Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? (1267 Views)
Which Bible Translation Is Correct Here? / Which Bible Character Would You Pick For A Hangout And Why? / What's Your Favourite Bible Translation And Why? (2) (3) (4)
| Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by FantomGreenz(m): 12:42pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
Needless to say there are numerous bible translation out in the market, but most are written with archaic words that are not used in this contemporary time unless when the need arises. So is there any recommendation for a bible translation that's quite easy to understand and is small sized, or preferably in app version for download. Cc Lalasticlala Ishilove |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 12:55pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
Stop looking for a Bible translation that is easy to understand. This will lead you to picking up corrupt books written by Satan himself but disguises it as the Bible. Read thread below to see why all other Bible versions are Satan's handwork except the King James Version. https://www.nairaland.com/4957299/bible-sword-butter-knife-why What you need is to get born again i.e get born of spirit before you can understand the King James Version which is God's only word in English. If you are not born again, you will never understand the words of God the Father. That's why many think the KJV is archaic English. 2 Likes 2 Shares
|
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by pocohantas(f): 12:58pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI:
|
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by MrPresident1: 1:36pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
If you're not using KJV, you're not using a sharp sword, you're using a blunted pen knife 1 Like |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by FantomGreenz(m): 2:26pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI:Wow, frankly that was unveiling. A random person can barely figure that out. 2 Likes |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by sulasa07(m): 2:30pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
[quote author=pocohantas post=80484639][/quote] Is it not the same KJV that's said to have more than 50000 errors, I tank GOD for who I am 1 Like |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 3:14pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
sulasa07: Why not point out the errors for us to see and weigh, instead of relying on hearsays? |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by sulasa07(m): 5:29pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI:Genesis 20:13 – The word translated as “God” is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say “gods.” There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. 1 demerit. Genesis 35:7 – The word translated as “God” is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say “gods.” There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. 1 demerit. Genesis 38:18 – It is not a bracelet, it is a cord. The two are completely different words, both found in Numbers 19:15. 1 demerit. Genesis 49:6 – The word “wall” is incorrect. It is an ox. The translators mistakenly used the root shor , “wall” instead of shur , “carrier” to explain what is being said. 1 demerit. Ex 16:16 – Tent is singular, not plural. 1 demerit. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 5:56pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
sulasa07: You are a confusionist. Look at the verses below. We all know it God that told Abraham to leave his father's house and move to a land he will show him. But according to you, it is gods that told him. Please which God's and what are their names? Genesis 20:13 King James Version (KJV) And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother. Once again, which God's are you talking about? Mention their names. Genesis 35:7 King James Version (KJV) And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother. sulasa07: What is a cord? Look, the passage is talking about jewelry which signet and bracelets are. A cord is none of that. Even the passage in Numbers you referred me to doesn't have anything in common with your point as seen below. Genesis 38:18 King James Version (KJV) And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. Numbers 19:15 King James Version (KJV) And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean. sulasa07: Na wah for you o. Do you dig down an Ox? No, you dig down a wall. Genesis 49:6 King James Version (KJV) O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. sulasa07: Sorry, King James Version is written in Old English. Exodus 16:16 This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents. Do you know what your problem is? You think all these modern versions got translated from the same Hebrew and Greek manuscripts the King James Version was translated from. The modern versions got translates from perverted manuscripts written by Satan himself. That's why they are all corrupt, because they came from a corrupt source. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 11:32pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
FantomGreenz: OP, the New World Translation (NWT) stands tall above others.... I challenge you to check it out yourself. Then, compare it with other Bibles. You can read it online at .jw.org. Or request a hard copy from any JW or at the kingdom Hall nearest to you. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 11:36pm On Jul 21, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI: Believe this TRASH at your own peril. Fit for the dustbin... |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 4:25am On Jul 22, 2019 |
