Main Problems with Translations:
Trinity - (Changing wording to refute or downplay the fact that God is three persons in one) Jesus Christ, The SON of GOD, changed to just "Jesus", "I and my Father are ONE", "God was Peirced for our transgressions" etc.
Gender Inclusive - (Changing MAN or MEN to People/Person/One) this is most often noted in the greek because of certain wordings of nouns being Masculine or Feminine, ie: ANGELS is ALWAYS Masculine, NEVER Femenine.
Missing Words Verses - Some Verses are left out entirely. the NEW version of the ESV is 500+ words shorter than the 2007 version, this is even shorter than the RSV it was translated from.
Other Changes - changing the words and thereby changing the meaning.
for more check out this link:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/16 ... _james.htm
-- Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:38 pm --
I think the admins because I tried to make a similar topic?Smile Awhile wrote:Whaa... Who changed that? I didn't make this a poll. (Did I?) I'm confused.
Wow, when did you learn to read Hebrew? I'm impressed!Smile Awhile wrote:I use the KJV. It is the exact words of the original Hebrew text. Other versions are just what man thinks that it says.
Actually, this statement couldn't be true, because no Bible is the exact words of the original Hebrew text. For one thing, we don't have the originals; the oldest manuscripts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating back to a couple hundred years before the time of Christ.
The second problem is, if the KJV were an exact translation of the Hebrew manuscripts we have today, it would be very difficult to understand. Here's an "exact" translation of Matthew 1:18-25:
Aren't you glad our translations aren't as literal as possible? No capitalization, no punctuation, no spaces between words or letters, and some wording that doesn't always sound right. If we didn't have good Bible scholars who know what they're doing when they translate the Scriptures for us, we'd be in trouble. But, we do have scholars and translaors who know what they're doing. And they're not devious evil men who want nothing better than to further the agenda of Satan and create Bibles with tons of mistakes. They use what they deem to be the best manuscripts, and they try to find the best renderings of the words.
So... I hate to break it to you... but, the translators today have a lot more to research and therefore a lot more knowledge about the original languages than the KJV translators did. So... some of today's translations could be superior... But, knowing people like you, you could never even consider that option.
I don't know where you're getting this information, but the translation mentality that you say is behind the KJV is the same mentality behind the modern versions. The scholars today have an even better idea of what English words should go with what Hebrew and Greek words than the KJV translators did 400 years ago. That's why, even though I know the KJV is a very good translation, I prefer modern translations because of the advantage that today's scholars have because of newer archaeological discoveries, among other things.Smile Awhile wrote:I don't read Hebrew. In reply to the rest, It's not the exact words, but most other versions take a word, take what it means, and puts in what they think the Bible meant by that. The KJV takes a word, and actually searches for the best matching word in English that means closest to the same thing.
and a bit on the dead sea scrolls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_s ... gnificance
Nobody said that the newer translations water down the truth. In fact, they may even give us a better grasp on the truth, because they have more manuscript evidence to work with than any other time in history! It's amazing the amount of assurance we can have that we have God's Word in English today, because there are so many manuscripts that we can use to test it against.OdysseyFan wrote:English changed that much in 100 years that the ESV has been revised twice only 6 years after the first printing? and again 4 years in 2011? and that far off from the RSV in 1977 and the ASV from only 1900? How can the Bible Scholars be so much smarter since 1611? the bible hasn't changed... just Man's Interpretation of it, watering down the truth to make it more "Readable" isn't necessary...
I don't understand why you don't want the Bible to be in the modern English language though, because that's exactly what the KJV translators did. William Tyndale's dream was to have the Bible in the common tongue so that "the average ploughboy" could have a better knowledge of the Scriptures than the priests of the middle ages. His translation, and later the KJV accomplished that dream! The KJV's purpose was to make the best translation that they could out of the existing manuscripts, as well as other translations like the Geneva Bible that they wanted to improve upon, and they wanted to make it readable in the common tongue.
The problem is, Elizabethan English is not the common tongue anymore. Therefore, respected, godly Bible scholars have come together to make masterful, accurate translations in the modern English language, and we can trust them just as much as we can trust the KJV of 1611.