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

What Did Jesus Really Say

I was watching "Science of The Bible" and they were speaking with a man whom fluently spoke Jesus' original language, he said the Arameic language didn't use all the words like the English does, so I am wondering what was REALLY said when Jesus spoke since many translations occured?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Love Bible Quiz
 ---Candice on 3/28/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (15)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

yes there have been many different translations and different words are used but the meaning to each sentance is still intact and means the same as the original. Have Faith that God is Big enough to hold his word "the truth" together.
---eliza4969 on 11/20/07

We can be confident that God has kept His word intact, through all of the changes that have occurred since the originals were written. The thing to remember is that not all languages translate easily into english, and sometimes words have to be interjected to make the meaning clear to us. If you could look carefully, you will find that most of the "changes" make no diference in the meaning of the text, and are harmless.
---tommy3007 on 3/11/07

Candice, these "Science/Mysteries of the Bible" and similar shows are not always that accurate. Usually they simplify things for a non-scholarly general audience.

Don't forget that at that time in that partof the world EVERYBODY had to speak at least some Greek--the lingua franca since Alexander--just to be able to get alone.

What language do you think Jesus spoke to the Lebanese woman?
---Jack on 5/8/06

John T Do you haver a trusted freind with a computer? You could try signing up using his computer and email address, and see if that works. You would then be a member of the pen-pal section, and could change your email address by editing your profile.

Moderator - Good idea.
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/20/06

John ... I once had a problem with receiving messages from CN, and it turned out that my system identified the dating side of CN, and equated it with a sex-site, and blocked messages from the site, although access was OK.
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/20/06

No, I am not behind a corporate firewall, only the one that comes with SP 2 for XP.

Nor am I with AOL, just Road Runner.

I have no spam filters, and my AV lets everything through as long as it has no virus or trojan horse attached.

Moderator - Only other potential problem left is placing a word in your profile that is on our "Don't List".
---John_T on 4/19/06

Thanks for the help, but still nada. I checked with Time Warner, they do not have any spam filters,it comes with the AV package they give. since I have AGV antivirus, that is moot. I also checked with the webmail, bypassing Outlook. Still nada. Thus I upgrade from annoyed to confused. 8-)

Moderator - Are you using AOL? Do you have a spam filter on your local computer? Are you behind an Intra-Net firewall?
---John_T on 4/19/06

John_T: As I said before, your ISP may be blocking the reply from as being SPAM, so you would need to inform them that you actually want to receive messages from them. I'd still like to give you some URLs to Biblical resources, so if you Google "starman's realm" and 'feedback' you'll be able to contact me.

Moderator - Danie9374 is correct; it's your ISP.
---danie9374 on 4/18/06


Time Warner Road Runner. It has now been over 24 hours since my last attempt, and nothing also since my Monday and Tuesday attempts.

I am annoyed
---John_T on 4/13/06

I tried to do sign up on Tuesday, made partial answers, then read mod's comments.

Wednesday 9AM I wrote some personal stuff about me, 2-3 sentences max in each box, and haven't heard anything in the way of a confirming welcome email. it is 12:50 AM EDT

Moderator - Who is your ISP?
---John_T on 4/12/06

JohnT I have been approached by various people on the penpal section who have just repeated the same thing in answer to each question. My immediate reaction is "SCAM" and I refer the profile to the president, who usually deletes the profile. Maybe that has been done with yours
Why not be honest and give some information about yourself. You can always say you are a member for correspondence only, not dating.
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/11/06

John_T: hmm... I don't seem to recall it taking all that long for mine to be confirmed, but that was a year ago. Maybe they're trying to discourage all the SCAMMERS that pop up here? Oh, one idea: Check if your ISP considers Christianet SPAM? Anything to add, MODERATOR?

Moderator - He would get the email immediately unless he didn't fill out the forms properly which based upon his statements, he may not have?
---danie9374 on 4/11/06


I signed up over 2 hours ago. Still waiting for the confirmation email.

I did not want to fill out that personal stuff, so I made the same five-words long comment in each block. Still waiting
---John_T on 4/10/06

John_T: Sign up (join) Christianet's FREE "Chat & Penpals" section (that's what my member name "danie9374" is for!) using some short quick comments to get your own member-ID, look up my "profile" and click on the link near top of my picture for sending me a message.

