Bible Translations compared

Let me introduce a long quote here. I found it necessary to leave the author's argument intact, in order for the thought to play itself out:

from the blog, The Faith of Jesus:
The recognized facts of the Hebrew language will not support the theory that Elohim tells us that the God of Israel is more than one Person. It is wise for us all to “prove all things” and consider the lexical fact that Elohim is probably a “plural of majesty,” or, as others think, an honorific plural, a “plural of fullness,” or of “intensity.” Elohim cannot possibly mean that two beings (or three) make up the one God.
Many have not been told of other Hebrew plural forms which certainly do not tell us of more than one person:
Can the word “Lord,” also found in the plural form in Hebrew, refer to a single individual?
The word for Lord (adon) regularly appears with a plural ending when its meaning is singular. So it is with Elohim when it refers to God. God in the Hebrew Bible is described thousands upon thousands of times by singular personal pronouns. Yahweh, His personal name, is invariably accompanied by singular pronouns and verbs. On each of these occasions we have a testimony to the grand truth that there is One and only One Person in the eternal Godhead. Grasping this foundational truth and holding it fast will bring a new and brilliant light to Bible study — and to an understanding of the human Messiah, Son of God. It also frees the brain from the contortions involved in trying to make two or three into one!
Try this: If you were on a trip alone in the mountains what would you say to describe the fact that you were all by yourself? You would say, “I was alone, the only person on the trip. There was no one besides me.” You would continue with personal pronouns in the singular, “I” and “me.” That is exactly the language constantly used by the God of the Bible. He could not have done more to ensure His identity as a single divine Person. Isaiah 44:24: “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer and He who formed you from the womb, ‘I am the LORD who makes everything, who stretched forth the heavens alone and by Myself. Who was with Me?’”
This and thousands of other verses were meant to build a hedge against anyone ever imagining that God was two or three! Language has no other way of expressing that great defining fact of the universe — that God is a single Person. (If, of course, one introduces into the discussion non-Biblical meanings for concepts like “person,” or unbiblical terms such as ousia [being, essence] the result is a considerable muddle and loss of revealed truth.)

I am not so sure about what kind of authority this writer is. I think he was a graduate student in theology and threw up a lot of stuff that he was studying. He seems to have gone through the whole question about the trinity pretty throughly, over very many articles. In this particular one, he is aiming at a belief held by followers of H. Armstrong who share with locoman the idea of a two person godhead.
We get words like "academic" from the language of Akkad. This was a very ancient city in Mesopotamia that had developed a very complex set of laws and a lot of science. For centuries in that part of the world, they continued using this language when discussing such things, much like we use Latin today. It is this concept of a dead but very concise language that was set in stone. We should probably think of Hebrew like this, that the Jews used it in the same sort of way, for their theology and history. There is a problem with this because we are left with very little in the way of other Hebrew texts, to make direct comparisons to find the real meanings to a lot of it, and are left to do a lot of conjecture.I do not think it is wise policy to take one obscure passage and use it to confound all the others, and come up with something that better duplicates a religion foreign to the old Hebrew people and their God.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


I think that was well written. And yes I believe in a "Godhead" as the H. Armstrong followers do. In response to miriam's reply to me, I can do nothing but agree with those points. Maybe Jesus (the Word) was created by God the Father before the actual creation of heaven and earth but the fact remains, if Jesus was the beginning of creation and was considered the Word of God and later the Son of God, then you have 2nd in command in the Godhead. God the Father, Jesus the firstborn Son, and then the children of God (who have not aquired the gift of the kingdom as of yet but soon will to complete God's family). My argument was based more on the fact that there is immense scripture pointing to the fact that the "Word" of God or Jesus is the actual God of the old testament speaking to the prophets or patriarchs. Also explains Moses laying his eyes on God when in fact the scriptures tell us that no man has or can ever SEE God the Father. I also find the use of the word "US" in Genesis when explaining the creation of man quite unique. Yes, Jesus did create everything from the heavens to the earth but as miriam said, He did it in the name of God the Father. Also miriam, I like how you worded the reply to spy66 about "sheol" and "hell". I also charge spy66 with the task of finding the other three words in the bible that translate to "hell" and find their true meanings. Here's a head start spy66.... hades, tartarus, and gehenna are all greek words that translate to "hell" in the original KJV bible. A simple google search or wikipedia search should give the real answer to you for the real meaning of those greek words.

