Bible contradictions? (between translations)

[WhiteWings]

It did made sense Paul. :laughing7:
But I think we are meaning different things. Especially when reading your last remark about sentence structure.
I have yet to see a program that can translate between two (closely related) modern languages.

So I'm just looking for word to word translations. In fact I don't even want other translations because I have 30 of them already.
Look again at Gen 1:1
All translations use teh same key words in their final translation.
Beginning, created, heaven, earth
Then they moulded that into what we read in the translations window.
The only keyword that's translated differently is aleim = God/Elohim
So id I could CLV the green word would read God instead of Elohim.

The use?
Firstly just out of interest. Secondly I read quite a lot about different interpretations of verses. To strick with the one at hand Gen 1:1
CLV "A beginning" others "THE beginning"
Some use that as basis of teh theory that the 6 creation days where in fact repair days of the damage satan has done.
So that's one of my main uses for the program.
I'm not going to read the complete Bible as "the green words"
How do you use this program?

[Paul Hazelwood]

But I think we are meaning different things. Especially when reading your last remark about sentence structure.
I have yet to see a program that can translate between two (closely related) modern languages.

So I'm just looking for word to word translations. In fact I don't even want other translations because I have 30 of them already.

Maybe I am not understanding what you want.   The green words is word for word. 

How do you use this program?

I use the program to make it quicker to read the green words in different verses.   I do not use it to just read,  I use it to study from.     I can't think of one right off hand, but even the CLV Youngs and Rotherham   which are the 3 more literal ones, mess up a verse here and there (to me) when I compare it to the green words.

As far as I can tell,  the green words are the words that haven't been religiously biased,  they are the work of linguists that just want to translate languages the best they can.   I could be wrong about that and would like to know, if anyone does know and I would love a source that was not.


The green words have allowed me to see a much greater picture of God in scripture because  as you point out.  The difference between  A and The  can make a small difference in thought.   The green words just says in beginning.   this allows one to form a conclusion based on the words, not someone elses addition, even if the conclusion is the same.

Considering that later in the bible that God is going to create a new heaven and new earth.  "The beginning" may not be proper.   "In beginning"  makes no distinction.

With that in mind.   It is very likely and biblically proper to say,  that our world was not the first beginning.   So then I can see that "A" beginning is more proper.   But, that conclusion was drawn from the study of the green words, rather than hoping a published translation got it right.

[WhiteWings]

So I'm just looking for word to word translations. In fact I don't even want other translations because I have 30 of them already.

One last try for this not so important issue.

Gen 1:1
The green word is Elohim.
YLT and AV changed that word into God in the translation window.
CLV just uses Elohim in the translation window.

Gen 18:19
Yaweh is the green word.
Translated as Yaweh, Lord and Yehova

The above are just the obvious ones I quickly spotted.
So this is not about sentence structure; but about translating names differently.
So my question original was if each translation had their own green words.
Of course there is only one set of green words the corect set. But translators may have different opions.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Ok, I get ya now,  lol.

No, the other translations do not have their own green words.

[WhiteWings]

Paul,

Thanks for your patience and time taken.
Still a very nice proggy :thumbsup:

[Molly]

I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.

I don't really know much about the history of the Bible.

But, it seems to me that if the word is there, you can just look at the word definition and interpret it according to context and with the Holy Spirit as witness.

A phrase like--the Word was God--the Jehovah's witnesses like to say that really is 'the Word was a god.'   Well, they are admitting there that they know Jesus is the Word.  But, they think Jesus is an angel, so they don't want to call him Jehovah God so they put in the article 'a' and lower case 'g' for god.  There is nothing to indicate that is how that should be read.

Just so, Pierac likes to quote that passage, 'God was the word.'  I'm not sure where he gets that or how it changes the meaning.  Jesus is still the Word and whether you say the Word was God or God was the Word, you are still saying Jesus is God.  Not to even mention how an angel or a man could have created the world...


10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

--John 1

[Pierac]

Just so, Pierac likes to quote that passage, 'God was the word.'  I'm not sure where he gets that or how it changes the meaning.  Jesus is still the Word and whether you say the Word was God or God was the Word, you are still saying Jesus is God.  Not to even mention how an angel or a man could have created the world...


10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

--John 1

Hi Molly, That's because I use Logos as written in the origional Greek.  Not "word" as in English.  "God was the Logos."   I understand Logos to mean the internal reasoning process, thoughts or plan.

10 He was in the world and the world was made by ("dia") "on account of"  him, and the world knew him not.

Just Listen to Jesus...
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.

[Molly]

Just so, Pierac likes to quote that passage, 'God was the word.'  I'm not sure where he gets that or how it changes the meaning.  Jesus is still the Word and whether you say the Word was God or God was the Word, you are still saying Jesus is God.  Not to even mention how an angel or a man could have created the world...


10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

--John 1

Hi Molly, That's because I use Logos as written in the origional Greek.  Not "word" as in English.  "God was the Logos."   I understand Logos to mean the internal reasoning process, thoughts or plan.

