Logical ARGUMENT – (1) Defining a word or a name using ROOT WORD/S.

[aha]

How can you state that the thought at the time of writing scripture could ever be wrong?

Hi Mr. FCJ,

Pardon or I hope you won’t mind if I use illustration or pictures.

In many cases, at least for me, pictures or illustrations makes it easier to spot the difference.

I believe the concerned phrase in question is “the prevailing thoughts at that time can be wrong”

Picture no. 1: A group of people, with political powers assigned “Thursday” to the 5th day of week. Aligned with the prevailing thoughts or culture at that time: they assigned the name of the day as Thor’s day. While other culture, who do not regard Thor, but the prevailing thought regard Jupiter instead, thus they named the 5th day as “Jueves” instead..

Picture no. 2 The translators of the scripture chooses a more appropriate terms to be use based on their prevailing thoughts.

Picture no. 3 Modern day people, like us, posting in public forums defining a word with its root word. And that word may be found in the Scriptures or that word may be of more of usage in the Secular world.


Illustration no. 1 is the picture I have in mind when I mentioned the phrase: “prevailing thought at that time can be wrong”. ie: the people concerned are the group of people with political power to name days, or ancient people giving names to a physical things or a thought.

Illustration No. 2 is not the picture I have in mind with usage of the mentioned phrase.

Thanks for raising it up, as others may see that Picture no. 2 is being described, no, that is not the intention.

The thread is about Picture no. 3 reminding to "be careful" because of picture no. 1

 

[aha]

Maybe aha means the particular paraphrase, not the translation? At the time of writing scripture, God Himself inspired the prophets to speak and the scribes wrote down what was said. It cannot be wrong. The orginal manuscripts, in Hebrew and Greek, were always copied word for word, they were just not allowed to copy them wrong or insert their own ideas.

This came later in commmentsties like the Talmud, mIshnah, and paraphrased Bibles. In translations, for the most part its word for word unless the translators are using dynamic equivalency or they just want to update the language ie. NIV. The KJV is of its time using 16th century english BUT its a translation from the original tongues, not a translation of a translation, eg it wasnt an english translation of the latin translation.

I wouldnt get too caught up in it personally. For me its a bit fruitless to argue over different translations. Some people like to read the Amplified Bible, but I always found it confusing having so much different choices of words. I am a crossword and scrabble fan though, but to me the Bible is better appreciated as Gods stories than quibbles over single words.

Thanks! The first sentence sums it up

Yes: I do believe that the translators are divinely guided.

Just to add thought:
I see it as a tool: looking for root words and looking for different translations.. it is good tool to study the Scriptures.

To add a tool: I read it here first time also in this forum, and it pretty sums up the idea, the thought, the truth in it: "the Bible interpret itself", "it does not contradict itself" : meaning there is harmony in each bible verse, may it be in the OT or NT.

 

[Lanolin]

Thanks! The first sentence sums it up

Yes: I do believe that the translators are divinely guided.

Just to add thought:
I see it as a tool: looking for root words and looking for different translations.. it is good tool to study the Scriptures.

To add a tool: I read it here first time also in this forum, and it pretty sums up the idea, the thought, the truth in it: "the Bible interpret itself", "it does not contradict itself" : meaning there is harmony in each bible verse, may it be in the OT or NT.

Thats good to know aha.
Personally and for my own study I just prefer to stick with one version of the Holy Bible.
Otherwise I get confused but that is just me.
When I was teaching children we used beginners Bible or CEV which were paraphrases, and they were simplified so children could understand them. But sometimes the way the Bible is taught with children is not always how I would personally teach it, for example, I would not jump around from story to story or fix on certain topics, I would prefer just to read the Bible from beginning to end because it is a story.
Memory verses are fine but if you are only learning them in isolation its not as good as if you were reading the whole story first.

When I first started reading the Bible I did have a lot of tools to help me understand the background of it like a bible dictionary, bible handbook, bible for dummies, illustrated bibles, a bible atlas. But you know the best thing? ALWAYS pray before you read scripture and God will guide you. Then you can understand the meaning. Its like if you are reading a book you can just call up the author and ask them about what they wrote. How cool is that?

One online tool I do use is Biblehub, but this tends to be more when other people are discussing the Bible and they are using a translation that is different from mine, I want to find out what their version says compared with my version, and sometimes its very different. Sometimes the words arent even there. Which can be a bit disturbing.

Regarding root words its good to go back to the original manuscript, so if we go back to say the chapter in corinthians where its often translated as LOVE but in my version the word used is CHARITY, but in the original greek it was AGAPE. And this was meaning all encompassing, unconditional love. Why the translators of my version didnt just use the word love? They were using the closest word in english to what AGAPE means. When I read this version of the Bible, I understand this because in another part of scripture it will say what use is it to love others who can return your love as even sinners do the same. When it even says to love your enemies, what kind of love is this?

Many people dont really understand the concept of charity, they think well we dont need to even deign to think about people who are lesser or worse off them themselves, but when you think about how God loves us by sending us Jesus to live amongst us ---how he was patient and kind and didnt hold our wrongs agsinst us but chose to forgive us. That is love! That is charity! Its not just this common definition of love between a man and a woman or mutual affection. Its not love that says I will love you only if you are rich and treat me nice. Or if you do everything right, my way. Its actually unconditional.