Originally posted by Locoman8
In response to miriam's reply to me, I can do nothing but agree with those points. Maybe Jesus (the Word) was created by God the Father before the actual creation of heaven and earth but the fact remains, if Jesus was the beginning of creation and was considered the Word of God and later the Son of God, then you have 2nd in command in the Godhead. God the Father, Jesus the firstborn Son, and then the children of God (who have not aquired the gift of the kingdom as of yet but soon will to complete God's family). My argument was based more on the fact that there is immense scripture pointing to the fact that the "Word" of God or Jesus is the actual God of the old testament speaking to the prophets or patriarchs. Also explains Moses laying his eyes on God when in fact the scriptures tell us that no man has or can ever SEE God the Father. I also find the use of the word "US" in Genesis when explaining the creation of man quite unique. Yes, Jesus did create everything from the heavens to the earth but as miriam said, He did it in the name of God the Father.

the way i see it, is that you and me agree on alot of points however what throws me off is you use different vocabulary. for example ¨godhead¨. i ve heard that word so many times in relation to a freak trinity 3 are 1, 1 is 3 thing that it hard for me to associate that word with a different meaning. you obviously saying that jesus and god are separate, but i keep misunderstanding you.

it is possible that moses was talking to jesus. there is evidence pointing to micheal the archangel and jesus being the same person. so yes jesus could have very well represented god. the OT just doesnt say.

you are right though, the one talking to moses had to be an ¨angel¨ or messenger because no man has seen god.

Also miriam, I like how you worded the reply to spy66 about "sheol" and "hell". I also charge spy66 with the task of finding the other three words in the bible that translate to "hell" and find their true meanings. Here's a head start spy66.... hades, tartarus, and gehenna are all greek words that translate to "hell" in the original KJV bible. A simple google search or wikipedia search should give the real answer to you for the real meaning of those greek words.

i really think that ¨hell¨ really is a bad translation, so many people use it without finding out what the original words mean, which are usually wildly different

reply to post by miriam0566


I know what you're saying about the use of the word "Godhead" and maybe I should just refer to it as "Family of God". I know "Godhead" is used in theology to explain the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a trinity where the three are one. My belief and that of the followers of Judeo-Christianity or Church of God is that the "Godhead" is God the Father, Jesus the Son, and mankind the children. The Holy Spirit leads mankind to the family of God but is not a separate being to be considered part of God's family. Trinity = false.... Godhead = God's family with God as the head of the household.


I agree that the bible should translate the word "hell" for what each word really means. Sheol and hades meaning death or grave. Tartarus meaning "mythical abyss" (used by Peter to explain confinement of demons durring the melennium), and gehenna meaning "Valley of Hinnom" or "gehenna fire" explaining the similarities of Hinnom and the Lake of Fire... all full of DEAD burning bodies.

Hi Locoman8.

I dont read the Bible i only look in the Bible now and then to check my thoughts and feelings. It dosent really matter to me who made what. I know it was Gods idea and by his authority everything was created.

My goal is to nourish my love for God and his creations. My main concerns is my free will and my spontaneous thoughts of sin. This is what i put all my focus on. Because it is a struggle to be good all the time,because of all the bad things happening around me all the time.

If i am not to end up in Hell or where ever but with God. I have to focus on my self and what i do. So my actions and body language dont effect others to think or do bad things. Hell or forever dead is not an option for me. Only life is the goal. So i dont focus on who made what because we are already created. And my life is so short. I have a only a short time to get my act together.

