How do You Choose A Bible Translation?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2018
- We who speak English are blessed with a multitude of competing translations of the Bible. With so many possibilities, which should you choose? Here is at least one answer to this common question.
I go NASB, NKJV, and ESV. Regardless of your preference, Tim is right when he says we are so blessed to have multiple options. The vast majority of Christians around the world put their life on the line every day just by possessing a Bible. God's Word is supernatural and life-changing, and should never be taken for granted.
Don't use the Message for any reason at all.
See comments below.
I use NASB ESV and NLT love em all
Thank you for taking the time to put this together.
Glory To GOD!!!
Thank you Tim Challies!
That was simple and yet informative and fast!
Did she suffer her children or rent her clothes?
A very excellent overview and great resource to show both new as well as long term Christians.
Thanks for explaining this; you did a great job, brother. 👏🏻🙏🏻 Until recently, I wasn’t very familiar with what all the different options mean, and how they differ.
Great advice Tim . Blessings
When I was a kid, I used the NIRV; I eventually moved to the KJV so I could follow on with my pastor's sermons. As I got older in my teen years when I didn't have to have the same wording to keep up, I began using the NCV and NLT at different points. In college, I started using the NASB which I really liked. Eventually, I switched back to the KJV which I continued to used even through seminary later. Now, I use the NIV for my reading, usually comparing it in study with the NASB. The NIV has a good balanced feel between word-for-word and thought-for-thought
Clear and concise the type of bibles out there. I really enjoyed what you said about paraphrase bibles, use them as commentaries because they're not translations.
I use both the NKJV for personal study and the CSB for teaching. These both work great for me!
In my country Germany, we have this discussion too. I have learned to withdraw from all bible translations that either have a "New" in their name or have been translated after 1990. A truly born again believer will have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside to instruct and lead him to the right understanding of scripture. There is always the Strongs Concordance to go deeper into certain words too.
Strong’s isn’t a dictionary. For lexicons you want HALOT and BDAG.
@@Seraholethysie I wasn't talking of a dictionary.
@@Corinna_Schuett_GER How then do you see ‘going deeper’ into words, then?
Amen, greetings from India
What did the Holy Ghost instruct you as the true word of God?
This is awesome information! I never understood the difference between translations. Do you have a chart/visual that plots where the most common translations fall on the spectrum you mentioned? That would be awesome to see and pick different translations. I’m currently reading Ecclesiastes given everything going on this book has been very helpful to me in these times. Thank you! 🙏
This was incredibly helpful. Thank you!
Aloha Ren Pat Man, Why is it that all scholars never reveal that we are using the wrong Old Testament text?
It’s not the text the Apostles used and handed to the Church which
the Orthodox Church has preserved by exclusively using it uninterruptedly.
All English Bibles’ Old Testament is Masoretic Text ; a name given to the text upon it’s standardization 800 years after the Pharisaic scribes produced this thoroughly revised Hebrew text in the latter part of the 1st century A.D.
God never promised to preserve His Scripture in the Masoretic Text alone.
The New Testament has approximately 250 quotations of the Old Testament. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Greek Old Testament but the majority of the quotations disagree with the Masoretic Text.
It’s quite simple : if what the Apostles and Saints quoted as Scripture agrees with the Greek translation of the Seventy-two interpreters (commonly referred to as the Septuagint and LXX) and disagrees with the Masoretic Text, the Masoretic Text is wrong.
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) (Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73) and Irenaeus (AD 130-210) (Against Heresies, 3.21.1) stated that the scribes deliberately removed, and altered or
distorted the Messianic verses in their Scripture.
The Dead Sea “Scrolls” and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree more with the Septuagint than they do with the Masoretic Text.
A word about the so-called Great Isaoah Scroll 1QIsaᵃ :
the contemporary popular Hebrew terms prove it’s a 1st century A.D. forgery.
The Masoretic Text is falsified and mutilated text : it has all sorts of mutilated and falsified verses. Know the truth of the matter, look at proof :
a 40-page chart of verses for comparison : Go to
archive.org then on archive.org’s website search-bar type : mt vs lxx .
a chart of 25 OT verses with NT quotations - Google : ecclesia comparisons .
a 14-page chart of Proverbs for comparison - Google : ecclesia proverbs .
both texts side-by-side (but w/out B.’s footnotes) - Google : ecmarsh lxx-kjv .
Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint remains the best but he
unaccountably used Masoretic Text sometimes without giving a footnote.
Now in Modernized English but without Greek text :
the Book's cover has 3 angels on it. Digital : LXX2012
The OSB and the LES are Ok. The ABP is a great help in looking-up
Greek words; free online; PDF by donation; Book available - apostolicbible.com.
The NETS translation is a false translation based on the NRSV : Masoretic Text.
KateOwlNebula9
Thanks for your information. Robert Alter's new translation 'The Hebrew Bible' is a great translation with commentary that also explains the puns, word plays, word choices, syntax, rhythm and dialogue qualities of the text. His 'Art of Bible Translation' goes into the energy involved in keeping repetitions, keywords, and following the Hebrew word order, even if it surprises English speakers. It's terrific.
ESV, NASB, NIV and NLT. I find the NLT helps with comprehending the more structured word for word translations. ESV is my main translation though.
Thank this video break this topic down well
I didn't think I'd see so many toxic comments on a video about Bibles. God bless you all.
I have 5 bibles, in four translations: two NIV bibles(one I used since I was a child and has by far the most wear, the other from my University which I carry in my backpack due to its size) the HCSB which I was given by my mom when I was 15(this is the one I use most often), NLT study bible I got for my seventeenth birthday(I personally do not use this one much as it is to heavy and bulky for me) and an 1853 King James Bible that is an exact replica of the Bible used to swear in Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. This bible is very special for me as Lincoln has always been a personal hero, Obama was the first President I watched get sworn in, and Trump was the first President I ever voted for. I usually don't use this bible for reading unless it's a special occasion. It took me years to find this one.
Common English Bible. Came out in 2011. My all-time favorite. Didn't pick up steam or last long, but it's great.
Using the CEB, NET, ESV, NRSV, RSV2CE, CSB, NKJV and NCV NT regularly.
Thank you!
I agree with Tim. Pick one that is closer to literal structure and use others as references. But having said that, I don't want to underestimate the power of the Word of God, even it is a paraphrase. My friend who is not so educated due to some health issue, loves The Message as he could understand and apply. He was saved through reading The Message Bible.
I use the CSB because it has a great balance between word for word and thought for thought. I like that its more literal than the NIV and the NLT, but not quite as literal as the ESV.
ESV. Or as I like to call it... the Excellent Standard Version haha
Wow, that is a nice way of saying it :-)
Amen dude!
I just wish they would change the lords prayer in it other than that seems good
I do use ESV
It and all the other so-called new and improved English Bibles are a pale imitation compared to The King James Version.
It seems to me, that the conclusion here is Word-for-word, the best option and the more accurate of the Bible Translations. More accurate than Though-for-Though and Paraphrases translations. And I pretty agree with it, not saying that the others are wrong, but more driven by speculations or interpretations, which how our brother Tim said, it will be more useful if we take it for commentaries purposes.
My native language is Spanish, so I use RVR1960 and LBLA which I believe it is Word-for-Word translation.
I use the Good new bible, is that a good one?
I like:
FORMAL
* ESV. Along with its general accuracy, I love its literary beauty inherited from the Tyndale-KJV tradition. However, it is not always clear; it aims for general understandability more than pure clarity. Nor is it always natural sounding, but rather it can often sound like Yoda (cf. Biblish).
* LEB. Perhaps the English translation closest to being a crib on the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). Arguably more so than even the NASB/LSB.
FUNCTIONAL
* CSB. Although the CSB well balances formal and functional, I place it in the functional category since to me it seems closer to the NIV and NET than the ESV, NASB, KJV/NKJV. The CSB is clear, mostly natural sounding, quite accurate, willing to take risks (e.g. John 3:16; "instruction" instead of "law" for torah), but its style is fairly prosaic. As Tim Frisch says, it is the "okayest" translation there is.
