"Thou Sayest"

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by eclectic mystic

You're using a secondary/tertiary source of citation.

Technically then, what you say applies even to the KJV. Or any translation, for that matter.

Even the Interlinear has its drawbacks. But at least it is an attempt at a verbatim translation. But without familiarity with linguistic norms in the mother tongue (in this case probably Aramaic, but at least Greek) and culture, the nuance is lost.

That is why the lessons on figures of speech and idioms are also important translational tools.

[mee]

[quote=Quahom1;153854]Your translation is in error. quote]


We should all Ask yourselves
What is my goal in reading the Bible?
Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy?
Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?’ (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
our objective should determine our choice of translation.


Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias.


one of them ,Jason David BeDuhn,
published a Book, it was a 200-page study of nine of
the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.

Besides the New World Translation, the others were
The Amplified New Testament,
The Living Bible,
The New American Bible With Revised New Testament,
New American Standard Bible,
The Holy Bible—New International Version,
The New Revised Standard Version,
The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.

While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.
He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.

[Quahom1]

[quote=mee;154044]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Your translation is in error. quote]


We should all Ask yourselves
What is my goal in reading the Bible?
Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy?
Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?’ (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
our objective should determine our choice of translation.


Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias.


one of them ,Jason David BeDuhn,
published a Book, it was a 200-page study of nine of
the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.

Besides the New World Translation, the others were
The Amplified New Testament,
The Living Bible,
The New American Bible With Revised New Testament,
New American Standard Bible,
The Holy Bible—New International Version,
The New Revised Standard Version,
The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.

While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.
He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.

Your translation is literally in error...

[mee]

[quote=Quahom1;154047]

Originally Posted by mee

Your translation is literally in error...

Millions of readers have discovered the New World Translation to be not only readable but scrupulously accurate.

[mee]

The translators of the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION opened up a new world of Biblical understanding.

Bible texts that had previously been only dimly understood became dramatically clear.

For example, the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3, "blessed are the poor in spirit" (King James Version),

was rendered in a way that made sense

"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need." The New World Translation is also quite consistent and uniform in its rendering of key terms.

The Greek word psy·khe´, for example, was translated "soul" in each of its occurrences. As a result, readers can quickly discern that contrary to religious theories, the soul is not immortal!—Matthew 2:20; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 17:33.

[mee]

[quote=Quahom1;154047]

Originally Posted by mee

Your translation is literally in error...

An outstanding feature of the New World Translation involved the restoration of God’s name, Jehovah.

In ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible, the divine name is represented by four consonants that may be transliterated as YHWH or JHVH.

This distinctive name appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone. (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 83:18)

Clearly, our Creator intended his worshipers both to know and to use that name



However, superstitious fears caused the Jewish people to cease using the divine name.

Following the death of Jesus’ apostles, copyists of the Greek Scriptures began replacing God’s personal name with the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God).

Sad to say, modern translators have perpetuated this God-dishonoring tradition, eliminating God’s name from most Bibles and even concealing that God has a name.

For example, at John 17:6 are Jesus’ words: "I have made your name manifest." Today’s English Version, however, renders this: "I have made you known."


Some scholars defend the elimination of the divine name because its exact pronunciation is unknown.

However, such familiar Bible names as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Jesus are routinely rendered in ways that bear little resemblance to their original Hebrew pronunciation.

Since the form Jehovah is a legitimate way of rendering the divine name—and one familiar to many people—objections to using it ring hollow.

yes this world trys to hide the name of the most high,and the



NEW KING JAMES VERSION i notice ,has taken the most highs name away from PSALM 83;18 , and the cloudy darkness goes on .


three cheers for the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION its good to get things right

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by mee

Since the form Jehovah is a legitimate way of rendering the divine name—and one familiar to many people—objections to using it ring hollow.

er, actually, it's a complete mistake; the word came from using the Tetragrammaton Y-H-W-H (obviously the hebrew letters) with the vowels for the word that is said instead during prayers. obviously we don't pronounce the Name, but we do say "ADoNaY", meaning "My Lord" - what the jws have done is mistake this for the correct Name itself, because in religious texts those are the vowels that are added to allude to the pronunciation that is used, rather than the actual vowels that go with the Tetragrammaton. there's a reasonably good discussion here:

Names of God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Quahom1]

[quote=mee;154057]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

An outstanding feature of the New World Translation involved the restoration of God’s name, Jehovah.

In ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible, the divine name is represented by four consonants that may be transliterated as YHWH or JHVH.

This distinctive name appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone. (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 83:18)

Clearly, our Creator intended his worshipers both to know and to use that name



However, superstitious fears caused the Jewish people to cease using the divine name.

Following the death of Jesus’ apostles, copyists of the Greek Scriptures began replacing God’s personal name with the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God).

Sad to say, modern translators have perpetuated this God-dishonoring tradition, eliminating God’s name from most Bibles and even concealing that God has a name.