So when i read the bible i look for clues on have to act and react. When i think of God i feel love. I feel love because i gave God my personality. I gave God Me!!! The good and the bad Me. I love the feeling that this gives me so i work only with this feeling. It makes me a better person because i focus on caring for others. "But it is so hard to do some times"

That's why i also categorise knowledge into two sets of knowledge's.

1. Knowledge dont give me love or understanding. Meaning believes. Because then the knowledge you seek must put forth some proof in some physical form. Words,pictures or other items.God is a inspiration given to man. So for us in our time there is no really physical facts about God other then the creation. Besides that we only have the written text form the past. But the text is just a inspiration. And not a fact unless you can feel something related to the meaning of it.

2. Since God is a inspiration given to man. It must come from Gods love for man. How can anybody prove a inspiration!
What knowledge can prove that but the knowledge of love. You have to have the feeling to understand the inspiration given to the prophets.
The knowledge of words will never give you the facts. Besides the meaning of the words. And the words dont have a meaning if you cant feel it. Because you cant imagine another persons inspirations from reading words. You will only make up your own thoughts from the knowledge you poses. In other words you will build up your own inspiration from what you read.

But by all means what you all write is really good reading. But i dont think you will ever get to the bottom of it. Or in other word to the truth of the matter. Because no one can prove an other man's inspiration.

The facts lie in what you feel. And we all have different feelings Meaning we will all reach different conclusions.

Only the prophets them self can explain the facts of their words and inspiration. We can only try. But trying dont always produce actual facts. Only a interpretation of the inspired text.







[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
I dont read the Bible i only look in the Bible now and then to check my thoughts and feelings. It dosent really matter to me who made what. I know it was Gods idea and by his authority everything was created.

i want you to imagine for a moment that you receive a letter from someone who cares very much about you and you care very much about them.

would you read the letter? or would you discard it and ¨browse¨ through it now and then?

what if that letter was a warning to you with instructions on how to avoid a something that was about to happen? would you not take the time to read it?

everything you need (emphasis on need) to know is in the bible. with the bible we can answer certain ¨unanswerable¨ questions like where are we from? where are we going?

there is enough information in the bible to actually ascertain god´s will. in my opinion, that makes the bible the single most important and valuable document you could read.

if you have problems with english, see about getting a bible in your native tongue. if you want i might be able to get one for you (i just dont know what your native tongue is).

in the end its your choice, but i strongly recommend that you dig alittle deeper. find out what the bible says.

I feel love because i gave God my personality. I gave God Me!!! The good and the bad Me. I love the feeling that this gives me so i work only with this feeling. It makes me a better person because i focus on caring for others. "But it is so hard to do some times"

let me ask you a question about this particular point. when you read my posts, what type of person do you think i am? what type of personality come through the words that i post? are they your words? if you picture me posting, do you picture YOU sitting there typing? of course not.

im a different person. youve never met me, youve never seen me in person, or heard my voice, and yet i am a person and i have a distinct personality.

god is a person.

hes not this abstract force. he understands completely but that doesnt mean he has your personality.

i know it helps you to relate to him and in a way visualise him, but hes not you. he´s better. he´s better than all of us.

be careful with trying to put a face on god.

But by all means what you all write is really good reading. But i dont think you will ever get to the bottom of it. Or in other word to the truth of the matter. Because no one can prove an other man's inspiration.

The facts lie in what you feel. And we all have different feelings

Meaning we will all reach different conclusions.

Only the prophets them self can explain the facts of their words and inspiration. We can only try. But trying dont always produce actual facts. Only a interpretation of the inspired text.

be careful following the feelings of your heart.

jer 17:[9] The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? [10] I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

if you have to fight sinful tendencies, what does that say about feelings?

your hungry for truth spy which is great, not everyone cares about that, but be careful. its very easy to simply accept that ¨truth¨ that is most convenient.

reply to post by miriam0566


Hi miriam.