* NIV. It is so similar to the CSB, but with more baggage than the CSB (the CSB hasn't been around long enough to accrue baggage). While I would disagree with how the NIV translates on gender issues (e.g. Phoebe as a deacon or deaconess; "assume" authority), nevertheless, I think the criticism against the NIV 2011 on gender is largely overblown. I know the members of the NIV's CBT (e.g. Doug Moo, Mark Strauss) aren't at all motivated by politics (e.g. woke feminism), and in fact many of them are complementarians, not egalitarians, but they themselves have stated they're motivated strictly by linguistics (e.g. how spoken and written English have changed in its use). The NIV, whether 1984 or 2011, is still a reliable translation, albeit imperfect, but every translation is imperfect.
* NLT. See the post "Why the NLT is good, actually" by Tommy Keene (Reformed Theological Seminary-DC).
My main Bible is the NKJV but I also use the NLT and KJV from time to time.
KJV is best for exercising FREE WILL ya hear
th-cam.com/video/Hf6oGh-8cCs/w-d-xo.html
I am using Amplified Bible eversince.
I grew up on the NIV. In returning to the faith I found the TLV and really like it for a few reasons, but it's relatively new. Anyone else here use it or have any comments?
Are you still reading it? Where's it at on the Word-for-word, Thought-for-thought spectrum?
I would say not to pick one, but to alternate between more than one translation. That way you can compare and get the benefits of the different types of translations.
I absolutely believe this, as well. We have so many translations in English-why not use them all? Of course, we have our favorites, but still, utilize them all.
For real tho. Even the Lord's prayer . My main go to is the NLT , but reading it in the ESV, NRSV and NASB put it in a different context for me
My church primarily uses NIV, however I prefer ESV and CSB. Would you recommend using the same as a majority of the church?
Read whatever version works for you. I prayed and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the translations to read from.
I’ve always used KJV or NKJV even as a kid... the language is beautiful, the phrases some of the most memorable in all literature. But wife uses the NIV and I actually prefer that translation sometimes... many great options!
ESV and NLT
NLT , ESV , NASB and NRSV .
I love the KJV I was brought up on it throughout my childhood too my mid 20’s I didn’t know there were other translations so for me it never seemed weird. I however are not part of the KJV only crowd who seem to have to be very vocal to the point of rudeness in every video about bible translations. I 100% admit that there is a poetic nature to the KJV version but it is also very old English and nobody who speaks English talks like that and clearly in the comments writes like that. Do you really speak to people about your brother in need and that you shouldn’t shutteth up his bowels of compassion?. What people forget is that the KJV was translated from these other languages into the form of English that was used at that time. It amazes me that the KJV crowd does not speak old English or live in that time nor even write in that way. But somehow if someone even dares to mention another translation they are heathen or leading others astray. I totally agree that we need to not loose the meaning but I equally agree that the word needs to be conveyed in a way that keeps the power whilst being readable. I use the KJV and NSAB, ESV and I like using the CSB for devotional times. Let’s not just be readers of word and if you can’t make a comment about you favourite bible version without be rude or arrogant what is that saying .
The Bible is not like everybody talking to everybody else. It is GOD speaking to us. The KJV is definitely the word of God, not so sure about the so called new and improved English Bibles.
The KJV is important because of the translation text to which it derived. The Alexandrian text is a corrupted line that was rejected by the early church.. but soon returned into Roman Catholicism and the same line used by basically everything else.
The KJV only movement is like someone who leaned truth about the text being God's true word, no errors, no need for change, incorruptible, perfect. It does not require a reader to go to any manuscript to get the better meaning. Etc.
KJV guys are passionate about sharing this revelation just as a saved Christian is about sharing the gospel to the lost.
I too was an all versions myself for many years and then leaning about the 'behind the scenes' of bibles, I will stick to KJV only. A magnificent read to illustrate truth in greater details, I recommend... www.amazon.com/dp/0963584529/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_aSI3FbJQ9QTA3. At least pray over this issue I plead.
Thank you for this...I use CSB then other translations for references
I'm also CSB.
Can you find me Acts 8:37 and tell me what it says?
It cannot be a footnote.
@@tonybarron6377 The evidence against Acts 8:37. Acts 8:37 is absent in Papyrus 45 (third century), Codex B and Codex א (early fourth-century) Codex A and Codex C (both fifth century), Papyrus 74 (seventh century), Codex L (eighth century) and Codex P, Ψ, Uncial 049, and minuscule 33 (all ninth century), and numerous other later Greek manuscripts from the tenth century on through the middle ages. Indeed, the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. Some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate also lack the verse, as do the vast majority of the Syriac tradition (including all the earliest copies) and the vast majority of the Coptic manuscript tradition. It is also lacking in some Ethiopic copies.
The evidence for Acts 8:37. Acts 8:37 is preserved in a number of different forms. The earliest version appears almost exclusively in Latin copies. It is found in some Old Latin manuscripts, itm (fifth century), itr (eighth century), itar (ninth century), and in some later Latin copies from the Middle Ages. It is also found in one eleventh-century Greek Minuscule, some late Syriac copies, and in Armenian and Georgian manuscripts. There are minor variations between these witnesses. A second form of the verse is found in just one copy, the Greek/Latin diglot Codex E (sixth century). Both the Greek and the Latin text of this manuscript contain the second version. A third and much later version (the version found in the KJV) can be seen, with some minor variations, in Minuscule 307 (tenth century), 945 (eleventh century), 323, 610, 630 (twelfth century), and a small number of even later Greek copies. The Old Latin manuscript itt (ninth century) and a small number of later Latin copies from the twelfth century forward also contain this version. Additionally, few Coptic copies read this way, as do some later translations like the Georgian, Slavonic, and many Ethiopic. A fourth version of the verse is present only in Minuscule 629 (14th century), and yet another version was added into Minuscule 88 by a later scribe (Minuscule 88 did not originally contain the verse at all).
Evaluation of the evidence. Acts 8:37 exists only in a small minority of late manuscripts. Few of these copies come before the middle ages, and many of them disagree on the wording of the verse. All of the earliest manuscripts across a wide variety of locations, languages, and streams of transmission all lack the verse. Even the Byzantine “majority text” of the Middle Ages (often favored by KJV Only advocates in other contexts) overwhelmingly favors the omission of this verse. There is simply no explanation for all of this data if the verse was original to the book of Acts. It is a later addition, probably an explanatory marginal note that was mistakenly copied into the text. Luke did not write it, and it is probably best to return it to its role as a marginal or footnote.
Luke Wayne, CARM
I get this question, too.. My answer is Tom get the Bible you will actually read. The average person doesn’t really care about the scholarly stuff... .. They just want to be able to read and understand what they have read. Interest in scholarly nuances may come later... But if it never does, it’s OK. Just choose a translation that you actually enjoy reading.
BTW.. I like the RSV,:CD, and the 1966 Jerusalem Bible... Both are easy to read and understand... and are solid translations .
I use ESV and NIV.
This discussion and its effects appears first in Genesis ,chapter three,at verse one
Some of the effects are subtle, while some are not so subtle. The KJV is safe.
Right, and who is always attacking the word, first to the woman, and later to Christ.. so why not fool those who profess to be Christians but with a corrupted text to continue with false teachings.
Higher criticism came in like a flood -Ian paisley
As Tim mentioned, this discussion has gotten so out of hand in some circles. The main point is that we stop fussing over translations and just read. I love what he said about picking that closest one to word for word that is still readable for you. Let the Spirit minister to you as you read. God's gift to us is discernment. On a personal not though, I also stay far away from the message. I don't view it as a translation and as a commentary it's really very weak.
Discussions over version should be put of hand. The purpose as like a saved person trying to witnessed to the lost, because they are in darkness.
So the same is in regards to those who understand corrupte versions. www.amazon.com/dp/0963584529/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_aSI3FbJQ9QTA3 this among others are an excellent read to help bring bible readers out of a different type of darkness.
Tim, I am not sure why you are giving credence to paraphrases, particularly the Message. The Message is so off base and it’s totally irreverant.
For everyone to see how horrible it is compare Psalm 1:
How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:1-2 NASB
The Message:
How well God must like you- you don’t hang out at Sin Saloon, you don’t slink along Dead-End Road, you don’t go to Smart-Mouth College.
Psalm 1:1
In my opinion, paraphrases are dangerous even if you are treating it like a commentary. I think it creates to great a temptation to treat it as if it is God’s word.