FantomGreenz:No Bible translation is perfect, but because learning Ancient Greek and Hebrew isn't an option for most, we end up having to utilize them. Depends somewhat on what you're looking for. If you're looking for the most literal translation possible, you'll want the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Unfortunately, because of how literal it is, the NASB sounds really stilted and wooden a good amount of the time. The most popular Bible in English is the New International Version, though some of the changes it went through in 2011 were controversial. While not necessarily that well-known, one I did like is the NET Bible, which is primarily used online (netbible.org). What sets this one apart is its extremely in-depth footnotes explaining its various translation choices and information about the underlying text. Other popular English ones are the New Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, Christian Standard Version, and English Standard Version. If you're just looking for a more comprehensible King James Version, there is the 21st Century King James Version. It keeps all the renderings of the King James Version--including its errors--but updates some of the more archaic words. 1 Like |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 5:15am On Jul 22, 2019 |
Janosky:Stands tall? I suppose it stands tall in supporting Jehovah's Witness doctrines but only because it's notorious for twisting its translation to fits JW ideas. alBHAGDADI:I don't know if "50,000" errors is true or not, but there are definitely a good number. Here are a few: Acts 7:4 and Hebrews 4:8 are, as should be obvious from context, are referring to Joshua from the New Testament. But the King James Version incorrectly translates Joshua as "Jesus." Acts 12:4 refers to Passover. The KJV incorrectly translates it as "Easter". The King James Version repeatedly refers to the unicorns (e.g. Numbers 23:22, Job 39:9-10, Isaiah 34:7), a fantasy beast. This is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word re'em. "Unicorn" doesn't even make sense in Deuteronomy 33:17 because it says that they have multiple horns whereas a unicorn, as implied by its very name, has only one. 1 Like |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by MrPresident1: 6:46am On Jul 22, 2019 |
RandomGuy48: Ewoooo, you people have started re-writing and mis-translating the KJV? Jesus! Very soon, the read WORD will be lost, people will be carrying zombie manuals about. God will not allow it to happen. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 7:08am On Jul 22, 2019 |
RandomGuy48: There is no error in the King James Version. What you think is an error is no error at all. Ignorance sometimes makes us see things as errors. The book of Acts is written on Greek. The hebrew name of Jesus is something close to Joshua. But when you transliterate it to Greek, the spelling change because some Hebrew letters are not found in Greek alphabets. It's the Greek derivative that gave us Jesus in English. Now, the book of Hebrews was written in Hebrew and to the Hebrews. Definitely, the name Joshua will appear in it's original form. So, when you see the name of Joshua appearing as Jesus in a Greek text, you should know that it was a transliteration, not an error. RandomGuy48: Read the link below. http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124 RandomGuy48: Unicorn is not a fantasy beast. Don't be fooled by Disney Land which shows a white horse with wings and a horn. Unicorn does exist. A Rhinoceros is a unicorn because it has only one horn. Google up. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 7:09am On Jul 22, 2019 |
Janosky: That satanic Bible written by Jehovah's False Witnesses to allign with their false doctrine. I spit on it. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 7:34am On Jul 22, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI:Yes there is. There are plenty. Just because such errors are inconvenient to the King James Only position (which was not believed in by the KJV translators, the readers at the time, or largely anyone until the Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson promoted it in the 20th century) doesn't mean they're not there. The book of Acts is written on Greek. The hebrew name of Jesus is something close to Joshua. But when you transliterate it to Greek, the spelling change because some Hebrew letters are not found in Greek alphabets. It's the Greek derivative that gave us Jesus in English.All you've explained is why they made the error. It's an understandable error. Jesus and Joshua are written the same way in Greek, and they didn't notice from context it was referring to Joshua. But other languages, including English, write Jesus and Joshua differently. Thus, they made an error by using Jesus instead of Joshua. Read the link below.While the link is correct in debunking the "Easter is pagan" myths, it is wrong in this translation. Despite the author's attempt to weasel out of the situation by saying it was Luke who used the word and thus it would have the Christian meaning, what it actually says is that Herod was planning to wait until the end of Passover to deal with Peter. But the end of Passover is after the end of Easter. Herod would have no reason to take Peter out at the end of Easter (while Passover was still going on), but every reason to wait until the end of Passover. Even if we assume the Christian holiday of Easter lasted as long as Passover back then, which we have absolutely no proof of as far as I am aware, Herod would care about Passover, not Easter. It should be Passover. Unicorn is not a fantasy beast. Don't be fooled by Disney Land which shows a white horse with wings and a horn.Except, as I noted and you ignored, the Bible says that the re'em (translated as unicorn in the KJV) has multiple horns. A unicorn, by definition, has one. 1 Like |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 8:43am On Jul 22, 2019 |