To answer you first image here i think that love would cover a lot of it. By loving I also care. That means i would read the letters given to me no matter how serious they would be,Because i do care. And i would act accordingly to try and make things right. Or just reply to show that i also care.
I dont know you by person.Only by what you write. But i still care about you. I also trust you! that's why i ask you questions. I like your judgement on things that i wonder about. What you say might not be what i imagined but it gives me more to work with. Meaning i use it to see if it fits in with my knowledge and interpretations. Because i cant just take your opinion as a fact without weighing it.
I think the Bible also tells us something about people sounding sincere and sure about things. But it might not be the fact even though it sounds right. This also answers your last point. That you shouldn't trust your love and judgment alone. That's why i ask and peek in the bible from time to time

But i thought i covered that by saying love is also a knowledge to seek out an learn about. Love is not just a relationship between you and God or you or your friends. Love is your relationship with everything. And what you feel might be a bit of course to what really is some time. But that is the road we have to take to learn. That's why i use you and the bible or science.

You see i believe that! To believe in God and the inspiration given to others by God. You have to believe in all of it to start with. And to sincerely believe you have to believe in God first. And the only way you can do that is to feel something. You have to feel the goodness he inspires to you. That is the only fact that will truly convince you of his existence. No other knowledge will do that. Unless he appears in front of you, or unless he dose something that will convince "you". I think he is trying to convince us all the time. But we dont get the signals because most people seek just the knowledge of things. And the knowledge of things dont give you the knowledge that God wants you to have. We dont get that!! whats important to us might not be important to God. God is not impressed by our knowledge at all. But we are. Our knowledge of things has put us in a contrast to God. We have start to question God by what we have philosophically thought out by our quest for knowledge.

There is no love in our knowledge. Our knowledge is only built on profit. We also defend our knowledge with the law and weapons. Our knowledge teaches us not to shear things. Because there is no prosper or profit in sharing.
Knowledge in our world is given to people with a high standard or position. Or to a person who has a thought no one else has thought about before.

Edit: But i agree with your post above. One has to be very careful. But people like you and others keep me on my feet.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by miriam0566


Sigh...

Miriam, I had no idea this thread (topic) had drifted so far from your original post.

To Miriam, AND Jmdewey, AND locoman8:

I've discussed quite a bit of topics here on BTS with all of you. While none of you might totally agree with what I "personally" believe, I enjoy discussions like this. I would have "chimed in" earlier if I had known the thread had moved this direction.

May I make a request?

If any of you notice a thread (like this) that I have NOT "spoken up" in, and you think I "might" be interested, could you send off a U2U to me?

I really ENJOY how this topic has "drifted" and I am sad that I didn't read pages 2-3 more recently...

(Sorry for going off-topic, Miriam!)

lol will do.

just keep me in mind too when you start a thread

reply to post by miriam0566

lol will do.

Thank you!

And no FUNNY STUFF like:

"Here is one for you, PreTribGuy":

www.belowtopsecret.com...

:>)

Originally posted by spy66
You have to believe in all of it to start with. And to sincerely believe you have to believe in God first. And the only way you can do that is to feel something.

im not disagreeing with you, im just sharing my experience.

for me it was quite the opposite. i didnt believe in god, i couldnt. i felt that if he did exist, i had to hated him. i couldnt understand why or how he could let people like me suffer so intensely for so long. i hated anyone associated with god. hate hate hate, thats all i knew. i get pains in my chest just thinking about it.

but, in the back of my head was always the possibility i was wrong. no matter how much i was trying to erase god from my life, i kept seeing the evidence. evolution never made sense to me. bible seemed to be this anomaly, it was so different from normal books. honestly i couldnt ignore the clear evidence that something was there. something, didnt know what or how or why, but something had to be there.

my search for god began with just the slightest doubt. the possibility that i was wrong.

i dont know if that constitutes me ¨believing in god¨ or not. so my experience i think is alot different than yours. i had to prove it to myself before i believed.