And BTW, I second the commenter who said the Message is only good for burning or using at a shooting range. 😂
I can't stand the so called "Message Translation". I thought it was the bottom of the barrel until "The Passion" translation came out (which isn't really a translation at all).
I'm not a stickler on translations, as long as its an actual translation (NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc).
So is the vile nasb. It's only good to burn.
Olivia Holy moly... I’ don’t like paraphrased Bibles, and I am a Catholic, so I have only barely heard of the Message... That was just plain horrible.. I woukd not recommend it to anyone. Good Grief..
Hey Tim, can you elaborate on the NIV and should this translation still be used as Bible believing Christians even with its controversial things like making it gender neutral & lowering Christ’s deity like the Today’s NIV that was implemented into the recent update of the NIV? I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you
New international? 64000 words removed.
For me, the NIV can still be used by Bible believing Christians even with its gender neutrality (I also have quite some issues about that). The good thing is, I think you're quite familiar with the so-called issues. If a particular verse is in question, then I suggest going to other translations for help :-)
It's gender neutral because the NIV stylist is lesbian.
@@joselimjoco658 Lol care to expand on that one?
Legacy Standard Bible. It’s the most accurate to the original texts
Respectfully, another aspect that would help would be to cover the idea that there are many excellent translations but English itself continues to shift. Some words, in older translations, now have different meanings, some completely opposite, in Modern American English. For those who read comments and note some heat in the opinions, see a more gracious approach here th-cam.com/video/_7jAH3O5AUA/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/iT8XXIxr6ho/w-d-xo.html.
Go to a church where they use a different scripture than your own.
(Notice how many churches don't put what bible they use on their website)
Read along as they quote verses.
See if you don't get confused.
What a perfect way to divide the church.
Most versions you can still follow along, provided the translations use the same underlying Greek text. I still agree it can be difficult to follow along. This is why I use my ESV Editions at Sunday Worship -- it is from this version our elders preach. This is why I do not use my CSB more, because I see value in using the same version as the pastors.
Bible versions need not divide the church.
I use the Bible :)
I prefer the KJV then ESV then CSB
The KJV is the only word of God. To bring modern perversions in competition with the word of God is sin.
Psalm 138:2.
Thou hast magnified thy word above ALL THY NAMES.
Hi Tim. I am using the Translation by John Nelson Darby since 8 years. Whats your take on that.
Darby is reprobate who deceived people by saying there is a pre tribulation rapture. He is a false teacher.
@@tonybarron6377 But hat about the translation
@@sunilgogi
It's false. Do not get study bible's with mans commentary because it corrupts the word. Get a KJV, start in Romans. The Ts are singular and the y is plural.
Have you seen the Cepher, the Book of Yahweh, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Ethiopian or Catholic Bible
What about the new world translation? J/k dont use that one
NWT is one of the worst translation's possible. This is the one used by JWs, stay well away from it. The NWT was by Westcott & Hort and it has been corrupted by the Watchtower to deny the deity of Christ.
What is the best flavor of ice cream?
ESV for me
I think really to be honest, people should look up the truth about the King James Version vs. all the other versions. The King James version was very carefully made from 90% of the existing copies of the manuscripts that were found in various parts of the world, meanwhile the Vatican made their own version primarily from the remaining 10% that were found in Alexandria, Egypt. The 90% agree with each other pretty consistently while the 10% had a bunch of differences. The thing is, the 1611 KJV and the one they re-did in 17xx were based on those 90% of manuscripts while all other versions, every single one of them, are based from the one the Vatican did, and the one they keep revising, and revising and revising.
God's word is eternal. It does not need revision. That's how you know the one the Vatican made is not the Truth, because they have to keep revising it every year. God's Word does not need re-translated, it does not need to be re-packaged. The 17xx KJV (the KJV most are familiar with, and is found online at kingjamesbibleonline.org) should be readable by any adult fluent in English if you spent but a little thought into what it is saying, and in fact the archaic language forces you to read it slower to think about what it is saying, and that's a good thing because this causes you to pay closer attention to what it says.
Bryan Denlinger does some good videos about the history of the Translations. Some of his other sermons can be questionable at times, but the one thing he does do good, is an indepth explanation of the KJV vs. Everything Else.
All you are displaying is your pride and arrogance and ignorance. For example the KJV contradicts the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then CHRIST IS DEAD in vain. IS DEAD is present tense. The KJV demotes the deity of the Hoy Spirit in Romans 8:16 it reads the spirit itself when it should be the Spirit Himself because the Holy Spirit is a person. In 1 Samuel 3:3 it should be tabernacle and not temple as the temple was built in Solomon's day. In 2 Kings 23:29 it should be went in aid of and not against because Pharaoh Neco was a ally of Assyria not an enemy. In Romans 1:18 it should be suppress and not held. In 1 Corinthians 1:18 it should be are being saved. In 2 Corinthians 2:17 it should be peddling and not corrupt. In 2 Timothy 2:15 it should read be diligent and not study. Ephesians 4:22 should be conduct and not conversation. Clearly you have spent too much time swallowing hook and line and sinker the garbage that that pathological liar Gail Riplinger and her ilk spews out.
@@normanrausch1223 First of all, where are all of the insults and accusations coming from, where I had presented none to begin with? I only said that people should look into where their Bible is coming from.
Secondly, why are you accusing me of Pride? Where did I display pride in anything I said?
And thirdly, a lot of your points are either wrong or misunderstood.
Gal. 2:21: Semantics. Paul is not saying that Christ is still dead, he's making a point that if righteousness comes from the Law, then Christ might as well still be dead, and dead in vain (which is why believing in the Law is wrong).
Romans 8:16: First, the KJV does Capitalize "Spirit" (which implies the translator of the KJV does indeed respect the Spirit as being part of the Godhead and Divine), and to be honest, a Spirit is an abstract, incorporeal Being that does not have Gender. Saying "Itself" is not demeaning in this case.
2 Kings 23:29: This is a result of language differences between then and today, "against" doesn't always mean "enemy". You can be "against" something in principle, if they were your foe, or you could be physically "against" someone, if you moved to their location and put yourself right next to them. It seems to me the latter is what was meant; that the pharoah and his army went up _against_ the king of Assyria near Euphrates in a physical sense, that their armies were side-by-side and ultimately won against Josiah.
Romans 1:18: Another instance of language. Anytime you do not understand what is said you should lean back and think on it a moment or go look it up. "Held" has different meanings. I can hold something close to my heart, or I can hold something in secret and refuse to let anybody else know. You can hold someone dear to your heart, but yet you can also hold a secret so that nobody finds out. The KJV's rendering of Paul's verse here implies the latter: the Truth is Held in Unrighteousness, meaning Unrighteousness is holding the Truth secret and making it hard for people to find Truth. Nothing wrong with that. That's just how they talked back then.
2 Cor. 2:17: Uh? No? The verse reads fine in KJV. Many people _corrupt_ the Word of God (you know, like the Vatican with their erroneous translations?). Many people read the Bible and misunderstand it, and they will release their own study Bibles full of heresy to mislead the readers as to what the Word actually says. I think Corrupt is actually the right word here.
2 Tim. 2:15: I don't see why you say that? Timothy is trying to tell people to "study" the Bible to show themselves as approved by God, a workman who is not ashamed of their faith, and one who _rightly divides the Word of Truth._ You can't rightly divide the Word of Truth if you didn't _study_ it. You have to study it to learn it, understand it, to be able to properly understand what verses mean what, and what verses were written to who. I think study is the correct word here.
Eph. 4:22: I think you are misunderstanding what this verse _actually_ says. What Paul is saying here, is "That ye put off (concerning the former conversation) the old man, which is..."
Now if you look at that, and take out the parenthesis, it reads: "That ye put off the old man, which is" which still makes sense. That means the part in parenthesis is a prepositional phrase, and what exactly is that calling back to? Look at the verses just before it, where Paul is talking about people who gave themselves over to lasciviousness and work all manner of greed. So basically what he's saying here, is "that ye put off the aforementioned old man, which is..."
So basically conversation is indeed the right word, because Paul is saying "the thing we were just conversing about".
The language is a bit archaic, but again, this forces you to stop and think and it causes you to read the Bible slower which is a good thing.