Moderator - You can locate the link on ChristiaNet's homepage. Daniel, we fixed the comment you made last Friday. Please let us know if there are anymore. Thanks.
---danie9374 on 4/10/06

It was also translated in a day when people had a desire to get the Word of God published for all to read. Not like today where the desire is to fill our own pockets first. Back then every chuch was required to have a translated english bible where any common man could get to it and there had to be a person on hand that could read it for the common man if he lacked the ability to do so himself.
---chris on 4/10/06

JohnT ... The KJV is over 350 years old & ccopyright expires well before that!
I doubt if James or any subsequent monarch ever received royalties from the KJV. I know that for a time Oxford University Press were the only printers & that may have been a right granted to them.
I do not think the Royal family are at present in need of any more money, they are doing OK thanks.
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/10/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling

How can I do that?
---John_T on 4/10/06

[forCNparser]. _ John_T: _ Please message me for some theology links I think you'll appreciate!
---danie9374 on 4/10/06

I am in favor of the Crown getting proper royalties from its publication. (Considering the current state of the royals, proper royalties is a different matter)

In another life I could be a Torey!

Is the KJV copyrighted in the UK or public domain like the USA?
---John_T on 4/8/06

John T You seem to be saying that Americans should not use the KJV, whereas we in the UK should continue to use it?
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/8/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief

I have just started using a Bible that I was given at age 9 by the Lutheran church my family went to. It is the Revised Standard Version. On the reruns of Through the Bible by JD Vernen McGee (who passed away in the 1980s), anyway he said the Authorised Version of the early 1900s is from old manuscripts. He said some of the new versions are more like interpretations.
---Ulrika on 4/7/06

Chris: My 4/6 conclusion was tongue-in-cheek. You missed that.

Nevertheless, it is true that the KJV was stolen from King James. It is an EXCELLENT translation, but there are flaws, as with EVERY translation.

No one is knocking the KJV, but I think that you may need to study Bible Transmission to gain deeper insight.
---John_T on 4/7/06

Chris: The Gospel of Judas is part of the Pseudopigrapha-- false writings surrounding Jesus. It is the product of imagination from the second of third century AD. It is not accurate. "And judas ...hanged himself."
Only One rose from the dead, and He did not write a book
---John_T on 4/7/06

Good idea, lets all use the new versions, expecially now with the Gospel of Judas surfacing. At least one of the modern Bibles will add it in... and they should, if it is like you said before:
("Older" means more recently discovered... Modern translations, including NKJV and NIV use the older, and thus closer-to-original manuscripts.")

I will stick with my old faithful. I believe it is the Word of God with all my heart and dont need it to be changed to fit my doctrines.
---chris on 4/7/06

Send a Free Easter Ecard

The reason the KJV is in public domain is that the US publishers stole it, and printed it w/o permission. Otherwise, we would be still paying royalties to England, and we should.

Why is it called the King James Version? King James of England commissioned its translation and printing. Thus, this version is no different than the others.

Actually, it may be a good idea to abandon using the KJV because it is a stolen document, in the same way that pirates used Napster to get free songs.
---John_T on 4/6/06

Part II: My other post has a list of Bibles and the Copyright owners. The King James Version and the American Standard Version both are public domain. I find that quite interesting. That means these publishers down below are making money off our Word of God... not just for printing them, but liscencing and even lawsuits. Some even ask that you write them for permission to quote their scriptures. The KVJ is free to be copied, produced, distributed, etc. without penalty. Truly preserving the Word of God.
---chris on 4/6/06

21st Century KJV: Deuel Enterprises
Amplified Bible: The Lockman Foundation
Contemporary English Version: American Bible Society
English Standard Version: Good News Publishers
New American Standard Bible: The Lockman Foundation
New International Version: Zondervan
New KJV: Thomas Nelson
New Life Version: Christian Literature International
New Living Translation: Tyndale House Publishers
Holman Christian Standard Bible: Holman Bible Publishers
---chris on 4/6/06

The manuscripts used were copies written over many centuries. These "new" manuscripts match with over 5,000 others, some as old as those from Alexandria. Over 99% of the manuscripts found, ancient and modern, show an agreement with each other. Contrast this with Alexandrian writings, used by Roman Catholic institutions and almost all "modern scholars." The only 45 "Alexandrian" manuscripts, not only do not agree with the vast majority, but they dont match with each other!
---chris on 4/6/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement

Each Bible translation supports the other, not just the KJV to the extent that there is no error of doctrine or history in one that can not be corrected from other manuscripts.