For example, at John 17:6 are Jesus’ words: "I have made your name manifest." Today’s English Version, however, renders this: "I have made you known."


Some scholars defend the elimination of the divine name because its exact pronunciation is unknown.

However, such familiar Bible names as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Jesus are routinely rendered in ways that bear little resemblance to their original Hebrew pronunciation.

Since the form Jehovah is a legitimate way of rendering the divine name—and one familiar to many people—objections to using it ring hollow.

yes this world trys to hide the name of the most high,and the



NEW KING JAMES VERSION i notice ,has taken the most highs name away from PSALM 83;18 , and the cloudy darkness goes on .


three cheers for the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION its good to get things right

The translation is "literally" in error.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by mee

Millions of readers have discovered the New World Translation to be not only readable but scrupulously accurate.

Just pointing out you could replace that translation with any other one and the sentence would still be true.

Just because a bunch of readers find something readable and accurate doesn't mean it is accurate.

It's all the opinions of the readers, and the vast majority of Christians (me included) don't personally read Greek or Hebrew, and don't speak Aramaic, and also don't understand the figurative language that was appropriate at the time in these languages... so our opinions are kind of worthless from a scholarly standpoint.

Without detailed personal linguistic knowledge, all of our beliefs about the proper translations are grounded in faith in one church or another, in one scholar or another. None of it is personally known. I always wish I had the time to pursue these studies for this reason. I want to personally do the work. Unfortunately, I face this little problem of needing to pay my bills...

[Eclectic Mystic]

I spent about 20 minutes with that hefty load of research. But I do appreciate scriptures from other faiths which tend to have: 1) Original Text 2)Translation 3)Commentary all together so there its clear where there is interpretation. Theres a significant difference between the inevitable "lost in translation" vs. the outright slipping in of extraneous words.

I like the face though.

[path_of_one]

The best it gets for me is having a half-dozen different translations and trying to meditate over the meaning. I also have a book on figurative expressions in Aramaic that I find helpful for understanding certain things that may be incorrectly glossed into english. Would be interested to know if there is a similar book for Greek.

At the end of the day, though, I find the safest entry point to interpretation being through the Spirit. I may not get interpretations correct for other people, but if I "ask, seek, knock" I do believe I get the interpretations that are meaningful for me at the time.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

I do appreciate scriptures from other faiths which tend to have: 1) Original Text 2)Translation 3)Commentary all together so there its clear where there is interpretation. Theres a significant difference between the inevitable "lost in translation" vs. the outright slipping in of extraneous words.

There is a Bible version called the "Companion" that is based on the text of the KJV, with extensive commentary in the margins geared to the Strong's Concordance and extensive references in the afterward all by Dr. Bullinger. Another source that has been helpful in my studies especially regarding the idioms and figures of speech is the Pe****ta, translated from the Aramaic by Lamsa. These and the Interlinear version are the three most valuable Bible translations in my collection, IMO.

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

vs. the outright slipping in of extraneous words.

You haven't mentioned if you are trying to establish which English version you feel is superior. I sometimes run into those who feel the KJV is the be all and end all when it comes to Bibles. You hit on an important point here, and one that (again) bears mention. The KJV slips in "extraneous" words too. They are in italics, in fact that is *why* they are in italics. This is explained by the authors in the 1611 version in a letter to the King, that the committee translated as best they could, but that certain concessions had to be made to allow the text to flow grammatically in English. Literary convention during the time the KJV was being composed was to use italics to note the words the translators inserted...not *emphasis* as the modern use of italics. In other words, I have heard otherwise sincere Christians emphasize words in the KJV that do not even exist in the original Greek text.

Of course, that's not the only conundrum. What is a bishopric? I think one will find that what the original writer (I believe in one of the books of Peter) meant and what the Archbishop of Canterbury had in mind were two different things. What is a unicorn? Unicorns are mentioned in the Old Testament at least two, possibly three times as I recall...that doesn't mean unicorns exist, does it?

That does not degrade the value of the text in my mind, but it does underscore the necessity to clarify the translational errors. Translators are biased, it is the nature of the beast; the student must account for that bias.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

At the end of the day, though, I find the safest entry point to interpretation being through the Spirit. I may not get interpretations correct for other people, but if I "ask, seek, knock" I do believe I get the interpretations that are meaningful for me at the time.

Ditto, I must agree. It works for me too.

[mee]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

there's a reasonably good discussion here:

Names of God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b'shalom

bananabrain

ok thanks ,

here are some more reasonably good disscussions for those who are into getting info about the name of God .
Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, The

[mee]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I want to personally do the work. Unfortunately, I face this little problem of needing to pay my bills...

its good that others before us have done the work with Jehovahs spirit to lead them ,and now true knowledge is abundant DANIEL 12;4 and they are ready to share .

Read the Bible Online

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

[juantoo3]

Mee, you are incorrigible.