@@Dhalin No is dead in vain is a clear contradiction of the resurrection of Christ. The KJV translators would freely acknowledge that to be true. Communication means conversation with the mouth and therefore conduct is correct. The KJV translators would agree. Be diligent and not study is correct because a wonderful understanding have those who do His commandments. Be diligent (implies study and apply). Again the KJV translators will agree. Himself instead of itself. The bibles teaches you can grieve the Holy Spirit. Again the KJV translators would agree. Peddling is correct because false preachers were preaching a false gospel for monetary gain. Again the KJV translators would agree. Against means opposed to as opposed (excuse the pun) in aid of. Again the KJV translators would agree. In fact if you read what the KJV translators wrote in their preface you would read that it is not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good one better, Furthermore they stated that even the meanest translation contains the word of God yea is the word of God. They also state in their preface that there translation is not perfect. My advice to you is that Satan the god of this world does not want you to read the modern translations because they bring greater clarity. The KJV translators would fully agree. Do yourself a favour by taking heed to the word of God in that only fools despise wisdom and instruction? Do you want to be truly wise. Get yourself the KJV study bible from Nelson's Publishers and the Keyword Hebrew Greek Study bible in the NASB and the Wiersbs study bible in the NKJV. Also watch the John Ankerberg show and James White. We have far more manuscripts today than when the KJV translation was done. Furthermore Wescott and Hort were two fine theologians and not heretics as the KJVO movement pushes. Be a Berean .
For accuracy I use only the NASB 1977 for serious study. For an alternative translation as a help when I get stuck ( very very rare) I go for a good paraphrase ie Good News Bible or the NET bible.
ESV = Elect Standard Version 🤔😂😁👍
Only fools despise wisdom and knowledge. There is no one bible translation that is better than another. Sheer commonsense will lead you to that conclusion if you read the Living bible and the NLT and the NIV and the NKJV and the NASB and the ESV and the KJV and Geneva bible and Moffatt translation will bring you to that logical conclusion.
King James has no copyright...the rest that came after are copyrights...meaning it has to be a "new and different work" legally...just google the difference between what your reading and the KJV, you might find key versus missing including and especially concerning Jesus.
The only New Testament I have found that is translated from the original Hebrew is "The Book
of Yahweh". It is the only translation I have found that correctly
translates the first verses of the Book of John. Michael Rood found over 2000 errors in translations that came from the Greek.
@jeff_morency.
(1) Please name at least one of the New Testament translations you referenced above and then give us two examples of the errors discovered by Michael Rood.
(2) Please give us a citation where the New Testament scholars below or any other New Testament koine Greek scholar agree with Michael Rood’s great "2000 errors" discovery.
(a) N. T. Wright
(b) Douglas Moo
(c) D. A. Carson
(d) William “Bill” Mounce
(e) Daniel Wallace
(3) I am not familiar with Michael Rood. Is he a koine Greek scholar?
And if he is, do you claim that Rood is on the same koine Greek scholastic level as Wright, Moo, Carson, Mounce, Wallace?
@@PatrickATopey You want ME to do YOUR research for you??? Go get my sources and read them. They are: Chronological Gospels by Michael Rood; Sons of Zion Versus Sons of Greece by Dr. Miles Jones; and Book of Yahweh from the House of Yahweh. I already gave you a New Testament translation that corrects mistakes in translations that come from Greek. Here's an example that is, also, corrected on Paul Sides website, sabbathcovenant.com. John 1:1-3 "word' should be translated "plan". "The plan was God's". Not "The word was God".
"The Scriptures" translated by the Scripture Research Institute explains the paganism of words like "Lord" and "Jesus" that are found in Greek translations that are not just errors. They are outright falsifications of the original You might, also, want to read "Fossilized Customs" by Lew White which you can find on the fossilizedcustoms.com website.
@The Pilgrim Yahvshuah said "I do not come to abolish the law, but to complete (fulfill) it".
@@HarmonicResearch Please remember that you made these claims in your original post. Therefore, it is your responsibility to provide documentation for and to prove your claims with a defensible argument. It is not looking good for you right now. So, let us try again and please stay on point.
(1) THE BOOK OF YAHWEH. If the “translation” you are referring to is, The Book of Yahweh by Yisrayl Hawkins, I must respectfully request that you provide me with proof that Mr. Hawkins is qualified to translate from the Hebrew/Aramaic and the koine Greek languages. I do not see Mr. Hawkins language and translation qualifications listed on the Amazon or Barnes and Noble pages for his book or on his yisraylhawkins.com website. Please provide Mr. Hawkins translation qualifications.
(2) ACADEMIC SUPPORT FROM MANUSCRIPT EXPERTS. You have still failed to cite any new testament scholar that agrees with your claim that Mr. Rood has discovered, “2000 errors in translations that come from the Greek.”
(3) HEBREW OR KOINE GREEK QUALIFICATIONS. You have still failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Rood is qualified to read or translate any document from ancient Hebrew/Aramaic or koine Greek. Mr. Rood’s books and website do not list any ancient Hebrew/Aramaic or koine Greek qualifications. This lack of qualifications also applies to Paul Sides (otherwise known as Rav Shaul). Please, if you are going to cite experts on how the koine Greek should be translated at John 1:1-3, at least cite someone with koine Greek translation qualifications. Like Wright, Moo, Wallace, Mounce, etc.
Summary. As of July 5, 2020, 1:54pm your claims of 2000 translations errors found by Mr. Rood and translation corrections made by Mr. Hawkins are based on the writings of these two men, and now Paul Sides (Rav Shaul), who have no known Hebrew/Aramaic or koine Greek translation qualifications!
You also added Dr. Miles Jones to your list of translation experts. His webpage, Writingofgod.com, About Dr. Miles R. Jones says, “Dr. Jones graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a doctorate in foreign language education specializing in accelerated learning. He has a Masters degree in bilingual education and a Bachelors in languages and linguistics from Antioch University.” Dr. Jones runs a business called the Institute for Accelerated Learning and Jones Geniuses Accelerated Learning for Mathematics, Reading and Memory. (www.jonesgeniuses.com/about-us).
So far in your posts, you have not named a single Hebrew/Aramaic or koine Greek scholar, who supports your claims. Not one! Please do not cite any more of your Hebrew Roots experts as I cannot keep debunking their qualifications.
@@PatrickATopey You want ME to do YOUR research for you??? The sources I mentioned do NOT teach paganism like all the mainstream Bibles and Bible teachers. So, of course, you are going to have to do some digging if you want to find their sources and their qualifications. They are NOT going to be accepted by mainstream and I don't blame them for not trying. Why don't you ASK THEM. This are YOUR questions. Go find out. Then, please tell me which of their conclusions is wrong and show me proof. But, first, get yourself educated and read the sources I gave you. Then, learn Hebrew and tell me where they are wrong . I would like to know.
Kjv for me
Aloha Rafael, KJV for me too, but just the NT. Why is it that all scholars never reveal that we are using the wrong Old Testament text?
It’s not the text the Apostles used and handed to the Church which
the Orthodox Church has preserved by exclusively using it uninterruptedly.
All English Bibles’ Old Testament is Masoretic Text ; a name given to the text upon it’s standardization 800 years after the Pharisaic scribes produced this thoroughly revised Hebrew text in the latter part of the 1st century A.D.
God never promised to preserve His Scripture in the Masoretic Text alone.
The New Testament has approximately 250 quotations of the Old Testament. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Greek Old Testament but the majority of the quotations disagree with the Masoretic Text.
It’s quite simple : if what the Apostles and Saints quoted as Scripture agrees with the Greek translation of the Seventy-two interpreters (commonly referred to as the Septuagint and LXX) and disagrees with the Masoretic Text, the Masoretic Text is wrong.
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) (Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73) and Irenaeus (AD 130-210) (Against Heresies, 3.21.1) stated that the scribes deliberately removed, and altered or
distorted the Messianic verses in their Scripture.
The Dead Sea “Scrolls” and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree more with the Septuagint than they do with the Masoretic Text.
A word about the so-called Great Isaoah Scroll 1QIsaᵃ :
the contemporary popular Hebrew terms prove it’s a 1st century A.D. forgery.