RandomGuy48: You need to understand that the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. But if you are using manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus etc to point out errors in the KJV, then you will be wrong because KJV doesn't come from the same parent as other translations. All you've explained is why they made the error. It's an understandable error. Jesus and Joshua are written the same way in Greek, and they didn't notice from context it was referring to Joshua. But other languages, including English, write Jesus and Joshua differently. Thus, they made an error by using Jesus instead of Joshua. They didn't make any error. Transliteration is what is confusing you. They used Jesus because Jesus is what the Greek derived for Joshua. It is the reader that has to understand that the Jesus spoken of there is not Jesus Christ but Joshua. According to you, they ought to have used Joshua so as to be specific of whom the passage is speaking of. No, to do that will be to add to the Bible. If the Bible says Joshua in Hebrew and Jesus in Greek, you have to interpret Joshua as Jesus when writting Greek, irrespective of what the passage is about. To make it clear, Joshua is a name in the Old testament written in Hebrew, right? Joshua was a prophet in the Old Testament and the name is also the Hebrew name of Our savior which became Jesus. When the New Testament was written, it was written in Greek. The writters had to look for a Greek derivative of Joshua because the Hebrew word had alphabets which couldn't be found in Greek, so they came up with Jesus. Now, we have established how Joshua became Jesus in Greek. If we are to write about Joshua the Old Testament Prophet in Greek, it makes no sense to now write it as Joshua when we have the Greek derivative as Jesus. Trying to be specific for the reader's understanding is the same thing as adding to the Bible. You just have to go with the Greek derivative and let the reader understand by himself that the Jesus spoken of there is not Jesus Christ but Joshua. You don't so that by writing Joshua instead of Jesus. Mind you, Joshua or Jesus as a common name back then. There was even someone in the new testament called Bar-Jesus which actually is Bar-Joshua. While the link is correct in debunking the "Easter is pagan" myths, it is wrong in this translation. Despite the author's attempt to weasel out of the situation by saying it was Luke who used the word and thus it would have the Christian meaning, what it actually says is that Herod was planning to wait until the end of Passover to deal with Peter. But the end of Passover is after the end of Easter. Herod would have no reason to take Peter out at the end of Easter (while Passover was still going on), but every reason to wait until the end of Passover. Even if we assume the Christian holiday of Easter lasted as long as Passover back then, which we have absolutely no proof of as far as I am aware, Herod would care about Passover, not Easter. It should be Passover. The Bible was written by Christians and from their point of view. Easter was a festival to rhem, so they chose to write it as Easter, not Passover which was done away with. But celebrations occur simultaneously. Passover was rhw shadow of Easter.
Which Bible says what? Your own foul manuscript? A unicorn is a Rhinoceros. It exists and that's what's referred to in the KJV. Remember God said he will preserve his word. But you guys claim there is no perfect word of God today. Shame on you all. I mean, look at what you call errors in the KJV, Joshua, unicorns etc. Isn't that ridiculous? We are talking about Bible versions which ommit complete verses, called Jesus Satan, called Joseph the father od Jesus, attacked the Trinity, deny the virgin birth, which are all key Christian doctrines, but here you are talking about unicorn and things you don't even understand how scholars arrived at them. Keep it up. Mind you, you have called God a liar by saying f he couldn't preserve his word. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 1:28am On Jul 23, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI:how can a true Christian spit on a copy of the holy Bible? Your Christianity begins & ends on your lips . Period!!! alB Pharisee of mumu doctrines and man made junk of falsehood. Shame on you.. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 1:32am On Jul 23, 2019 |
RandomGuy48: Baseless claims as usual. Any proof? |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 1:37am On Jul 23, 2019 |
MrPresident1: Ignorance is bliss indeed ! |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by alBHAGDADI: 3:20am On Jul 23, 2019 |
Janosky: The New World Translation made by the Jehovah's False Witnesses is not a copy of the Bible but and adulterated and corruption of the word of God done on the orders of 8 evil men calling themselves the Governing Body. It boldly denies the Trinity, omits key verses and was tailored to succumb to Jehovah's False Witnesses doctrines. It's like Date Guru Maharaji Ji writing his own Bible. I spit on it once again. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 3:53am On Jul 23, 2019 |
Before anything else, I want to make my position here clear. I do not dislike the KJV. If someone wants to use the KJV, I have no problem with it. There's a lot to like about it! The language is beautiful and the high degree of literalness in the translation while still being quite readable (the archaic language notwithstanding) is extremely impressive. Other translations that try to be as literal as possible, such as the NASB, end up with a good number of wooden and awkward passages as a result--though admittedly, the NASB goes for literalness harder than the KJV does. I don't agree with the idea that the KJV is the best English translation, but if someone is of that opinion I wouldn't have an issue with it. My problem is when people go past the idea of "the KJV is the best English translation" to the claim that no other translation should be used or that the KJV has no errors when it most certainly does. Anyway, we now move into the reply: alBHAGDADI:I'm aware it doesn't come from the same parent as most modern translations, as well as the weak attempts that King James Onlyists use to try to cast shade on the modern sources. But more to the point, even if we accept the Textus Receptus (its source for the New Testament) as completely correct--and I would say there are good reasons to believe it is not--the KJV still doesn't translate the Textus Receptus perfectly. Not to mention, this misses an important point I raised. Again: RandomGuy48:As I noted, the translators themselves certainly didn't hold to KJV Onlyism--their preface (which is unfortunately left out of modern versions of the KJV) was quite clear on that: "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere." Indeed, they point out how the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, was considered the Word of God despite containing various errors of translation: "The translation of the Seventy [Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome [Jerome] and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using of it so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." More could be pointed out... one may read the full thing here. So the translators did not hold to King James Onlyism. Nor did people for the next several centuries hold to this idea of KJV Onlyism; that only emerged in the 20th century. That's not to say there weren't those who were big fans of the KJV, or defenders of the Textus Receptus, but they were a far cry from modern KJV Onlyists. For example, John William Burgon (sometimes erroneously pointed to by KJV Onlyists as someone who held their views), who was a proponent of the KJV and the Textus Receptus, nevertheless stated "We hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Edition of our English Bible [the KJV], (if executed with consummate ability and learning), would at any time be a work of inestimable value" and "in not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly." (both quotes from his book The Revision Revised) So while the KJV was popular, and some would argue it was the best translation available, the notion of it being the only worthwhile translation, let alone one free of errors, was not entertained. Then Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day Adventist who liked the KJV because he thought it better supported the Adventist doctrines of soul sleep and continued keeping of the Sabbath, came along and published a pro-KJV book in 1930 and thus, more than 300 years after the KJV was published, the idea that it was somehow the only Bible to use came about. To be fair, it wasn't really Benjamin Wilkinson who popularized it... it was David Otis Fuller, who essentially edited out the various references to Ellen G. White and Seventh-Day Adventism that were in Wilkinson's book to make it appealing to non-SDAs and then published this new version. This idea of the KJV being some kind of perfectly preserved Bible translation wasn't known for centuries after its publication and hasn't even existed for a full century yet. Now, I'll be skipping past the attempted rebuttals to the errors I pointed out as I believe my points still stand and getting into a back-and-forth about specific errors not only isn't a productive usage of my time (I have already spent too much time writing up this post, quite frankly), but is missing the bigger picture that will be explained shortly. Thus, I'll move onto the overall point: Remember God said he will preserve his word. But you guys claim there is no perfect word of God today. Shame on you all. I mean, look at what you call errors in the KJV, Joshua, unicorns etc. Isn't that ridiculous?Those were just a few examples, and I was attempting to limit myself to issues of translation to keep it simple, rather than going into the more complex issues of the problems of the underlying Textus Receptus. We are talking about Bible versions which ommit complete verses, called Jesus Satan, called Joseph the father od Jesus, attacked the Trinity, deny the virgin birth, which are all key Christian doctrines, but here you are talking about unicorn and things you don't even understand how scholars arrived at them. Keep it up. Mind you, you have called God a liar by saying f he couldn't preserve his word.Again, if you think the KJV is superior to those other translations--though if these problems you're listing are references to what I think they are, then you are being rather misleading with them--then go right ahead and enjoy the KJV to your heart's content. The claim that the KJV has no errors, however, is itself an error. But what I find interesting is you say to deny the inerrancy of the KJV is to "call God a lair by saying f he couldn't preserve his word." Well, it is actually the KJV Onlyist who calls God a liar under this understanding of preservation. If the KJV is the "preservation" of God's word, then God actually broke the preservation promise because that means God's word wasn't properly preserved until the KJV, which was first published in 1611, meaning people were without it until then. Actually, not even then, as there were various revisions that it underwent over a long period of time until it got to its current iteration. While many were simple things like spelling updates, others actually did shift the meaning (e.g. Job 30:3 changing from flying to fleeing or Jeremiah 49:1 changing God to Gad; more can be found here). So even if the KJV has perfect preservation now, it certainly didn't in its original publication and took over a century to get it to it. And even if it did somehow have perfect even in its original form, that still doesn't solve the problem of God not preserving his word until the year 1611. Or is the claim that the Textus Receptus is the preserved text? Even assuming that’s true, that refutes the claim the KJV is perfect; it isn't a perfect translation of the Textus Receptus. And we still have the fact that God failed to preserve his word up until that point, as not a single manuscript has the exact text of the Textus Receptus… not a single one (this also dismisses the claim that there was a trail of preserved Greek manuscripts that lead to the KJV). This alleged perfect preservation was not available. So the claim that the KJV must be perfect because of the alleged doctrine of preservation serves to only contradict the doctrine of preservation as presented by the KJV Onlyist, as God DIDN’T preserve his word up until the KJV reached its final form. Thus, it is the King James Onlyist that is the one who calls God a liar for not preserving his words for so long. In fact, someone on another message board put it so well that I feel I have to simply quote them verbatim: God has preserved the actual words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles today in the same way as He did before 1611, and they are not found in the KJV. Your human erroneous non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning does not settle what the Scriptures teach about the preservation of the Scriptures. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning has to change the preservation of the words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles to some vague, unproven, dynamic-equivalent meaning or thought preservation in changing words in a different language. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning avoids and dodges the truth. The KJV translators pointed out that they did not provide an English word for every original-language word of Scripture in their multiple, varying original-language texts, and that they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. In addition, present post-1900 editions of the KJV do not even preserve every word found in the 1611 edition, and they add over 140 words not found in the 1611 edition. Over 2,000 changes were made to the 1611 edition of the KJV in most post-1900 KJV editions. The KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are. (Source: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/post-reformation-theologians-had-nothing-in-common-t6128-s30.html) |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 4:09am On Jul 23, 2019 |
Janosky:https://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/major-problems-with-the-new-world-translation/ https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 12:32pm On Jul 23, 2019 |
RandomGuy48: The links you shared is a load of crap. Many false claims and half truths. 1) Bible > Strong's > Greek > 2316 ◄ 2316. theos ► Strong's Concordance theos: God, a god Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine Transliteration: theos Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os) Definition: God, a god" # The Greeks says 'theos ' meaning 'God' or 'a god'. Therefore, John1:1,"the Word is a god " because "the Word is with ho theos (the God)", the Word is NOT 'ho theos'(the God). The Word (Logos) is divine, has divine nature. Man possesses divine nature (Psalm82:1,6. John10:34-36). ##*2) Your links claimed "Jehovah is not a biblical word". I ask, is Jesus a biblical word? Does letter. 'J' exist in Hebrew? https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/tetragrammaton-divine-name/ **3) Your link said "NWT did not translate Sheol ,Hades and Gehenna as hell" . (Yes !) "Because JWs do not believe in hell", That's a lie. JWs believe that hell is grave (Not hellfire), just as Sheol & Hades mean grave. Gehenna (Hebrew Gehinnom) is not a place of torture. No living being , ONLY dead criminals were thrown there. **4) JWs have NEVER said NWT "came directly from the Dead Sea Scrolls" ,as falsely claimed by one of your links. To set the records straight , pls read the link below: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/how-the-bible-came-to-us/ Hebrew Text: The New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953-1960) was based on Biblia Hebraica, by Rudolf Kittel. Since that time, updated editions of the Hebrew text, namely, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia Hebraica Quinta, have included recent research based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts. These scholarly works reproduce the Leningrad Codex in the main text along with footnotes that contain comparative wording from other sources, including the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitta. Both Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia Hebraica Quinta were consulted when preparing the present revision of the New World Translation. Greek Text: In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision. Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29 ; and Romans 16:24 . In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission." Shalom. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Ubenedictus(m): 12:26pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
RandomGuy48:Ofcourse translations are imperfect 1 Like |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Nobody: 12:31pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
Kjv is sufficient |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Dafemich(m): 1:11pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
Janosky:Don't read this version of the Bible, that another Jehovah witness Bible. If you are not king James version, then, it will be difficult for you to grow. When I first started as a Christian, I use to read new living translation, mean, I use to have problem. I was struggling with with, until I started reading King James version. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 1:35pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
* |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Nobody: 1:38pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
Janosky:archaic english is better than heresy laced up in eloquence. I rather have the true word of God in archaic english than demonic inspiration in modern English. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 1:43pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
Dafemich: The issue is not the NLT.... You dey LIE to claim you can't read and understand a modern English Bible, na who you wan deceive? $$ * Why you no type your post with archaic KJV English? Archaic KJV "thine, shalt, thy , behovest, looketh" is a poor substitute for the easy to read & comprehend NWT. If you value the truth, NWT is the way to go. |
| Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by Janosky: 1:49pm On Jul 26, 2019 |
solite3: What else should we expect from a Solite3 liar ? A man who lied that the person you call "my Father" is not your superior, is he being truthful? |
(1) (Reply)
Hindu Man Marries A Rat, Claiming It Is The Reincarnation Of His Dead Wife / Deeper Life Choir Sings Westlife Love Song / What Does The Holybook Say About Eating Too Much (gluttony)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 138 |