When learning Greek, the second year students are taught how to use the "critical apparatus" in the UBS version. It collects ALL the variant readings from all the known sources, including Wescott & Hort rating them on an A B C or D probibility of being the correct, original reading. Bible Version battle is moot.
---John_T on 4/6/06

manuscripts found since the KJV was translated only support it from what I understand. THe faulty ones were not used by the KJV translators... the ones that Wesscott and Hort decided to use.
---chris on 4/6/06

Chris's analagy is faulty on 3 accounts:

1)"Older" means more recently discovered.

2) There is NO A to B etc transmission in the older manuscripts. They were found in different fragments, and dated closer to the Apostolic age than the copies of Jerome or Erasmus.

3) Because they were found in one ancient place, the possibilities for copyist errors creeping in are less likely than the ones used by Eras&Jero because these copies were passed from A to B etc.
---John_T on 4/5/06

If you want to know what jesus really said, ask the Holy Spirit.John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.exzucuh
---Exzucuh on 4/5/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning

Why did the NIV leave out so many important verses. the same one left out of the JW bible?

Moderator - I agree the NIV bible isn't a good bible translation, however I have never heard that it is the same bible as the JWs. NIV would be sued by the JWs if that were true.
---Rev_Herb on 4/5/06

I have seen the NJKV and it has a symbol on the front of it, The same symbol as the book of shadows used by witches. The symbol is 3 6s tied together. The NIV is the same as the New World translation used by the JWs. There are 100s of original greek languages so which one did God use to write the bible? The KJV was written in the Kione Greek which no one has now. I believe this to be a special language used by God to write the bible.
---Rev_Herb on 4/5/06

KJV is the only way to go. Too bad I can only find one or two among the mass of alternate translations at my local christian book store.

I have always been under the impression that all of the italicized words are italicized to let us know that they were inserted by the translators so they could properly construct English sentances. This may or may not be correct, but would explain why there were less words used in the native dialect.
---chris on 4/5/06

RE: "original Aramaic"
There is a theory among liberals that there was originally a compilation of Jesus's words available to the Gospel writers, called Q.

This theory allegedly explains the similar or exact sayings attributed to Jesus in each of the four different Gospels.

Actually, it explains away the Gospels, and makes them a secondary source. That makes them lies because as Luke says in this prologues to Luke and Acts, he witnessed the words being said.
---John_T on 4/5/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Education

Gotta love the older is better theory. How about this instead...

Someone writes an email about a heartfelt story and forwards it to persons A and B.
A forwards it to C and D.
B changes it to be hateful and forwards it to E and F.
C forwards it to G.
E forwards it to H.
A, B, C, and D delete their copy.
E, F, G and H still have theirs.
E and F is older than G and H.
Which one is closer to the original heartfelt story?
---chris on 4/5/06

RE: "original Aramaic"
In translations, there is no word-for-word matching, If that were so, computers could do the job better and faster tham humans.

Thus MML&John translated (not transliterated) from Aramaic His words into Greek, describing what Jesus did.

Saying did not use "all of Jesus, words is dubious, at best because the it assumes that there is a copy of Jesus's words available. There isn't.
---John_T on 4/5/06

Rev Herb: I know that you are a KJV guy, so no snide or silly comments.

You realy should study Bible Transmission from several sources. You will see that there is a good chance that KJV is NOT the closest to the original texts. It is very close to Jerome's Vulgate, and to Erasmus.

Modern translations, including NKJV and NIV use the older, and thus closer-to-original manuscripts.
---John_T on 4/5/06

So Candice, if you go past all the 'OFF-topic' comments here (having nothing to do with your question), to my few comments written directly to YOU on 3/28/06, were they helpful? Do you have some more questions about them?
---Daniel on 4/3/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans

Eloy, alright I agree with most of that! You transliterated the Hebrew into Latin/English characters; even used 'transposed' in a way most understand: HWHY -> YHWH (Hebrew is written right-to-left, but since English isn't, we normally transpose it when transliterating it). 'Jesus' (like most Biblical _names_) is actually a transliteration (Hebrew characters -> Greek "IEsous" -> 'Jesus'); like Joshua, Hosea, etc. Translation (or Interpretation) = "Savior".
---danie9374 on 3/31/06

daniel, God's Hebrew Name= ; transliterated= HWHY; translated or transposed= YHWH; interpreted= Forever Existing; and YESHUAH translated Jesus is interpreted= Salvation.
---Eloy on 3/31/06

daniel, Occassionally I will use a dictionary, but not very often, as I am college educated and possess a extensive vocabulary and I master the English language. I have the mind of Christ and am filled with the Holy Spirit. I also translate the Bible; and not to sound condescending, but I also transliterate, transpose, interpret, research, study, expound, elucidate, open, preach, teach, understand and know the Scriptures.
---Eloy on 3/31/06