The Masoretic Text is falsified and mutilated text : it has all sorts of mutilated and falsified verses. Know the truth of the matter, look at proof :
a 40-page chart of verses for comparison : Go to
archive.org then on archive.org’s website search-bar type : mt vs lxx .
a chart of 25 OT verses with NT quotations - Google : ecclesia comparisons .
a 14-page chart of Proverbs for comparison - Google : ecclesia proverbs .
both texts side-by-side (but w/out B.’s footnotes) - Google : ecmarsh lxx-kjv .
Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint remains the best but he
unaccountably used Masoretic Text sometimes without giving a footnote.
Now in Modernized English but without Greek text :
the Book's cover has 3 angels on it. Digital : LXX2012
The OSB and the LES are Ok. The ABP is a great help in looking-up
Greek words; free online; PDF by donation; Book available - apostolicbible.com.
The NETS translation is a false translation based on the NRSV : Masoretic Text.
@@TedBruckner
That's absolutely false the NT reveals the Old Testament.
what about KJV?
the KJV is good for as long as you understand it
Is it word for word or thought for thought translation?
Here's a good image to help you out.
www.catholicconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/types-of-bible-translations.jpg
King James has no errors.
Ah, the KJV is an example of a word for word translation
I believe Gods "WORD" that prhase in itself compliments a word for word. We never say Gods "Thought" to refer to scripture. Because its his words that matter. Proverb 30 says every WORD of God. He spoke words. And I and every Christian needs his WORDS. I believe a word for word is superior than any other philosophy of translation
All translations are good (as long as it's easy to understand), but some are just a little better than others. If there is a particular scripture that interests me I use biblehub.com to compare many translations at once, and see if there are large discrepancies. Another issue in some bibles like the King James Bible is that it promotes the trinity over the original writings and intended thoughts of the writers, and that is because the churches have deviated from Gods word since the 3rd and 4th centuries and substitute it for pagan ideals and false traditions that have permeated into Christianity, such as Christmas, Easter, The Cross and The Trinity Which is widely and independently documented.
The Churches have become the new unfaithful Israel of old in that everything that the church teaches has become false. It even goes to blatantly say to its followers, they are not pagan, they are Christian teachings and celebrations, when in fact they are fully pagan and not from God’s word. For example, the substitution of the name Jehovah to Lord, God, or any other title is there to purposely promote the Trinity and not the truth of God’s word and only serves the devil who is misleading the entire world. The link below is a short video of this point. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTeachings/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO
The New World Translation (NWT) of the bible has set out to make the most accurate translation as I will link several short videos you can watch to prove this at the very bottom. Another way it has tried to do this is by adding the name Jehovah back to its original places which appears in the oldest manuscripts available. By doing this it solidifies the proof that Jesus is not God, and that the only true God Jehovah is not part of a trinity. The recently released Divine Name King James Bible is only the second to do so in modern times. Other bibles remove it completely or have it in at least Psalms 83:18, and up to 6 other places depending on the translation.
Another such instance is on the subject of the Cross or Crucifix. The Greek word generally translated “cross” is stau·rosʹ. It basically means “an upright pale or stake.” The Companion Bible points out: “[Stau·rosʹ] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber.” In several texts, Bible writers use another word for the instrument of Jesus’ death. It is the Greek word xyʹlon. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24). This word simply means “timber” or “a stick, club, or tree.” The word cross was introduced to English in the tenth century as the term for the instrument of the torturous execution of Christ (gr. stauros', xy'lon), gradually replacing rood, ultimately from Latin crux, via Old Irish cros. Originally, both "rood" and "crux" referred simply to any "pole," the later shape associated with the term being based in church tradition, rather than etymology. I have also listed some independent sources which will verify this:
The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-cross/2017/04/14/dae63c1a-1fa8-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html
Encyclopaedia Britannica.com: www.britannica.com/topic/cross-religious-symbol
You will see that the same crosses used in Egyptian worship is used by many false Christians churches today.
ABC NEWS: abcnews.go.com/GMA/jesus-christ-died-cross-scholar/story?id=11066130
Symbol Dictionary.com: symboldictionary.net/?p=2044
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ CrossEncyclopaedia.com: www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/cross
You may say there is also plenty of proof that the Cross is not similar to pagan ones or does not denote the same pagan god's, but the true god in the bible? But if that is the case and Jesus was not Crucified, then why use this symbol at all. Why not use the symbol of an upright pole rather than the Cross? To ignore this fact is to ignore the accuracies of the scriptures. Romans 3:13 is accurately translated here by New World translation and the New International Version as - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." In fact of the over 20 translations used and available today of Romans 3:13, only the New Living Translation translates it with the word cross, the others accurately use word pole or tree.... You can see for yourself in this link. biblehub.com/galatians/3-13.htm
Acts 5:30 also defines the way Jesus died was on a tree. Of the above 29 translations, only 6 pro Trinity bibles use the word cross. biblehub.com/acts/5-30.htm I commend these 6 bible translations for accurately using the original text and not the traditional pagan understanding. However, in Ephesians 2:16 only New World Translation (NWT) translates this scripture using the words "torture stake", but the same other 29 bibles above all translate this with the word "cross" or "crucifix". And only the Jubilee Bible 2000 translates it with the added Greek word stake, when it translates it this way: "and to reconcile both with God by the cross {Gr. stauros - stake} in one body, having slain the enmity thereby;".
biblehub.com/ephesians/2-16.htm
Again the same 29 translations above all translate 1Corrinthians 1:18 with the words "Cross" or crucifix", and again the Jubilee Bible 2000 puts in (Stake) as per Ephesians 2:16 above., but the NWT is the only one that translates it using the words torture stake and not mention the cross or crucifix in any of its translations.... In fact there are many scriptures in the above 29 translations that inaccurately include the words cross or crucifix to promote a false doctrine and idol of pagan gods perpetuated by the Church.
Also in Acts 2:23 & 24 many bibles use the cross or the word crucifix, only the NWT uses the more accurate and non-pagan torture stake. Unfortunately it doesn't make the it right, and unfortunately many who honest hearted persons have come to believe this lie as the truth when it is not and are being mislead.
As promised, here are some short videos that you or any one else will see to what extent the Jehovah's Witnesses go through to accurately translate the bible. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502014271_1_VIDEO
The ancient manuscripts:
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO
The love in truthful translations:
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502016501_1_VIDEO
Previous pioneers of bible translators:
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO
Correcting Latin translations:
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO
Richard.
In your original post (OP) you claim that, "For example, the substitution of the name Jehovah to Lord, God..." is used to promote the Trinity. So, please tell me where in the Hebrew language bible (not an English translation bible), I can find the name "Jehovah"? In other wors, show me the name "Jehovah" in Hebrew, along with chapter and verse. I am not aware of the name "Jehovah" appearing anywhere in the Hebrew language bible, but I could have missed it, since I am not a Hebrew scholar. So, please help me out!
@@PatrickATopey Hi Patrick. I cant help but feel that your question is a loaded one to prove that since the name Jehovah as it is written in English is not found in the original Hebrew or Greek writings that somehow proves that God's name then is not Jehovah. If that is so, then none of the words of the bible in English or many other languages are also not found in the original manuscripts, so then can we disprove immediately and claim that the bible is made up or false? Jehovah is God's name translated into English. It is pronounced differently in many countries because of their consonants and vowels. No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is, because people stopped using it out of superstitious beliefs as taught by the religious leaders, who replaced God's name Jehovah with Elohim meaning God, and Adonay' meaning Lord, and as a result the pronunciation was lost forever over time. Many have argued about what is the exact pronunciation is and should be and gotten nowhere because no one knows.
However, the bible records God’s name Jehovah some 7000 times. And the bible writers and the people recorded in the bible used God’s name and identified it as the name of the only true God. No matter how it is pronounced today we to should not stop using this name as it praises the one and only true God. King David even wrote songs about God’s name in Psalms 69:30 it reads “I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving”. - New King James Version. Psalms 86:12 also reads “I shall confess to you, Lord Jehovah, my God, from my whole heart and I shall glorify your Name to eternity!” - Aramaic Bible in Plain English
As someone who knew God intimately, Jesus used God’s name many times. It is recorded for us throughout the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately you would not know that as many bibles have removed God’s name Jehovah from the bible to support the trinity. Interestingly, nowhere in the bible does Jesus say he is God, or calls himself Jehovah.
