paulmarkj said:... should the church translate the bible as accurately as possible (and change their beliefs accordingly) or should the church stick to existing beliefs and doctrines?
paulmarkj said:Or perhaps people believe that the existing versions [of the bible] are the most accurate.
paulmarkj said:... The Unvarnished Gospels book ... does show there are different ways of translating the original.
Agreed.leejosepho said:Some "versions" or "translations" are certainly more accurate than others, but even the “original writings” could only be of greatest value to an individual or to individuals who first clearly understand their context.
paulmarkj said:I have just finished reading a modern translation of the Gospels translated by Andy Gaus. Gaus was used to reading the gospels in their original language and wanted to make the originals available to everyone. The book is called The Unvarnished Gospels.
I wanted to ask a general question, particularly to Christians,
about the accuracy of translations in the bible: should the church translate the bible as accurately as possible (and change their beliefs accordingly) or should the church stick to existing beliefs and doctrines? Or perhaps people believe that the existing versions are the most accurate.
I am not saying that the The Unvarnished Gospels book is a better or worse translation than any other, but it does show there are different ways of translating the original.
There it is! I knew eventually we would agree on something... As the NIV is my preference also.kal-el said:I prefer the New International Version. As I think, it's easier to understand, easy to read, and less confusing than others (King James, New American Standard), but that's just me.:2razz:
Apostle13 said:There it is! I knew eventually we would agree on something... As the NIV is my preference also.
Naa... Truthfully I kinda sorta like you... But you know even more, I love my 11 year old son, and yet he still manages to annoy me almost daily.:2razz:kal-el said:That's good to hear. We have finally come to agreement. See, I'm not all that bad.:lol:
Apostle13 said:Due to language progression it is only fitting that we have more modern versions for our understanding ...
Apostle13 said:Naa... Truthfully I kinda sorta like you... But you know even more, I love my 11 year old son, and yet he still manages to annoy me almost daily.:2razz:
I don't know language progression maybe I just coined it here. Sounded good though...lol Anyways it is pretty much self defining.leejosepho said:I am not familiar with the term "language progression", but the idea of "versions" actually scares me a bit when a reliable "translation" (sans editorial interpretation) is what is truly being sought.
The King James original is most poetic... And the one I've memorized for quotes.Teenonfire4him said:I prefer the Living Translation, i have the touch point version, which just makes it easier to navigate. AND it has footnootes of how different words are said in different translations or in Greek.
teenonfire4him77 said:I prefer the Living Translation, i have the touch point version, which just makes it easier to navigate. AND it has footnootes of how different words are said in different translations or in Greek.
It is in modern language, so it provides a better understanding for me.
The NIV is good too, althought i don't use it as much because the Touch Point has an easier navigation.
Oh yes :doh I meant to comment on that in my previous post, got side-tracked.kal-el said:The New Living translation is basically the same as the NIV, they're both equally good for daily reading and comprehending. I am not familiar with the touch point version.
kal-el said:Wow, I have not come across this translation you talk about. Where can I get it?
Well, I'm no Christian, but I feel that I am well-equipped enough to respond to your catechism.
I think that if they base an entire religion on the bible, they should encourage that the bible be, and stick to accurate translations. Currently, one can purchase a bible in many different translations. They're options are perdurable. Study bibles give one background, data, and explanations of difficult to comrehend verses. I prefer the New International Version. As I think, it's easier to understand, easy to read, and less confusing than others (King James, New American Standard), but that's just me.
What does this book only contain the Gospels? How exactly is it different?
The Unvarnished Gospels said:When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they got together, she was found to be carrying a child in her belly by means of holy spirit
Or compareThe Unvarnished Gospels said:Seeing the crowds he went up the mountain, and as he sat there his students came to him, and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
“The poor are in luck, the kingdom of the skies is theirs.
“The mourners are in luck: they will be consoled.”
Gaus translates seems to be more readable:New Jerusalem Bible said:John also declared, “I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove and resting on him. I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptize with water had said to me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is going to baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ Yes, I have seen and I am the witness that he is the Chosen One of God.
The Unvarnished Gospels said:And John has testified, saying, “I saw the breath descending like a dove from the sky, how it alighted upon him. And I didn’t know him, but it was the one who sent me to bathe in the water who said, ‘Whoever you see the breath descending and alighting upon, that’s the one who will bathe them in the sacred breath.’ And I have seen and certified that this is the son of God
Oh nice, fuel his (kal-el's) fire... Sky like in Sky Pixie:lol:paulmarkj said:More controversially, it translates some key words differently: eg: sky instead of heaven.
Apostle13 said:Oh nice, fuel his (kal-el's) fire... Sky like in Sky Pixie:lol:
George_Washington said:I would say the most accurate translation of the Bible is the New American Bible. It's definitely the most recent and is full of footnotes to help you read and analyze scripture.
kal-el said:I don't know, I'll stick to my NIV. This website lists all the major English Translations of the bible:
http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm
He will make a far better Christian then he ever did an atheist... I prophecy.George_Washington said:lol Um, you read the Bible a lot? I thought you were an atheist.
Did you get a look at the link I provided earlier on this thread?kal-el said:Haha, I'll overlook that. But seriously, at the time the bible was first written, it wasn't coherent to say the least, no chapters or verses, just writing. Letters or sermons. (Except Psalms) Over the centuries, those writings were organized into chapter-like divisions. In 1551, Robert Estienne was the first printer who organized the bible as we know it today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Estienne Can you even envision how difficult it would be to find a verse in the bible without any numbers identifying it?
kal-el said:I don't know, I'll stick to my NIV. This website lists all the major English Translations of the bible:
http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm
George_Washington said:lol Um, you read the Bible a lot? I thought you were an atheist.
Originally posted by Apostle 13
Did you get a look at the link I provided earlier on this thread?
Originally posted by paulmarkj
Personally, I am not a Christian, though I believe that events did happen and the bible is very influential, so it is stil an important document.
I realise that some people take the view that they believe in God and this is the basis of their religion, but surely their belief stems from the bible, ie: without the bible, beleifs would be different.
kal-el said:You thought right. I like reading the bible. You want to know what you intend to bash, right? You know what they say, "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer."
haha its not electronic. It just ocassionally within the book has like an explnation or summery of a bible story or important verse.Apostle13 said:Oh yes :doh I meant to comment on that in my previous post, got side-tracked.
It's good to have the actual word meanings right there in footnote.
Could you explain touchpoint? Almost sounds technical/electronic..?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?