Eloy, as was shown in the other blog, a thesaurus does *not* always list "true synonyms" and educated editors of such books will tell you that! Have you found a dictionary that will define 'transpose' as "substituting characters of one alphabet for another" for even one usage yet? Basically, words are what we make them to be, and there are very few reasons (sometimes dishonesty or just plain ignorance) for not using them the same way the majority do!
---danie9374 on 3/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates

Synonyms are words that are Similar words that can be used interchangeably, example: "loving" and "liking" and "caring" are the same; so also Translate, Transliterate, Transpose, Transcribe, Transfer, Transport, and Interpret, are all synonyms and can be used interchangeably according to context of use. A Thesaurus is a collection of Synonyms used in the English language.
---Eloy on 3/30/06

Mark (anyone else interested): Lastly, you may wish to see mine and other people's comments concerning the words 'transliterate', 'translate' and 'transpose' in the "Eternal Security for Christians" blog here:
[search the pages for "transpose" to find most of them!]
---danie9374 on 3/30/06

Billy, think you meant DSS (not DDS; unless there's a 'Dentist' scroll out there? ;-) ).
Please message me here at Christianet!
---danie9374 on 3/30/06

(3) A transliteration example of Numbers 6:24-26 (Note: many Hebrew vowel points *cannot* be distinguished using only ASCII characters):

(24) yebhahrekekah YHWH weyishmerekah s
(25) yaheyr YHWH pahnahyew 'eyleykah wiyhunnekkah s
(26) yissah' YHWH pahnahyw 'eyleykah weyahseym lekah shalom s

That's how you 'transliterate' Hebrew into some Roman/Latin characters; if you want to see English words, you must _translate_ the Hebrew!
---danie9374 on 3/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing

(2) I know of two SILVER amulets containing fragments of Numbers 6:24-26; again, no where near as old as 5000 years ago! Hopefully, you're not thinking of a scroll discussed in a 'false religious cult' in relation to Biblical Christianity; which existed only in the mind of their false prophet.
---danie9374 on 3/30/06

(1) Mark (3/29/06): First, you're incorrectly using the words "transliteration -ed" which make me wonder if someone is teaching this to you. Please post (and message me direct with URLs) where you're getting this idea from. Also, where's evidence for c.3000 B.C. "copper scroll" of that passage? I believe you're mistaken on that. I do know of the Dead Sea "Copper Scroll" but it's very far from being that old and isn't about that passage! Other than that,... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 3/30/06

marya4598: What you said is sort of correct except that the Greek spoken by Jesus and most others in Israel was definitely *not* the kind that 'educated Greeks' might use! It's what we now call 'Koine Greek' and was used in many countries controlled by Rome to converse with foreigners. It took scholars a very long time after 'getting back into NT Greek' c.1530 ff. to see that and finally state it as fact in late 1800s to early 1900s.
---Daniel on 3/30/06

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Get the Holy Ghost he will tell you what is of him.exzucuh
---Exzucuh on 3/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance

The closest thing that we have today is the KJV of the Bible as it is not a translation, but a transliteration. That means that the original books were transliterated into the English language in the KJV. There are many proofs of this but one of the most commonly known ones is the passage in Numbers 6:24 -7 These exact words are in a copper scroll that is about 5000 years old.
---Mark on 3/29/06

Help me, I'm confused, I have 21 different bibles and they all say something different.

The JW use the New World translation, which says the same thing as the NIV. How come they can't know the truth???
---Rev_Herb on 3/29/06

Bible translators are highly educated in the original and translational languages of the Bible. They do their best to capture the meaning of the original. Texts can be translated and are all the time, from literature to how to manuals. I like the NIV Study Bible because it has excellent end notes at the end of the page that explain things as you go along. You might get a copy of one--the NIV Study Bible, not just the NIV. They are in Walmat.
---Anna on 3/29/06

part 3: Most translations today follow dynamic equivalence. That means the translators try to imagine how a GK-Heb speaking first century person would say it in 20th Century English. Anyone knows this has advantages. To date our manuscript discoveries are so close to the first century for NT and now with the DDS 3rd Cent BC, our GK-Heb texts today approach the original better than ever. Likes/dislikes of an English translation has to be with the English and not the texts (all use the same texts).
---Billy on 3/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money