Jesus said in Matthew 6:9 (in what is known as the Lord’s Prayer), first and foremost when praying before praying about anything else first, Jesus said: “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name”. Then in verse 10 “Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.” - New King James Version. Since we don’t commonly use the word Hallowed today, another translation reads it this way “You should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, help us to honour your name”. - Contemporary English Version.
We cannot honour God’s name if we don’t use it, or remove it from the bible. In fact, that is the precise reason why we don’t know the exact pronunciation of God’s name, because people stopped using it.
Jesus made it a priority to teach people about God’s name throughout his ministry. Mark 12:28 to 30 says “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD (Jehovah Deu 6:4 ) our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the LORD(Jehovah Deu 6:5; Jos 22:5 ) thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. However in the original manuscripts the word Lord does not exist and was added instead of Jehovah, and should actually be translated as “One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’” - New World Translation. Today there are only 3 bibles which translate this verse with the name Jehovah. The two above and the other is the Aramaic Bible in Plain English. The rest preferring to use Lord instead of Jehovah.
At the end of his ministry Jesus said in John 17:25 &26 “O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them” - New King James Version.
Also, all bibles substitute the name Jehovah for Lord in Romans 10:13, with the exception of the New World Translation, and the recently released Divine Name King James Bible and the Aramaic bible in Plain English which reads “For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Verse 14 includes why it is important to use God’s name “However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?” - New World Translation.
Certainly this name is most important name in the bible. Why? Because it is the most used name there. It is the name of our God as he himself proclaims in Isiah 42:8 “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images” - American Standard Version.
Since Jesus used, proclaimed and taught his followers to pray to the God which that name belongs to, it makes sense that the name YHWY or more commonly Jehovah translated into English is there in the New Testament as well as the old.
This link explains why the Fouad manuscripts were so important in the returning Gods name back into the bible in the Greek Scriptures. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO.
The new Devine Name King James bible has set to correct a serious error by returning God’s name back in its 7000 places. As the forward in the Divine Name King James Bible reads “The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible the translators knew that God’s name is Jehovah and put it in the Bible in 4 places and in over 6000 places put LORD where they could see God's name. There are now thousands upon thousands of ancient hand written copies of the Bible that clearly show where God's name appears in the Bible”. You can read both the New World Translation and the Divine Name King James Bible on line it online at www.jw.org/en/& www.dnkjb.net/
I love this quote from the publishers of the Divine Name King James Bible (DNKJB).
“One only need to keep in mind that the King James Bible is known for the liberty its translators took when choosing how to express God's name without really using it. Imagine any great autobiography where the name of the key person was removed”.
Also, “We have kept in mind our brother scribes from ancient times as we worked and endeavoured to be as meticulous as they. Whatever our costs have been, the results we believe transforms the King James Bible into a word far more comprehensible, with Jehovah's name in the text do the work of eliminating the source of countless contradictions that the word LORD has caused. We make no apology for saying that The Divine Name King James Bible is merely saying what the King James Bible should have been saying for the last 400 years”. dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm#official_dnkjb
The translation of the Tetragrammaton YHWY in the original manuscripts does not translate to Lord. Lord is a title, where YHWH is God’s name, and most commonly this translates to Jehovah in English. Like Jesus, the apostles and bible writers we should follow their dedication in preserving God’s name and use it as instructed, with honour and with the aim to sanctifying it. If God put his name in the bible it must be there for a purpose, after all 2Timmothy 3:16 reads “Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live” - Contemporary English Version.
For an explanation to why YHWH is translated to Jehovah in English please see these short videos:
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/pub-wmt_3_VIDEO .
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO .
This link explains why the Fouad manuscripts were so important in the returning Gods name back into the Greek Scriptures in the bible. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO.
@@richardchileshe9910 Strawman Argument
.
Based on your response to my question asking you to show me where I can find the word “Jehovah’ in the Hebrew language bible, your answer is a resounding, “No. I cannot.” And I accept your answer as being correct. But then you go on to fabricate a strawman argument by saying that if we reject the English word “Jehovah,” because it did not appear in the Hebrew language, we must then reject all English words because they also did not appear in the Hebrew language.
You wrote: “Jehovah is God's name translated into English.”
Now. Either you are being deliberately misleading, or you are totally ignorant of the Hebrew language scriptures. The word Jehovah does not appear in the Hebrew manuscripts, because it does not exist! What we have in the Hebrew manuscripts is the abbreviation YHWH. This is the abbreviation for the name of God that was not pronounced by the ancient Jews, because they believed it to be too holy and did not wish to defile it. The English word Jehovah is a made-up word that was created by filling in the missing vowels in YHWH with the Masoretic vowel points from Adonai.
Illogical Double Speak
.
First you claim, “No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is, because people stopped using it…” This is true. You then add, “Many have argued about what is the exact pronunciation is and should be and gotten nowhere because no one knows.”
But, you then contradict yourself by confidently and repeatedly insisting that the name of God is Jehovah.
Huh? You already admitted at least twice that no one knows the pronunciation of YHWH. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If as you stated, “No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is…”, why do you then insist that Jehovah is the name of God?
You are contradicting yourself! You cannot claim that:
(A) The pronunciation of YHWH is unknown.
And then insist
(B) The pronunciation of YHWH is Jehovah.
What? Are you telling me that A and B can be true at the same time? This sir is illogical double-speak at its worse. Or as Mr. Spock would say, “That does not compute!”
@@PatrickATopey Hi Patrick... I am truly not sure what point you are trying to make.... Perhaps you should read my original post carefully again and in full if you have not already done so. I also recomend clicking the video links to historical and archaeological proof about God's name.
Simply put, the removal of God’s name and the unwillingness to restore it to all bibles shows that many religions prefer to omit the full accuracy and truth in God’s word, and allow confusion to continue about who the Lord is in many of the scriptures. Some today still read the bible thinking that the lord in the Hebrew Scriptures is talking about Jesus, when in reality 98% of the time in the Hebrew Scriptures it reads Jehovah.
Though the Jews stopped using God's name, early Christians did not. God's name is recorded in the Hebrew scriptures and with intensive research from Jehovah's organisation it has also been identified that it was also used extensively in the Greek scriptures too. Today most bible renders God's name as Jehovah in English. No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is as people stopped using it because of superstitious beliefs as taught by the religious leaders, and as a result the pronunciation was lost forever over time.. Elohim, Adonai, God, Lord, ElShadan, Father and the many others which are titles or qualities which is not an accurate translation for God's name.
For instance, most have a first, middle, and last name right, but would it be accurate to say your name is Mr, or Dr. if you are a physician, or father if you have a child or Husband if you are married. Would these however be acceptable replacements for your name permanently? No. Because these are not your names, just titles. If we look at Isiah 42:8 it reads the follow way in 26 of most bibles found today: "I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." - New King James Version. However where it says Lord in this scripture the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is found in this scripture and some 7000 other verses.
The Tetragrammaton does not translate to God, Lord, or any other title(s). However, like the New World Translation of the Bible, the Darby Bible Translation, Divine Name King James Bible, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation and the American Standard Version are the only ones to translate this verse correctly: "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images".
With the warnings and prophesies that apostates and false teachers would arise, some of the changes to the Christian teachings that was changed early on was the removal of God’s name out of superstition, the pagan Trinity and the incorporation of Pagan Cross and Christmas (or Sol Invictus). Easter, Saint and Mary worship followed soon after as well as many other false teachings like hell and purgatory, ect...
However going back to God’s name, the Tetragrammaton for God's name in the scriptures does not translate to Yahweh or Jehovah, it translates into English as YHWH. In English YHWH is unpronounceable and is not a word, so vowels were added back in the 11th Century.
Translators who remove the name out of defiance to Jewish tradition fail to recognize a key fact. While some Jewish scribes refused to pronounce the name, they did not remove it from their copies of the Bible. Today there are thousands of scrolls and fragments that confirm God’s name in the earliest copies. Ancient scrolls found in Qumran, near the Dead Sea, contain the name of God in many places.
Many people(s) and religions get stuck on semantics of the Jehovah's Wittiness faith and teachings but do not think of the un-scriptual beliefs of thier own. For example, to Jewish Christians, the name Jesus also did not exist in the bible as we know it. It was also probably pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛. And the title “Christ” was Ma·shiʹach, or “Messiah.” Greek-speaking Christians called him I·e·sousʹ Khri·stosʹ, and Latin-speaking Christians Ieʹsus Chriʹstus. Under inspiration, the Greek translation of his name was recorded in the Bible, showing that first-century Christians followed the sensible course of using the form of the name common in their language. Similarly, the New World Bible Translation Committee feels that it is reasonable to use the form “Jehovah,” even though that rendering is not exactly the way the divine name would have been pronounced in ancient Hebrew.
