|
|
Post by ninjaaron on Oct 10, 2009 0:11:35 GMT -8
Has anyone else besides myself heard of Matthew being written in Hebrew before being translated into Greek? The Church fathers heard of it. "Now, Matthew compliled the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew language, and then each one interperated them as they could" Papias c.125 AD, recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16 (c.325) "So, Matthew, with the Hebrews, in their own language, published a writing of a gospel, while Peter and Paul were in Rome evangellizing and founding the church." Irenaeus c.185, recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2 "as learned by tradition about the four gospels ... that, first, written was Matthew ... who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew letters;" Origen c.182-251, recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4 (all translations mine, based on the Greek and Latin texts provided in Synopsis Quatuor Evangeliorum). There are a lot more, but these are the earliest and most informative. |
|
|
|
Post by ultrajet on Apr 8, 2010 17:58:42 GMT -8
Green, Jay P., The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English, Hendrickson publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts,
Three languages are better than one mwuhahaha!
|
|
lowen
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by lowen on May 31, 2010 15:58:19 GMT -8
I recently started reading the English Standard Version (ESV). However, I have read the entire King James from Genesis to Revelation. Also, before I started reading the King James, I grew up reading the New King James Version.
Then someone came along in my life and had convinced me that only the King James was the true written word of God. However, one day I picked up a rather new translation of the Bible, the New Living Translation, and started reading it and really enjoyed it. I began to question whether or not my friend was right about the King James being the only true Bible. And over time, with more study, I decided that my friend and those who believe like him were wrong. Most of the so called "changes" and "perversions" that they found in the newer Bibles had very reasonable explanations in the foot notes. There was not attempt to ruin God's Word.
However, I picked up an Annotated Oxford Study Bible, which used the New Revised Standard Version, and found it to be a very faithful translation. The New Living Translation is a "thought-for-thought" translation, and tries to express the meaning of the verse more than the actual wording. The NRSV, on the other hand, was a very literal translation, and was based off of the RSV, which itself was based off of the RV, which was based off of the King James tradition.
The English Standard Version is based off of the Revised Standard Version, but is even -more- conservative and reads more like the King James in many areas. I bought me an ESV Bible a few days ago, and I really enjoy it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 6:03:09 GMT -8
What amazes me the most is when now we have all these NEW bible translations and versions that the KJV is under attack. I am getting sick and tired of hearing that the KJV is all false and that there is no truth found in it. This really makes me angry.
The NEW translations and versions are no better. They also have many flaws. Why are many verses taken out of the NEW translations? Even words like the BLOOD of Christ, the deity of Christ is taken out, hell, judgement, eternal damnation and many more words are taken out or changed with BETTER words. There is no longer any biblical doctrine to stand on. In many of the NEWER translations that came in the beginning of the 21st century, the word is so watered down there is nothing to chew on. Seriously folks.
The KVJ has been the most standing version in all of history and it still stands. God has the real truth and His translation will never fail. Am I saying that the KJV is the REAL deal? No I am not saying that. However it comes as close to the manuscripts that were used at that time period.
Yet I do know that when one is translating from a different language or belief system one can understand that man will get in the way some way or other and put their own translation to it.
If you lined up many of the newer translations and started to read through them you will see the differences. It is not good. Remember whatever is of God one can be sure that the enemy will be right behind to distort it.
If one is happy with the translation that they are using then use it. But don't sit there and condemn someone else's translation that they use because you disagree with it.
Now on that note I am going to go outside and stick my head in the snow bank to cool myself off. I am not angry at anyone here, I am just angry at the fact that PEOPLE think they have all the answers when they don't or they have the truth when they don't, or that they have the BEST translation when they don't.
