Which Bible?

[Ghid]

I think we are in the presence of a budding philosopher, or not.
Very entertaining anyway, or not.

Wow, that is cowabungally cool. I hope the budding philosopher knows the Cotton Eyed Joe, the Twist, the Bunny Hop, the Maori War Dance, the Swing, and the Funky Chicken because after we decide whether to read the Epistle of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaiticus or Psalms in the Samaritan Pentateuch, we is gonna get down and boogie.

 

[Ghid]

I don't really understand anything you just said. Isn't this thread about Bible versions?

I'm really sorry that I made no sense, and yes, this thread is about which translation is good, but people want to know which translation because they want to understand God's message.

I tried to say that God's message is a becoming idea. It is more like a line or vector than like a point. It has momentum in a direction, not a position in space.

I'm Catholic, and I suspect that the previous line is not official Catholicism. My family is ecumenical beyond all normal ecumenicallity, so I'm not sure where I found the idea about the momentum of God's message. It might have come from my Chinese Buddhist relatives.

As an example of the momentum of the message, I offered a Biblical list: Cain was avenged 70 times; and guided by that rule the son's of Jacob "... came upon the city boldly and slew all the males ..." Holy moly Red Rider.

Then I noticed that God lowered the ratio to “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”, which is a ratio far exceeded when David “… arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins,…” Holy moly, cowabunga Red Rider, like did they have a moel, or did they just wack off the penai.

And with Jesus, the ratio went trotting below one. Now we must not take revenge at all. We must “ … love (our) neighbor as (ourselves).”

So, I think that like some folks have already said, deciding which translation is an interesting debate, but no particular version is as important as the whole. Learning to read the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin could be cool, but I have been told that Humanities departments in universities are staffed with people who see things through a cowabungally communist prism, so that would not be cool.

In conclusion, (Ms H says I must always have a conclusion.) If each version or verse is like a data point, most of them won’t be on the line, but they will all be on the trend.

 

[God is Love]

I'm really sorry that I made no sense, and yes, this thread is about which translation is good, but people want to know which translation because they want to understand God's message.

I tried to say that God's message is a becoming idea. It is more like a line or vector than like a point. It has momentum in a direction, not a position in space.

I'm Catholic, and I suspect that the previous line is not official Catholicism. My family is ecumenical beyond all normal ecumenicallity, so I'm not sure where I found the idea about the momentum of God's message. It might have come from my Chinese Buddhist relatives.

As an example of the momentum of the message, I offered a Biblical list: Cain was avenged 70 times; and guided by that rule the son's of Jacob "... came upon the city boldly and slew all the males ..." Holy moly Red Rider.

Then I noticed that God lowered the ratio to “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”, which is a ratio far exceeded when David “… arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins,…” Holy moly, cowabunga Red Rider, like did they have a moel, or did they just wack off the penai.

And with Jesus, the ratio went trotting below one. Now we must not take revenge at all. We must “ … love (our) neighbor as (ourselves).”

So, I think that like some folks have already said, deciding which translation is an interesting debate, but no particular version is as important as the whole. Learning to read the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin could be cool, but I have been told that Humanities departments in universities are staffed with people who see things through a cowabungally communist prism, so that would not be cool.

In conclusion, (Ms H says I must always have a conclusion.) If each version or verse is like a data point, most of them won’t be on the line, but they will all be on the trend.

Good conclusion Ghid.

 

[Ghid]

Good conclusion Ghid.

As the king (just to avoid confusion, this king is Elvis) would say, "Thank yah, verr much."

 

[THALLON]

The problem with scripture is translation. Each is accurate to a point. For example, only the other day I found out that the paving stone under the feet of God on mount Sinai was not sapphire as contained in some translations, but is actually blue Lapis, completely different stones. But I suppose if translators are trying to convey something they will use a common idea to make it more understandable. When you see these 'error's' they are not errors at all but simply variations to the environment? does that make any sense?

 

[Abdicate]

I agree... having learned Italian and Spanish, I find it's impossible sometimes to translate something into English that requires an understanding of the culture. If I say "que tio" literally it means "what uncle" but in reality there are like 6 different meanings for it - what a jerk, what a hunk, you're incredulous, what a savvy guy - it all requires an inflection in the voice and your surroundings. Hence the need for the Holy Spirit to help us out, I John 2:27.

 

[gonefishing]

The problem with scripture is translation. Each is accurate to a point. For example, only the other day I found out that the paving stone under the feet of God on mount Sinai was not sapphire as contained in some translations, but is actually blue Lapis, completely different stones. But I suppose if translators are trying to convey something they will use a common idea to make it more understandable. When you see these 'error's' they are not errors at all but simply variations to the environment? does that make any sense?

I remember reading this as well. I had to goggle blue lapis lazuli to know what this was. I don't consider it an error either.

 

[boltardy]

I agree... having learned Italian and Spanish, I find it's impossible sometimes to translate something into English that requires an understanding of the culture. If I say "que tio" literally it means "what uncle" but in reality there are like 6 different meanings for it - what a jerk, what a hunk, you're incredulous, what a savvy guy - it all requires an inflection in the voice and your surroundings. Hence the need for the Holy Spirit to help us out, I John 2:27.

Sure. I only speak English but lived in Wales for much of my life (say 7 to 13 and 18-40). Even though I don't speak the language, I know that there can for example be sentiment in an expression that just does not translate.

Only one I can think of of hand is that something like "Hi cariad bach" could sound right to me but say "hi, little dear" just wouldn't.

 

[calvin]

The problem with scripture is translation. Each is accurate to a point. For example, only the other day I found out that the paving stone under the feet of God on mount Sinai was not sapphire as contained in some translations, but is actually blue Lapis, completely different stones. But I suppose if translators are trying to convey something they will use a common idea to make it more understandable. When you see these 'error's' they are not errors at all but simply variations to the environment? does that make any sense?

Yes that is always going to be a problem for translators. Another is the description of the one seated on the throne in heaven given in Rev 4.3
One of the stones (Jasper)used as being descriptive of appearance apparently was different from the stone of the same name these days.