It does not excuse the deletion of God’s name from his word, especially as it is the most used name in the bible. Additionally, like the New World Translation the recently released Divine Name King James Bible has restored God's name Jehovah to its original places in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.
Speaking about the Divine Name King James bible, it joins the New World Translation, as the only bible available today to correct the deletion of God's name Jehovah from the bible by Christendom, and restores it to some 7000 times. Making it only the second bible in modern times available to do so.
I love this quote from the publishers of the Divine Name King James Bible (DNKJB). “One only need to keep in mind that the King James Bible is known for the liberty its translators took when choosing how to express God's name without really using it. Imagine any great autobiography where the name of the key person was removed”.
Also, “We have kept in mind our brother scribes from ancient times as we worked and endeavored to be as meticulous as they. Whatever our costs have been, the results we believe transforms the King James Bible into a word far more comprehensible, with Jehovah's name in the text do the work of eliminating the source of countless contradictions that the word LORD has caused. We make no apology for saying that The Divine Name King James Bible is merely saying what the King James Bible should have been saying for the last 400 years”.
dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm#official_dnkjb
The New World Translation is trust worthy and is without any bias from pagan introduced teachings by the church. You can access it online at JW.org, or request a copy from your local Kingdom Hall at no charge.
More info about the name Jehovah:
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah .
JW.org: www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/who-is-jehovah/
@@richardchileshe9910 Thanks for your response. You say that, “I am truly not sure what point you are trying to make…” So, I have tried to organize this response to remove any doubt.
Your thesis is that, “Jehovah is God's name translated into English.” Richard Chileshe.
You Correctly Claim That No One
Knows How to Pronounce YHWH
A1. You wrote: “No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is…” Richard Chileshe.
A2. You wrote: “…the pronunciation was lost forever over time.” Richard Chileshe.
A3. You wrote: “Many have argued about what is the exact pronunciation is and should be and gotten nowhere because no one knows.” Richard Chileshe.
You Then Contradict Your A1, A2 And
A3 Claims Above By Insisting That
YHWH Is Pronounced as Jehovah
B1. You wrote: “Jehovah is God's name translated into English.” Richard Chileshe.
Please answer this question, based on the above. If your testimony that the pronunciation of YHWH is unknown is true, and it is, how can you then insist that YHWH is pronounced as Jehovah?
If A1, A2 and A3 are true, B1 cannot be true. Do you see the contradiction in your argument? You are arguing against yourself!
Sounds Like Humpty Dumpty Logic
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
Lewis Carroll, (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.
You appear to be using Humpty Dumpty logic, by insisting that your words mean exactly what YOU say they mean. For instance, at one time in the same post you declare YHWH as being unknown, but at another time in the same post you declare that YHWH is known as Jehovah. So, to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, "YHWH 'means just what (YOU) choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'”
And you have chosen to let your JW theology be the master of the translation of the Tetragrammaton.
Patrick Topey
07/25/20.
WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SO BELOVED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS THOUGH IT'S SO INACCURATE
Neo Evangelicals (what we used to call Fundamentalists) keep insisting there is such a thing as "The Bible," which they call "The Word of God." They would have everyone believe it was dictated by God to men who simply wrote down God's words, flawlessly. They also say every single word in what they present to their converts as a single volume book, written 411 years ago in what-is-now-antiquated-and-very-difficult-for-most-people-to-understand English, was divinely inspired.
If they could, they'd leave it right there, and because most people in their churches never bother once to question any further, they assume what they were told to believe is true. So, when these people hear or read a different bible that has "changes" in it or which "leaves things out," it's understandably confusing. It's often only at this time they are finally told the Bible was not actually written in Old English, but was translated from the ancient languages of Greece and the Hebrew spoken by the ancient, Jewish people.
Should they begin asking questions, the leaders of these relatively new believers resort to several fall back positions to keep their flocks believing there is still only one, perfect English bible--the King James Version. One of their tricks is to say, "Oh, but the Greek and Hebrew texts used by the King James translators are the only true bible, the Textus Receptus." Sounds pretty inspired, right? After all, if it's in Latin, that's gotta be divinely inspired, yeah?
Sorry, but the term "textus receptus" is just a line found in the introduction to a printed edition of the Greek New Testament in the late 1500s by a printer who wanted to sell his books so, naturally, he made it sound like his edition was error free by simply saying it was! But it wasn't!
There were several printed editions of the New Testament, for example, that came out since the first one by a guy named Erasmus about the same time Luther began the Protestant Reformation in 1517. His first edition was rather sloppily done, since he was in a hurry to get it done before another printed edition (known as the Polyglot) came out first.
But none of the printed Greek New Testaments of the 16th and early 17th Centuries were all that great, since they relied on hand-written Greek texts which had to be borrowed from universities who were rather stingy with what they had, and what they had, for the most part, dated after the end of the first millennium!
Here's the thing to understand--all the books we think of as "The" Bible, are a collection of books that varied from one religious body to another--Catholic, Orthodox, Old Protestant, Later Protestant and so on--but NONE of those books are still around! Every single bible "book", all written in ancient languages that are now all dead, were lost to the ravages of history! All we have today are copies of them, that is, copies of copies of copies!
It's true that there are 1000s of these copies, but MANY of them are just little scraps of "paper," written on papyrus or, sometimes, vellum and occasionally on some pottery.
Sadly, we don't even have any complete versions of the oldest copies of the Bible until we get to 2 and 3 centuries after the originals were all lost!
And these 1000s of texts are DIFFERENT! Over all those centuries, the copyists made a lot of mistakes or decided to add things or take some things out.
Some had really bad handwriting. Some were copied from an earlier copy that had all sorts of notes scribbled on the side (like some people do with their bibles today) but the copyists didn't think it mattered which parts they was copying, so they just included them in the main body of the text of new copy (the fancy name for this is an "interpolation")!
And then there was the problem of not hearing properly what was said as one guy was reading aloud from an earlier copy, and the listening copyist got the word wrong, or lost his place (This was the ancient version of a copy machine, in what was called a "scriptorium," that made it slightly less expensive to make copies of any particular document, since they ALL had to be done BY HAND!)
So, what to do, if you REALLY want to know what the Bible originally said? Well, you can just believe whatever it is your preacher or teacher tells you which printed book IS THE Bible, and just ignore the fact that he was specifically trained to uphold the MAN-MADE DOCTRINES his church denomination or sect or mega-church, wants you to believe...or you can rely on REAL SCHOLARS who from REAL UNIVERSITIES who don't really care about doctrinal implications and, consequently, are going to give you the best translations from the best (oldest and most reliable) copies archeologists have discovered.
They way they do this is the same way real scholars, like detectives, take all copies of ancient documents--from the Iliad and Odyssey to Beowulf--applying the disciplines of the Textual and Contextual Criticism, to sort out as many of the errors as possible in order to arrive at what was most likely in the original writings (autographs). After this, it falls to unprejudiced, biblical and historical scholars to make sense of what the original bible texts said.
Trouble is, almost all Neo Evangelical preachers and teachers are not interested in finding out what the bible originally said, much less, what the writers of those original documents intended their words to mean, and even far less, what all of their original words and intentions, put together, mean for us today! Instead, they're goal is to ensure they get more converts to believe what they're told to believe, and to do what they're told to do, very often, just to serve the interests of their very wealthy and powerful political allies.
This is why anyone who really wants to know what the original Bible had to say should avoid translations (like the NASB) or faux translations (like the Living Bible), issued by "Christian" publishing houses.
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing-Word-Properly-Interpret/dp/B091LSMD9N
Are you a victim of bible abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Our not-bornagain-legalistic translators messed up big time and made the bible contradict itself on multiple points.
The original text, lit up by Holy Spirit, on the other hand is crystal clear.