10 He was in the world and the world was made by ("dia") "on account of"  him, and the world knew him not.

Just Listen to Jesus...
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.

So now you are saying that Jesus did not make the world but it was made 'on account of' of him?

How does that change anything?  It was made by him and for him.  On account of him and for him?

He must be pretty important.  In fact, he has supremacy in everything and a name that is above every other name.-- "by him" in the passage below is not 'dia,' it's 'en.'   They are saying it every which way to Sunday--could they make it any clearer?



16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

--Col 1




By him, for him, in him, on account of him, and he is before all things. He is not just a man, and he's not an angel because what angel has God called 'Son'?



"by" [him were all things created]

G1722
ἐν
en
en
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); "in", at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.



[and] "for" [him]

G1519
εἰς
eis
ice
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.



[he is] "before" [all things]

G4253
πρό
pro
pro
A primary preposition; "fore", that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.



He is the instrumentality of and the purpose of everything; he is before all things and superior to everything.

Did we leave anything out?  Just this--

O, Lord Jesus!  My God and my LORD!

[Paul Hazelwood]

I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.

Without a quote, not sure who you are directing this at.   I think white wings is tired of sifting through a bunch of translations to get some point to knowing what Gods word "really" says.

Thats pretty much  why  I stick with the literal and  the CLV,  I have not seen much advantage for myself to pour over umpteen translations.   
I used to do that when I wanted to verify something I wanted the bible to say.  :laughing7:

I was in the same boat.   Why should I believe anyone concerning what the bible says?   Why are the Christians right?  why are the calvinists right, why are the universalists right?  Maybe Fred Phelps is right?  Cause they say so?    They all say so,  they all say, "just read and believe the word"  How nice, yet, they all read the same word and come to different conclusions.

[WhiteWings]

I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.

The KJV is the only authorized version. Meaning the only correct Bible. The only true word of God.
It teaches eternal hell with real flames.
Thats a simple fact.
Or isn't it......?

Not according 99% of the users of this forum. Not according to Gary who has put a 1000+ pages on this subject on his site.
I'm just trying to do a little of my own research. The program Paul suggested is a good tool for that.
Actually read what Paul wrote just above this message. That's exacly describing my goal/problem.

[Molly]

But even with the King James, you can look up the word, 'Hell,' and come to your own conclusions.


Hebrew

"Hell"

H7585
שׁאל    שׁאול
she'ôl  she'ôl
sheh-ole', sheh-ole'
From H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranian retreat), including its accessories and inmates: - grave, hell, pit.


Greek

"Hell"

G86
ᾅδης
hadēs
hah'-dace
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

[Pierac]

Hi Molly,

So now you are saying that Jesus did not make the world but it was made 'on account of' of him?

How does that change anything?  It was made by him and for him.  On account of him and for him?

He must be pretty important.  In fact, he has supremacy in everything and a name that is above every other name.-- "by him" in the passage below is not 'dia,' it's 'en.'   They are saying it every which way to Sunday--could they make it any clearer?

16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

--Col 1
By him, for him, in him, on account of him, and he is before all things. He is not just a man, and he's not an angel because what angel has God called 'Son'?

"by" [him were all things created]

G1722
ἐν
en
en
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); "in", at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.

[and] "for" [him]

G1519
εἰς
eis
ice
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literallyor figuratively.

[he is] "before" [all things]

G4253
πρό
pro
pro
A primary preposition; "fore", that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.

He is the instrumentality of and the purpose of everything; he is before all things and superior to everything.

Did we leave anything out?  Just this--

O, Lord Jesus!  My God and my LORD!

First of all our conversation was regarding John 1:10.  So, if you want to bring in the Greek word "en" you really need to put it in context!

Your new verse now under discussion is:

Col 1:16  For by (en) Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

So let's look at this verse in context.

Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not "the heavens and the earth" as per Genesis 1:1, but rather "all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after "the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).

All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ's] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus' obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).

It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.

If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man. This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments...

Joh 8:40  "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.

Jesus said he was a man. Yet you refuse to believe him.

Act 2:23  this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan (Logos) and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Jesus  was a man that was predetermined in God's plan and foreknowledge.
Act 3:26  "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."

This man Jesus was God's servant!

Luk 24:19  And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet  mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,

1Co 11:3  But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Who is the Head of Jesus 'the' Christ?

1Co 15:21  For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Yep,  dia "on account of"  a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Gal 1:1  Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),

Who raised Jesus from the dead? Jesus himself or His God and Father?

1Ti 2:5  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Yes, the risen Lord is a man, our mediator also between God and men..

So saith the scriptures.

Did we leave anything out?  Just this--

O, Lord Jesus!  My God and my LORD!

No, you also left out verse 31...

John 20:31  but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

[Pierac]

I'm a little confused about what the problem is here.

The KJV is the only authorized version. Meaning the only correct Bible. The only true word of God.
It teaches eternal hell with real flames.
Thats a simple fact.
Or isn't it......?

