Favorite Bible Version

you sure? i count four: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Biblegenesis 22:14, exodus 17:15, judges 6:24 are all names of places that use the ha-shem as a root. that's a little close to numerology. why should it matter how many different ways a name is translated or transliterated? it SHOULD only be translated ONE way. (similar to your point, there is only ONE god)but i'll repeat it again: god's name is . period. everytime you read "LORD" and "jehovah" that's what it says in hebrew - yud heh vav heh. the proper pronounciation, with the implied vowels, is yahweh. but we'll come back to that -- nobody pronounces hebrew names correctly. this bit is also not true:

quote:

---

Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

quote:

---

Gen 21:33 And [Abraham] planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.

---

according to genesis, abraham and the patriarchs DID know ha-shem, the name of the lord. remember, that's the same name in the hebrew -- . yes, this WOULD be a problem if we only read the english version. here's how they're pronounced in hebrew. יְהוֹיָקִים -- YeHOYaQYM. yehoyakim. יחִיָּה -- YeCHYaH -- yechiah. this one's actually a good counter example too, because the part referring to god is at the end: see the -yah? god's name starts yah- yud HEH not yud CHET. the letters are closely pronouced, but not the same. it screws me up figuring out gender all the time in hebrew. יהוֹשָׁפָט -- Y'HOSHaFat. yehoshaphat. יְהוֹחָנָן -- YeHOCHaNaN. יְהוֹיָכִין -- YeHOYaCYN. yehoiakin. (note also that there is no "cha" as in "change" sound in hebrew. the way it's approximated today is a tsadi with an apostrophe, not a kaf. kaf's are pronounced like k's) יְהוֹיָדָע -- YeHOYaDa'A. yehoiada'a. יְהוֹרָם -- YeHORaM. yehoram. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ -- YeHOSHu'A. yehoshua (joshua) or in greek ihsoue or yehsous (jesus). i have also never seen ANY bible tell us about isaJAH, jeremJAH, zacharJAH, zephanJAH, obadJAH, or nehemJAH. it's all the same root. why is it -YAH here?as i pointed about, we don't pronounce ANY hebrew name correctly. yitsak becomes "isaac" and yehoshua becomes "joshua" or "jesus." yehudi becomes "jewish." yerushalym becomes "jerusalem." yordan becomes "jordan." etc. it's part of the anglicization of the text -- but i promise you that's not how they say the names in synagogue, even if jews today commonly use the anglicized names in casual speech. one problem, it's TWO letters. yud-heh. vowels don't count. it's simply a shortening of YHVH, much like "el" is related to "elohym." and if you're counting names of places that use YHVH as a root, why not count names that use YH as a root too? like all of the ones we just talked about above. bit of a double standard. what makes you suppose these are the marks of god instead of something done intentionally by translators, or just you reading way to much into numerical significance?[edit] also, take a look at the formatting of my post -- by hitting the peek button -- to see the different kinds of quoting tags. it'll make things much easier to read.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-25-2005 04:33 PMThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-25-2005 05:10 PM

---

אָרַח

"dag" is the hebrew word for fish. it says fish.you've got a bit of a problem, though. the KJB still says fish in jonah:

quote:

---

Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

---

surely, if it's inerrant they would have said "whale." there is a word that the kjv translators translated as "whale," too.

quote:

---

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

quote:

---

Job 7:12 [Am] I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me?

---

quote:

---

Eze 32:2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou [art] as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.

---

it uses the same word for each of these, and that's every mention of the word "whale" in the bible. if you really want to know, none of them are probably whales -- it seems to be referring to sea serpents. the word used, tanniyn, means snake. it's the animal that moses's staff becomes when he drops in pharoah's court. although, i admit, turning into a whale would be damned impressive.but the point is that you have to have ANOTHER double standard here. by "fish" they meant whale, even though they had a word for whale. or, if they DIDN'T have a word for whale, than the translation of tanniyn is in error.i'd go for the second, personally. the only strictly literal translation is "big fish." "dag gadol" is not exactly a complex phrase in hebrew. "great fish" is ok, because it's just a synonym and sounds more poetic. but "whale" and "sea creature" and "sea monster" are not what it says. it say big fish.maybe it MEANS one of those things, but which is more important to you? literal translation, or translation of ideas? i didn't check all of those, but you must be referring to matthew. the ones i DID check all say "fish" in jonah. these guys could EASILY swallow a human whole. although, i doubt strongly that a person could live through it. they're not predatory, but an accidental swallowing would drown a person. actually, i don't think a person could live in ANYTHING'S stomach.maybe they meant a whale. who knows -- but in jonah it says "fish" and the KJV even translates it as such. if the kjv changes what 2 samuel says regarding goliath and his brother, why not change "fish" to "whale" as well for the sake of inter-text accuracy as well? the kjv says FISH:

quote:

---

Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three night

---

---

אָרַח

i'm not even going to look over this, as it appears to be a lengthy cut and paste, and all stuff i've heard before anyways. i promise you, i have not overlooked anything.the hebrew word translated as "hell" is — or sheol. that's what it says. complaining that it's WRONG is like complaining the hebrew names version is wrong because it says "havah" instead of "eve." one is the anglicized version of the original word, and the other is the original word. same deal with the greek. the greek word translated as hell is adhz -- hades. hades is the word in the original, and "hell" is the anglicized version of the same concept in hebrew: sheol.you can complain all you want, but go pick up a copy an interlineal text and see for yourself. the originals say "sheol" and "hades." what's to overlook? all kinds of propaganda about someone's preference? it's what the source documents say, so it's valid. the end.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-25-2005 05:02 PM

---

אָרַח

the actual text seems to have had very little modification done to the ot after 200 bc, and textual hints point to a date of about 600 bc. emendations, vowels, etc, don't really count for the same reason that footnotes don't count in the modern kjv.there are hints at corrections, but usually it's one book correcting the other, ie: chronicles correcting sam/kings, or a controversial phrase or two removed between the septuagint and masoretic. but the degree of similarity between the sept, mas, and qumran documents indicates that it was written and copied with very little modifaction.further, the compilation of books from multiple sources (j,e,d,p,l) or multiple books from the same source (q) indicates that the stories had a written history before being written in their modern forms, which suggests internal accuracy was more of a concern than fixing mistakes. some texts could well go back to 600 bc in something close to their modern forms (albeit possibly in separate parts).

---

אָרַח

brand -- i've looked at an analyzed a lot of different translations, trying to find "the right one." i'm sad to say that it simply doesn't exist. every translation i've ever read has some kind of dogma attached to it; a filter through which the translators checks his results. even my current favourite translation of the ot, the jps, does this. it considers "ben-elohym" too polytheistic for its tastes, and renders the phrase "-divine beings-" instead of the more literal "sons of god."frankly, issues like this annoy me in every translation. some more than others. i've also found that my own understanding how the culture and languistic customs behind the translation was severely lacking. my current "solution" to this is learning to read (and speak) hebrew. i'm finding it very illuminating in the respects of how language is used. but more importantly, why read the king james translation of the masoretic text when you can read the masoretic text itself?surely, just because of language differences, something is lost. i know i understand the english bible a lot better for knowing a little hebrew. do i think the masoretic text is perfect? well, certainly more so than the kjv or other translations. but it does have its share of issues too -- some of them have been pointed out above. i hate to point it out, but you don't need more than one bible for it to be contradictory. there's three contradictions above, two of them in the kjv text.a church preaching that there is only one true bible, and all others are somehow wrong, is quite dangerous. it's the same line of thought that originally prohibited the translations into the common language (tyndale, luther, etc). the idea was that the latin vulgate was perfect -- and only the church could read and interpret the bible, and would tell the congregation what to believe. i see a lot of "this is what the bible says" being preached. it's pretty easy to see what the bible says, imo. you just pick one up and read it. usually when someone talks about what the bible says, they're wrong. we all know the story of adam's apple, moses crossing the red sea, and that noah took 2 of each animal on the ark. but the bible never says what kind fruit (it can't be an apple, btw), it says moses crossed the sea of reeds, and noah either took 2 of each or 7 of each, depending.the problem is compounded because people see certain things when they're told to look for them; the fallacy of positive instances. they see things like original sin/the fall, the devil competing with god for heaven before the creation, and a false sense of eternal life implied for everyone -- they're not really even there. it's just one group's reading. the people who actually wrote most of the bible don't hold any of these beliefs.people should be encouraged to read the bible and make up their own minds, not blindly follow church doctrine. more translations? i think that's a good thing. surely it calls more people to christ. i don't think a few words being translated differently is hiding the truth, or that it really means their worshipping the devil or something.and if people are gonna be snooty about one particular version -- well, mine's older than theirs, and written in the right language. my bible professor once showed us a scribal error. strangely enough, a lot of hebrew letters look very, very similar because of their consistent block style. a nun-sofit looks a lot like a vav with a longer tail. don't draw a line long enough by accident, and you've changed the letter. similarly, a bet can become a gimel. a chet and a heh can be interchanged pretty easily (as shown above). this can quite easily change what word is being used.now, an intentional change for theological reasons i CAN show you (in the kjv, even).