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
reply to post by miriam0566

 

lol will do.

Thank you!

And no FUNNY STUFF like:

"Here is one for you, PreTribGuy":

www.belowtopsecret.com...

:>)

lol jerk... i actually fell for it

reply to post by miriam0566


I apologize, Miriam.

I didn't mean to make you upset. (I don't think you WERE, I'm just making SURE!)

I thought the little "smiley face" would give you a "heads up".

I am so sorry if I made you upset. That wasn't my intention!

(Yes, PreTribGuy can have a sense of humor!)

i wrote the ¨LOL¨ because i was laughing.

reply to post by PreTribGuy


Welcome to the conversation bud!!! I know we have our differences and we have had heated discussion before, but I come to the conclusion that we agree to disagree on a lot of stuff. I will personally apologize for offending you if I do or have. I hope you can send the same jesture to me too. God bless and welcome in on the conversation. So where do you stand in this "bible translations" discussion? I like the NKJV as I said before and it's quite reliable. Your thoughts?

reply to post by Locoman8


Locoman8,

I have been on a Christian "debate" email list for almost 10 years. I've grown to have quite a "thick skin". This forum (on BTS) is quite a bit less "intense" than the email list I belong to. While one can "edit" their response here after hitting "post reply", you can't really "edit" an email sent out to 40-60 people.

I LIKE being able to edit my posts if I see an error.

As for "Bible translations"?

I wrote this a couple of months ago and I still stand by it:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

reply to post by PreTribGuy


So you're a King James fella? I'm a New King James fella. They say the exact same thing but the NKJV corrects the many mistranslations of the KJV and is written in modern english. It is the easiest to follow with the KJV. I have 3 KJV bibles and 3 NKJV bibles. I even have 1 NRSV w/apocrypha in it. I can't stand the NRSV due to the "paraphrasing" that is done. NIV and NASB are similar. I can only rely on KJV or NKJV but if I have a KJV I need a center column reference guide in order to give correct translations of some words.... like the use of "easter" in Acts 12:4 which is the greek word "pasch" which translates literally to "Passover" and the funny thing is that pasch was translated "Passover" in every other passage in the KJV. Why not in Acts 12:4? Because the translators of the KJV bible were pushing an agenda to weed out the Holy Days to add former pagan holidays turned christian. So I put my faith in the NKJV as a great translation with the same articulate flow of the KJV, just more accurate and modern english vs. old english. God bless.

reply to post by miriam0566


Interesting quote from somebody from Greece on the book

"I am Greek, I have been raised in Greece, I have studied Classical Greek for two years in high school (Classical Greek is much more complicated than koine, or Common Greek) and I have been studding the original Greek text of the Bible for about 10 years. Having this background, I responsibly say that this book presents quite right, well documented and reliable linguistic information. Yes, its writer must be considered adequate as regards his knowledge of the Biblical Greek. So, this book sheds plenty of light about subjects of which the common English reader has no idea. For example: English readers often claim that NW is false in John 1:1. Trinitarians in Greece have never used this specific verse to claim that the New World Translation (NW) is wrong, since all the Orthodox versions read actually the same with the Greek version of the NW. And this happens because the wording of this verse is very clear for the Greek reader, and there is no place for debate. I am sorry to say this, but for a Greek it is ridiculous to debate on John 1:1.

Of course, many will be disappointed by BeDunh because he proves that many of the famous Bible versions are inaccurate and mislead their readers. But face the facts! What matters is not what translators say but what Bible says!"- Basileios Tsialas (Athens,Greece)

regarding the john 1:1 debate.

either you have the most literal translation, the way you would read it with the most logical meaning derived from the text, but unfortunately for trinitarians does support the trinity.

or you can pull up grammar rules to try to twist and turn the scripture so that it does fit the trinity.

lol,

does NOT support the trinity.

why is the edit feature not working?