Post 2: Every translation contains a philosophy that each translator must agree with. Some involved in keeping the English wording close to the KJV since many people love it. Other philosophies address translation types: all have literal and figurative languages, but this concern addresses how many English words to use in order to get the Gk/Heb (Aramaic is only in half of Daniel and maybe 50 words in NT) point across. Italics indicate what English word(s) were inserted to make the reading smoothe.
---billy on 3/29/06

I was one of the 'experts' PBS interview on a few Bible shows. Let me explain how translations work since I have been on several translation committees. First you have to decide on the GK-Heb text. Then translate with an English stylist. Then usually five levels of committees can change anything. Then the publisher who must make money can change anything even though he/she may not be able to read. Above all is the philosophy of the product. see next post
---billy on 3/29/06

I agree with those who say that translating any other language into English usually involves having to add words just to make it readable. These are never changes to the meaning though.
---M.P. on 3/29/06

I believe Daniel is on the right track. My understanding about the use of language back from when I was in Bible College was that Aramaic was the common language spoken by the people and used in everyday speech - men and women used this language; Hebrew was the language of religion for the Jews - men studied it but women did not understand it as well or at all; and Greek was the language of education, the written word, and the intellectuals which men and some women with any education would understand.
---marya4598 on 3/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments

Jesus is God, and he speaks every language. Scripture shows us that Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin were common in Jerusalem in the first century. Please read Mark 15:34; John 19:19,20.
---Eloy on 3/29/06

Revherb. All translations use the koine even the KJV even though all versions prior to 1902 did not know it. Adolf Deissmann discovered and names Koine at that time. KJV only used late manuscripts but its use Jerome's Vulgate an early 5th century work was good. All newer (including NKJV) translations use one of two texts and the difference is priority for a text type which is very similar. Buy Metzger's Textual Commentary on NT for scholarly help or J P Lewis' From KJV to NIV.
---billy on 3/28/06

Rev Herb. Mk 1:2,3. The quotation is a composite, the first part being from Mal 3:1 and the second from Is 40:3. It is easy to see why copyists would have altered the words 'in Isaiah the prophet' (a reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text) to the more comprehensive introductory formula 'in the prophets.' It is not a translation problem at all.
---billy on 3/28/06

Candice, a further thought: Matthew, John and others (Peter apparently helped with Mark) may have well heard Jesus give the same sermon in both Aramaic-Hebrew _and_ in Greek on different occasions, thus having a translation from Jesus Himself. The main point though, is that the Gospels which were recognized by the early church as Scripture 'perfectly represented' God's Word in Greek just as the Hebrew did in the OT.
---Daniel on 3/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks

[-2-] However, Matthew and other disciples knew Greek as well, and would have no problems (especially having been guided by the Holy Spirit) in providing correct translations of words spoken only in Aramaic/Hebrew, exactly as God intended them to be written! Some of these "if only we had the Aramaic here" type of books/papers obvioulsy do not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture!
---Daniel on 3/28/06

[-1-] Candice: First, be very careful watching such 'shows' (esp. PBS; many have 'hidden agendas' against God).

Jesus spoke Aramaic-Hebrew _and_ Greek! We have examples of Him speaking to Greeks with no 'translator' involved; Centurions, Pilate, foreigners, etc. After studying many papers and Scripture, I don't believe it's possible to know for sure when He used one or the other in sermons unless that's stated directly. [CONT.]
---Daniel on 3/28/06

Part 1
JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son"
---Rev_Herb on 3/28/06

Part 2
- Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.
---Rev_Herb on 3/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation!
---Rev_Herb on 3/28/06

RevHerb: The question concerns whether or not the original NT Gospels quoted exactly what Jesus spoke or not, since she was told that Jesus' language was Aramaic. It isn't really about any particular English translation, but whether the original manuscripts contianed Jesus' actual words, so this isn't some 'English Bible versions' debate.
---Daniel on 3/28/06

The KJV is the closes version to the original there is. These other versions say they are, but the orginal they use is not the original used in Jesus' day. The Kione Greek was what was used to translate the KJV and it died out over 1800 yrs ago. We now have over 5000 different versions of Greek that are said to be the original
---Rev_Herb on 3/28/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.