate from the bible in keeping with the original text, would have given people the opportunity to make up their own mind if their choices of words were in fact necessary or even correct, especially where some of the sentences in the bible are self explanatory. In many cases the king James and later transcripts added extra words confusing the original meanings.
---Carla on 7/2/10


\\The King James Bible was hastily written in order to finish ahead of Cardinal Jimenez. \\

Since Cardinal Jimenez lived a century before King James, it's obvious who won. And it wasn't the King James.

Even the Douay/Rheims Bible pre-dates the KJV.
---Cluny on 7/2/10


The early church's acceptance of the Biblical New Testament canon:

1) Valid authorship- the scripture had to be written by an Apostle, or a holy man inspired by God.

2) Right doctrine- the scripture had to be in accord with Jesus' commandments and teachings.

3) Date written- the scripture had to be written between 5 B.C.(from Christ's birth), and 29-30 A.D.(soon after Christ's death and resurrection). The N.T. began to be recorded by Matthew in 5 B.C., and finished by John around the 3rd decade A.D.

4) Usage- the scripture had to be accepted and read in the Christian temples around the Mediterranean and Palestine and the Middle East.
---Eloy on 7/2/10


The Septuigent was translated from the Hebrew Bible. The Masorite text is an update of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew just adding divisions and vowels to make it easier to read.

Now a good point was made by friendly blogger. Read about the translators of your Bible. Many Bible are not translation but Paraphrases. Like the Living Bible and Clear Word both of which are more like a commentary.

What presuppositions are you bringing to and imposing on the Bible is the question you should ask.
---Samuel on 7/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Higgins, "Jehovah" was not coined by the KJV translators.

It was used in Latin works as early as the 13th century.

Tyndale used it in his English translation, which predates the KJV.

Whether it's a valid pronunciation of YHVH is debatable, but it's older than the KJV.
---Cluny on 7/2/10


Higgins, you have several historical errors which are based on the assumption that Western Christianity is the standard.

The Vetus Italica has its OT passages translated from the LXX.

St. Jerome's Vulgate translated the OT from the Hebrew as far as possible. He also deliberately based it on the ordinary (vulgar) Latin diction of the time, hence the name Vulgate. It was very much the "Good News for Modern Romans" of its day.

Furthermore, the Orthodox Churches have continued to use the LXX to this day as their official OT.

The Orthodox Study Bible (which you can look up) has its OT based on a fresh translation from the LXX.
---Cluny on 7/2/10


"There are some people who insist that the OINOS that Jesus took at the Last Supper was unfermented, even though fermentation starts as soon as grapes are squeezed."
Cluny
Yea... and death starts the second you are born. Charmen toliet paper must ferment too when it is squeezed.
---Elder on 7/1/10


What blows me away is that so much of these traditions and ideals gained there base with Zoroasterism,back in the days of Abraham and Job...
---kevin5443 on 7/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Christ and His disciples used the Septuagint.

It was in use until St. Jerome, of the Church of Rome, translated the Greek Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate in 400 A.D. From that point on, the Catholic Church insisted upon its use and the Septuagint fell into abscurity for 1600 years.

The King James version of the Bible used the Latin Vulgate and Masoretic texts, which came into existance hundreds of years after the Septuagint, and none of them ever saw the original Hebrew as did the Septuagint.

The King James Bible was hastily written in order to finish ahead of Cardinal Jimenez. It included some Catholic traditions as well as new concepts such as "Jehovah" and 100,000 minor to moderate translational errors.
---Higgins on 7/1/10


All modern Bible translations contain a Preface. In it is usually who is on the translation team and the final review committee and the institutions they represent. There is usually a statement as to the reason for the translation and the expected goals of the translation. There will normally be information showing what source texts are used for the Old and New Testaments. It will usually contain information if the translation is to be work for word, dynamic equivalence or a paraphrase. You will normally find some statement about who the translation is geared for for example: new Christian with English as a second language. You also know who the publishing company is and what types of books the publisher favors.
---Friendly_Blogger on 7/1/10


I love theology. As long as you have studied enough in Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, you should be okay.
---catherine on 7/1/10


Hello Cluny as a person whose Father made wine and who has actually read up on the subject your statment that grape juice turns into alcholic wine naturally is funny.

Now does a translators beliefs affect the way they translate the Bible. I believe it can which is one of the reasons I use multiple translations to understand what the Bible teaches.

But in many cases a person has their beliefs and then goes to the Bible to prove what they think wthout asking GOD to let the Bible teach them.
---Samuel on 7/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Christians need to remember that God is almighty and well able to get His message across to those who seek Him. The Bible wasn't around for Abraham for example and yet he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

And doctrinal bias is more of a problem within churches with many putting their trust in teachers within the church instead of looking to the Holy Spirit as their teacher.
---haz27 on 7/1/10


To give another example of how cultural and other presuppositions affect Bible understanding:

There are some people who insist that the OINOS that Jesus took at the Last Supper was unfermented, even though fermentation starts as soon as grapes are squeezed.
---Cluny on 7/1/10


Excellent question, Scott!

Truth is, the original Hebrew texts are lost and have been for a couple thousand years.

The Septuagint is the closest thing to the original Hebrew texts we have. In fact, it is the only translation (Kione Greek) that is based exclusively on the original Hebrew. No other texts, not even the Masoretic texts, which most of the modern Bible translators use, including King James, came into existance about 1,000 years after the Septuagint came into use.

The Septuagint was written in about 280 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scribes who translated it into Greek, because after Alexander the Great Hellenized the Middle East, Greek became the new "English" of the day.
---Higgins on 7/1/10


Scott you bring up a VERY good point. I think the translations of the Bible ARE affected by personal theologys and doctrines - this is why MOST "Christians" have it wrong (according to what God says). MOST Christians (including ones that create new translations of the Bible) are going by what they believe (depending on if they think it is truth or if it offends them or not), and NOT with what God TRULY said. We MUST get back to letting God interpret His own Word through the Holy Spirit teaching us the Word (NOT man teaching us). The Holy Spirit is the ONLY one that can search the heart and mind of God (Father) to tell us what He truly says in His Word (NOT what we interpret it as).
---Leslie on 7/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Cluny may be a bit too strong, but making any translation leads to problems. But since we cannot (generally) read the original (even I'as a Greek, find the ancient text difficult) we will need a translation

About how the tranlators made the translation, and whether they made any [probably unconsious] changes, I cannot say

My person [English] ome is the RSV, as I find the sentence structure is [in the NT] closed to the origian Greek. As I do not real Hebrew, I cannot say for the OT
---peter3594 on 7/1/10


For theology & philosophy has affected Bible translations. Scholars, in depth Bible studies, even those that went to relig - trin - seminaries perverted turned some things around from what The Word of God actually says, & they Are here, 2nd.Tim.3 v 7.
---Lawrence on 7/1/10


There's an Italian saying. "Traduttore, tradittore." A translator is a traitor.

This applies no less to the Bible than any other literature, especially ancient writings.

Even readers have their own cultural presuppositions when they read the Bible.

For example, the reference to "books" in both the OT and NT is seen by the average person, at least immediately, as the modern codex, and not a scroll. (Look at your own Bible. If it's in English, it's a codex.)

Even the innocent word "bread" covers a large range of bakery products in the USA, without even getting into the various kinds of breads in the Middle East.
---Cluny on 7/1/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.