quote:

---

Deu 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

---

the phrase used here is "beni yisra'el." but does this make sense at all? god divided the nations in genesis 11. israel hadn't been born yet, let alone have children, let alone have a nation. how would god number the nations according the number of israelites? even supposing divine foresight, the number of israelites WHEN?if it helps, the greek septuagint (400 years older than the masoretic, but a translation) says that god numbered the nations according to the number of the sons of god. the next verse says "but israel belongs to the lord."what it's saying is that the lord rules israel -- and a son of god rules over every other nation. if "sons of god" means angels, or perhaps "gods" that's a tad polytheistic, isn't it? maybe it just means "kings" but there was apparently enough debate that it was CHANGED somewhere between the septuagint and the masoretic. polytheism and judaism don't go together well.the kjv translates the masoretic. most bibles today translate the masoretic, but pay attention to the septuagint. the kjv simply translates the edit faithfully -- shouldn't a truly inspired translation have fixed it? or do you assert that the one that makes no sense is right, and god is trying to confuse us?anyways, this is my favourite kjv argument: you can't possibly claim that reading and understand the hebrew is the same experience as reading english. even if the translation IS 100% accurate, the way it's read is just different, and more involved.

quote:

---

The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King

​

[...] Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

​

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

---

quote:

---

EvC user and close friend Brennakimi writes:

​

if we start a campaign saying that theocratic monarchy is god's form of government and that voting is devil worship, do you think we could take our country back?

---

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-26-2005 12:28 AM

---

אָרַח

bit on my plate at the moment, but i'll try have a look at some point.but i do think it's pretty evident that the translations done by native-speakers tend to be better than non-native-speakers.

---

אָרַח

the point is that this confusion is not a product of the niv translators and their decisions. it's in the "original" source that niv and the kjv both translated.the kjv is also not free of similar errors. i can point out lots of similar contradictions, even in the kjv. for instance, we all know that jesus's earthly (step) father was joseph. who was joseph's father? seems to me that if you REALLY believe it is the word of god, and you actually respect god, you'd treat it with a little more care. but it's really not the point. none of this is.i've pointed out why many of these "kjv only" arguments are simply worthless. any attempt to answer why, for instance, the norse "hell" is more appropriate than the jewish "sheol" or the greek "hades?" or even an opinion of whether internal accuracy is more important than inter-text consistency? or which is more important, a literal rendering, or a rendering of the ideas?

---

אָרַח

brand, attempting to write off arguments in such a manner is not usually looked upon kindly here. we could just as easily say "well, you're a fundamentalist christian nutter. what else should we expect from you?" but neither is a good argument, and neither is addressing what people have to say.we're about debate, not name-calling and running away. and the insinuation that some of us are not good enough believers is pretty insulting. i didn't bring up the argument. dave and you did. the two of you, and the source you both quoted, argued that the hebrew or the greek words should NOT be included in the text. i was just pointing out that, since it's a proper name, it's completely within the realm of validity to use the transliterated names. it doesn't make a text more or less accurate -- it's the same thing. and that's fine. they are free to debate it. you assert that our faith is somehow weak for our opinions of different texts. is your faith so weak that you can't stay and debate it with us? isn't the kjv bible the all-time best seller? the surest way to make money in the publishing business is to put out a kjv bible. it's public domain, which means you don't have to pay anyone, which means it's 100% profit. and you know it'll sell. alot.

---

אָרַח