Recovery Bible = Corrupted Word Of God!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have issue with the stats you summarized. WHY is Sheol translated as "hell" only half of the time in the KJV? I demand consistency in the translation. Don't try to modify the text to promote some viewpoint. (almost all English translations do this, by the way, either in this area or some other ways).

I say that if you choose to use the word 'hell', then be consistent. Of course that would mean that Jacob declared he was going to hell to be with his supposedly dead son Joseph.

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Now if you meant that rather cold statement as a joke, then OK. But otherwise, it seems a rather foolish thing to say.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Now if you meant that rather cold statement as a joke, then OK. But otherwise, it seems a rather foolish thing to say.

Couldn’t agree more, as someone who speaks multiple languages. It’s sometimes a total impossibility trying to translate something into English, due to the fact that there is no such a concept that exist in the English language.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Now if you meant that rather cold statement as a joke, then OK. But otherwise, it seems a rather foolish thing to say.

I am speaking of the word Sheol, not in general. Sheol is a noun, a place. Consistency is important, even mandatory, in such a case.

Now I know that both of you knew what I meant in my post.

It is amazing to what lengths people will go to defend the concept of hell just because the KJV translators chose that path. Even to go so far as to insist that God was there to make sure they got it right.

Call me names all you want, but I am not as foolish as the majority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I am speaking of the word Sheol, not in general. Sheol is a noun, a place. Consistency is important, even mandatory, in such a case.

Now I know that both of you knew what I meant in my post.

It is amazing to what lengths people will go to defend the concept of hell just because the KJV translators chose that path. Even to go so far as to insist that God was there to make sure they got it right.

Call me names all you want, but I am not as foolish as the majority.

Timotheist, no one is calling you names.

[Timotheist]

Here we go again.

Taking something I said as something I did not say and running with that narrative, calling it "foolish".

I was looking over the "Heaven and Hellenism" thread again. Although a touchy topic, the give and take was quite civil, as compared with today.

[Bible-believer]

John 18:36 KJV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

RV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would be struggling so that I would not be delivered to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not from here.

NASV

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

If you are a pre-millennialist, you know the difference between with and without the word "now."

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

John 18:36 KJV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

RV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would be struggling so that I would not be delivered to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not from here.

NASV

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

If you are a pre-millennialist, you know the difference between with and without the word "now."

BB, please elaborate.

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

BB, please elaborate.

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

Out goes “NOW” from the RV, NASV (by the way, RV is just another copy of ASV kind) and etc, although every Greek manuscript extant says “Gk.: nun/νῦν nŷn.”
So, are you or not a pre-millennialist? If not, then we are not on the same ground.
Anyway, a man who is engaged in altering "words" is a man who is engaged in changing the meaning of a sentence.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Here we go again.

Taking something I said as something I did not say and running with that narrative, calling it "foolish".

I was looking over the "Heaven and Hellenism" thread again. Although a touchy topic, the give and take was quite civil, as compared with today.

Timotheist,

Would you please do me a favor and add a link to the thread that you referred to. I have read 10 other threads (as you can see from my posts) while trying to get to that one.

Thanks

[Timotheist]

i found it by using the search feature up at the top and typing in the whole title.

Not sure I know how to link to it, but I will try that when I am at home and can tinker

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

i found it by using the search feature up at the top and typing in the whole title.

Not sure I know how to link to it, but I will try that when I am at home and can tinker

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...aven+hellenism

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Thanks for mentioning the basics of Translation 101.

In Knoch’s “Concordant Version of NT,” he attempted to accomplish this very thing, i.e. a one-for-one translation of every Greek word into English. Besides being almost impossible to read, it introduces more confusion. It needs another “translation” in order to understand.