Now I am heading for the snow bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Feb 17, 2014 9:47:21 GMT -8
Shalom! Every translation is exactly that a translation. They are all flawed and serious bias added regardless of the translator. I did not only bring up the King James I also mentioned the NIV (Nearly Inspired Version) CJB has flaws as well. So on this note one must be careful to build any type of doctrine without first looking into the verses they are reading using the original text and cross checking it. I wish it was easier but there has been some serious flaws throughout all of them. If I were to make a translation and change James brother of Yeshua to Yedidyah I think most would think I am a ego maniac and not even give me the time of day. The truth is Ya'akov was never translated to James but rather Jacob yet so many translations follow in the error started by King James who had to add his own name into the scripture to appease his ego. I have a  and the prophets translation from 1881 Vienna that has been passed down through my family (From my great grandfather) that goes into the errors of the King James and I must say it is a better translation from what I have found but it is not longer available because after the Holocaust the publishing company was no more. You know what has been preserved without additions and in it's originality closer than anything else, the and the Prophets protected in the original Hebrew for thousands of years. We have so many copies of the Greek that is used to piece the B'rit Chadashah together and some in Aramaic. Some have left things out and some have added things (Most copies found do not have John 8 in the text) so we need to be active in studying the word. We need to be active in serious study searching out His word in truth and in doing so we cannot build a doctrine on something we have read on the surface, we must look into the text deeper than what we simply read in our translations. Like I said I wish I had a better answer but when man get's involved they seem to snuff out some of Hashem's deeper meanings or add aspects to the text that never happened. Blessings, Yedidyah |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 11:14:11 GMT -8
Okay, now that I got my head out of the snow bank I can respond in a proper manner. However I did freeze my brain only because I stayed there too long in the snow bank. Yedidyah, I can accept what you have stated only because you put it in such a way that it did make me think. Also it is good to know that someone can agree that not all translations are correct and has flaws. Someone had also told me that the King at the time of the writing of KJV actually put in his name for the book of James. So if this is the case then what should have been the real name? And if he did add his name James, does this mean he added the book? I did find three books here in the library relating to the KJV. So I will go through them. I guess the question that I have now is what is the closest translation to being to the actual word of God? What about the versions that came before the KJV? Such as the Geneva bible, Wycliffe and a few others? What about the Amplified bible, which adds the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek? Someone stated that the bible also was in Aramaic. Is this true? I just want the truth, not a lie.  Sigh Moriah Ruth |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 11:17:40 GMT -8
Yedidyah,
Interesting that you stated that even the Complete Jewish Bible is flawed. We are all reading flawed bibles? Father God help us. Where is the real truth?
What about the other Jewish texts, are they flawed also?
Moriah Ruth
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Feb 17, 2014 14:58:53 GMT -8
What amazes me the most is when now we have all these NEW bible translations and versions that the KJV is under attack. I am getting sick and tired of hearing that the KJV is all false and that there is no truth found in it. This really makes me angry. The NEW translations and versions are no better. They also have many flaws. Why are many verses taken out of the NEW translations? Ruth, you are taking this to extremes no one here meant. No one has said "the KJV is all false." However there are many, many errors in the text, especially in the "New Testament." And yes, there are still errors in all the new versions. However most are better than the KJV, by far. Even the New King James corrected a lot of the errors and is much more readable; a thing which makes it less likely we'll misunderstand what we read. Interesting that you stated that even the Complete Jewish Bible is flawed. We are all reading flawed bibles? Father God help us. Where is the real truth? . Everything must be brought back to . If it in any way disagrees, either the document is flawed, or our understanding is in error. But if you bring it all back to the things which came before and were proven, especially , then you can still glean the original meaning and intent of the newer documents- even if there was tampering! You asked why some words are dropped in many newer translations. It is because they can be proven to have been added to scripture long after the fact. The ESV drops entire passages because they use the oldest document still in existence, and some passages are not there. I like the NASB, which often leaves these in but italicizes them so you know they were added later and can make up your own mind whether it helps understanding or possibly changes the original message. As to new translations, as though they usurp the tried and true KJV- there have always been new translations through the centuries. The KJV was "tried and true" though only because both Catholics and Protestants recite as a mantra they believe it is the inspired word of God whilst holding their KJV Bibles. Belief in the KJV was so ridiculous when I was growing up that it wasn't uncommon for people to think the Hebrews said "Thee" and Thou." Trust the Author, not just the book. Trust the Word, but never the translators; especially if they translated into Greek or Latin, or any of the modern languages. My opinion ... Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 17:36:58 GMT -8
Hi Alon, "Ruth, you are taking this to extremes no one here meant. This is why I stuck my head in the snow bank to cool my anger.  So who added the extra verses to the KJV and why? And were the people who put forth the KJV Roman Catholic or Protestant? What exactly is the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts? And what about the other translations before KJV? Moriah Ruth |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 5:45:01 GMT -8
Thank you Alon for explaining.
|
|
Loxody
Junior Member
Posts: 63 
|
Post by Loxody on Jun 18, 2015 7:12:02 GMT -8
Shalom!
I typically use the Artscroll Stone Edtidion Hebrew/English Tanach for the Tanach and the TLV for the B'rit Chadashah, although I do use the NASB for the full Bible a lot because I have a full Hebrew-English Bible from the Bible Society in Israel which contains both the Tanach and B'rit Chadashah in both Hebrew and English. It uses the NASB for the English and the modern Hebrew NT for the B'rit Chadashah in Hebrew.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Mar 23, 2016 11:32:50 GMT -8
I have just bought a copy of the Jewish New Testament and now wish I had pushed the boat out for the complete Bible version instead. But I also wanted the Commentary by the same author and could not afford all three - or even the complete Bible plus the commentary, unfortunately. I love the Jewish New Testament though and intend to take it to church on Sunday and use it there  |
|
Loxody
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by Loxody on Sept 30, 2016 7:02:27 GMT -8
|
|
and the prophets translation from 1881 Vienna that has been passed down through my family (From my great grandfather) that goes into the errors of the King James and I must say it is a better translation from what I have found but it is not longer available because after the Holocaust the publishing company was no more. 