Some examples:
1. Orge in context means "passion" in stead of "wrath".
So now translators made a loving God (in Him is light no darkness, He is never tempted to do evil, God is love, it pleases the Father to give you the kingdom, the Father himself loves you, etc, etc) suddenly become a vengefull God, from wich we have to be saved....? Utter BS. Through Jesus, God saves us from the fall of man and restores us back to His divine nature. The divine nature Adam let go of in the fall. Jesus beaten to pulp on a cross? Gods extreme passion to restore what got lost in the Garden: His divine power and love image in human form.
2. Sozo means "made complete" in stead of "saved".
So now we are stuck with a stupid totally unbiblical "Repent! Or go to hell!" doctrine. In stead it has always been about transformation of human life back in to His image again.
Repent btw actually means "change the way you think completely". That would be: "Wow, God loves me and restores me from the fall into His Image. Thank you Jesus, have your way in me with your Holy Spirit. You are amazing!!"
3. "Seeing Jesus comming on the clouds" actually reads "perceiving Jesus from a heavenly perspective".
So now we have millions of ignorant Christians waiting for a bus to get them to heaven in stead of understanding that heaven came inside of them to transform them in to their original created value again. Read Gen 1:27 vs 2 Cor 3:18.
Etc, etc,
Therefore. The letter kills but the Spirit brings forth Divine life in abundance...
KJV is difficult english to understand🙄The catholic church has watered down the bible by having diff versions, most of them say different things from KJV
Well that's because alot of the English used in the KJV is irrelevant or totally different when compared to today's English, there is no logic or sense in saying one version is true and the rest are false, by that logic even the KJV could be corrupted.
Multiple options of translations.. yeah.. dont you mean VERSIONS!! RSV,KJV,ESV.. All of them are VERSIONS.. Dont try too confuse people with your emphasising on the word translation bro.. now the question is which of all the differrent VERSIONS the BIBLE is the true word of GOD!???.. Is it theRoman catholic version?? The Protestan version.?? The Mormon version.!!? The Jehovas witness version.. The word is VERSIONS not translation bro.. pick any bible that suits you?? Are picking up something to wear to a dinner party or something??
No Dhalin IS DEAD IN VAIN is a contradiction of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the KJV translators would freely acknowledge that reality. The Spirit itself demotes the deity of the Holy Spirit because the bible teaches you can grieve the Holy Spirit and therefore it should render Himself. Against means you are opposed to someone. Conversation means communication with the mouth and therefore conduct is the correct word. Furthermore the KJV also demotes the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ when it refers to the faith of Jesus Christ, It should be faith in Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is GOD. Again peddling and not corrupt and suppress instead of held are correct. The modern translations are better than the KJV and the translators of the KJV would freely acknowledge that fact. in the preface of the KJV the translators said their intention was not to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. They also acknowledge in their preface that their translation was not perfect. and they would welcome the more modern translations and condemn your pride and arrogance and ignorance. for what it is
so sad that the apologetics/schoolers do Not see the corruption of the vatican bibles=modern bibles the PURE word of GOD is AV1611 KJV!!
If you're of the bloodline of Jacob (Numbers 1:18, Matthew 15:24, and Deuteronomy 7:6), the 1611 King James Version with Apocrypha will be your history book. If you're of any other nation, being Atheist will be the best choice in this situation.
Mirror Bible. All stupid translation errors explained. Result: one big love letter of how God gave us back the divine life mankind lost.
The Message "Bible" is not a real Bible and should always be discouraged from using.
I do not want to understand the Bible translation. Because the Bible is not complete. So you cannot live by it. And some of those words in the Bible Jesus never said. What I like to live by is the Holy Spirit. It's better if the Holy Spirit leads you and guide you and tells you what to do. A Bible cannot speak or hear and love you. The Living God in the living Jesus and the Holy Spirit that's God spirit. A Bible cannot love you it's just a 2000 year old history book
The above post is total, complete hogwash.
Well the secret about the Bible is everyone does not want to admit ? WRITTEN BY MAN AND INTERPRETED BY CORRUPTABLE MAN.
If you don't like the Bible Plz don't hate it because I've read of several people's testimonies who hated it the most suddenly became Christians and read it like never before.
Simple the kjv only check out steven andersons video about the nwo bibles
You lot on here are very self righteous. Not a good trait imho.
King James Version- 'Good enough for the Apostle Paul, Good enough for me'
Jon H You joke, but I’ve been told that by a KJV-Onlyist.
There is only one word of God, and it is certainly not modern versions. In general all modern versions lie to you in Mark 1:2, moreover Act's 8:37 is in no modern versions. Your problem is you do not have any love for the word of God and it shows.
Questions for KJV Critics
Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?
Do you have a perfect Bible?
Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?
Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?
Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?
Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?
There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?
Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?
Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?
I will stick with the good-ole King James Bible. It is definitely trustworthy as the Word of God. The other so-called improved English Bibles, not so much. You used the example of Romans 1.16, in the KJV it is "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Nothing "clunky" about that. All these other English Bibles accomplish is sow confusion and "GOD is not the author of confusion" (1Cor. 14.33). As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
KJV has no errors.
Really?
None
Is it?
That is a very ignorant statement. I can point out quite a few. It is a good translation but is not the best. We know much more about ancient language than we did in 1611.
@@ironman2326 garbage. Kjv was written during the church age of Philadelphia.
This was fantastic video because it was so BAD, textual criticism is the great falling away.
Why are their so many FALSE Christian denomination today?
That's right because their are DIFFERENT False bible's.
Original? Readable? Pick one?
Wow that's embarrassing, It like choosing a car just pick one YOU like???
Let me guess if you are a Calvinist you Chose to read the ESV or NASB?
If you are a atheist you read the Niv because their are do many contradictions.
If you are born again you should be Reading the Bible God picked, The Holy King James Bible the word that's been preserved forevermore.
The King James includes some verses that were not in the original manuscripts.
@@MartinDGarcia1 Original manuscript? Their is no such thing as original manuscript.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are manuscript COPIES not originals.
Would you please share your view about Westcott and Hort?
How many time does the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contradict one another in just the Gospel alone?
MOSES broke the original and God rewrote it (copy).
@@hudsontd7778 Have a good night :)
@@MartinDGarcia1 please watch brother
KJB Proverbs 18:13
th-cam.com/video/gYJmdhCPs-w/w-d-xo.html
Have you read James White's The King James Controversy?
Authorised King James only. Christians need to research the other per - versions! Do you know who publishes them? All other versions change meaning and add or subtract words, verses!! It took me years to discover this - but when God showed me the truth of this, I got rid of the rest! Think on this - if you're a builder building a house, and you have all workers using a different measuring tape - what will happen? If you're in church - the pastor is using one version and others are using several other versions - it's confusing and deceiving! It's a lie that the KJV is too hard to read - it's God's true word - and if the Holy Spirit lives in you, it's HE that teaches you!
According to the Apostolic-Pentecostals after they read the Bible, God reveals his Oneness to them instead of the Trinity that we all know. Same difference there.
Our not-bornagain-legalistic translators messed up big time and made the bible contradict itself on multiple points.
The original text, lit up by Holy Spirit, on the other hand is crystal clear.
Some examples:
1. Orge in context means "passion" in stead of "wrath".
So now translators made a loving God (in Him is light no darkness, He is never tempted to do evil, God is love, it pleases the Father to give you the kingdom, the Father himself loves you, etc, etc) suddenly become a vengefull God, from wich we have to be saved....? Utter BS. Through Jesus, God saves us from the fall of man and restores us back to His divine nature. The divine nature Adam let go of in the fall. Jesus beaten to pulp on a cross? Gods extreme passion to restore what got lost in the Garden: His divine power and love image in human form.
2. Sozo means "made complete" in stead of "saved".
So now we are stuck with a stupid totally unbiblical "Repent! Or go to hell!" doctrine. In stead it has always been about transformation of human life back in to His image again.
Repent btw actually means "change the way you think completely". That would be: "Wow, God loves me and restores me from the fall into His Image. Thank you Jesus, have your way in me with your Holy Spirit. You are amazing!!"
3. "Seeing Jesus comming on the clouds" actually reads "perceiving Jesus from a heavenly perspective".
So now we have millions of ignorant Christians waiting for a bus to get them to heaven in stead of understanding that heaven came inside of them to transform them in to their original created value again. Read Gen 1:27 vs 2 Cor 3:18.
Etc, etc,
Therefore. The letter kills but the Spirit brings forth Divine life in abundance....