Not according 99% of the users of this forum. Not according to Gary who has put a 1000+ pages on this subject on his site.
I'm just trying to do a little of my own research. The program Paul suggested is a good tool for that.
Actually read what Paul wrote just above this message. That's exacly describing my goal/problem.

You have to look at the distinctions between  "translations" and "Text."  The KJV is nothing more than a translation of the Textus Receptus.(Greek Text).  It is only the translation that reads "Hell", as the actual text itself does not.


Paul

[Paul Hazelwood]

But even with the King James, you can look up the word, 'Hell,' and come to your own conclusions.

A word here or there is not all that there is concerning this.

For instance, some translations contain a phrase in Matthew 5:22  about being angry with your brother "without a cause".   

This is not in the literal text at all.   And whats worse is  "Youngs Literal" translation includes that added phrase, so,  who's supposed to believe what? 

There is quite a few passages that have added text in some translations and some that omit words as well.  I wish I could remember what verse, it was in the NIV; It was missing some words and completely changed how that verse would be taken and used.   That don't matter? How do you look up words that are supposed to be there and are not?

I do not see the worthiness in presenting a case that it doesn't matter to seek out that truth. 

The word for word literal wording of scripture is not that good for reading at first.  Although, I have come to enjoy it more myself.  That literal wording actually ends up having an elegance all its own.   But, if you never quite get comfortable with the word for word, it is great for seeing what words can be there and what words cannot.

[Molly]

Col 1:16  For by (en) Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

This states that all things ["pas"] in the heavens and the earth were created by ['en'] him.  All things means all things to me--that would include visible things like suns and moons and stars and trees and birds and man, as well as invisible things like the seat of power--like the exousia that he gives to those who believe.

Jesus showed us his creative powers in the flesh of a man.  His first miracle was changing water to wine.  He fed 5000 people from five loaves and two fishes.  He instantly repaired the bodies of those blind, crippled, and leperous.  He raised people from the dead, even Lazarus who had been dead for days.

It is always critically important for Jesus to tell us where his power derives from--the Father--because the Father will  be the source of any power that we are to have ourselves.  He is showing us the Way.  He's not come to earth to do a bunch of God-tricks.  He has come to earth to show us a path.  He IS the path.

31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

--John 20



17And he is before all things, and by ['en']  him all things consist.


What does this mean?  Nothing exists without Him?  He is the glue that holds everything together?  He is the direct cause--the instrumentality-- of everything existing.



Hebrews 1

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions"

10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

[Molly]

There is quite a few passages that have added text in some translations and some that omit words as well.

Then the question is--how do you decide which translation is correct?  It is not necessarily the oldest script or the newest script or the script translated by someone you trust.  So how?

Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James.  Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English?  Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends?  Did they translate from the wrong original?  Says who?  And, does that person have an agenda?

And, if we disagree, or something doesn't ring true, can't we look at the Greek and Hebrew ourselves?

[martincisneros]

Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James.  Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English?  Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends?  Did they translate from the wrong original?  Says who?  And, does that person have an agenda?

It is a published fact that, as brilliant as these men may have been, they were forced to conform to the prevailing doctrines of the church of England. Many of the more conscionable translators used marginal notes to overcome this handicap. But alas, the marginal notes are not to be found in the modern KJV. The KJV was but a revision of the Bishop's Bible, and the translators themselves noted in the preface that better translations would follow. But of course, the original preface has gone the way of the marginal notes. (Did you know that the foremost Hebrew scholar of the day, Hugh Broughton, when asked in 1611 to endorse the KJV, said, and I quote: "I would rather be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had my part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people")?

[Molly]

Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James.  Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English?  Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends?  Did they translate from the wrong original?  Says who?  And, does that person have an agenda?

It is a published fact that, as brilliant as these men may have been, they were forced to conform to the prevailing doctrines of the church of England. Many of the more conscionable translators used marginal notes to overcome this handicap. But alas, the marginal notes are not to be found in the modern KJV. The KJV was but a revision of the Bishop's Bible, and the translators themselves noted in the preface that better translations would follow. But of course, the original preface has gone the way of the marginal notes. (Did you know that the foremost Hebrew scholar of the day, Hugh Broughton, when asked in 1611 to endorse the KJV, said, and I quote: "I would rather be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had my part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people")?

LOL!  Then what Bible do you suggest?

If you read the King James with the aid of the Greek and Hebrew, how close could you get to the truth?

[Paul Hazelwood]

There is quite a few passages that have added text in some translations and some that omit words as well.

Then the question is--how do you decide which translation is correct?  It is not necessarily the oldest script or the newest script or the script translated by someone you trust.  So how?

Some 50 scholars or so collaborated on the King James.  Did they have an agenda other than to correctly translate the Bible into English?  Were they trying to prove something, and therefore perverting the translation to their own ends?  Did they translate from the wrong original?  Says who?  And, does that person have an agenda?

First, I apologize, I have not been very good at conveying a distinct difference here.   I am speaking of english here and you can change that to whatever language one might need to read the bible in.  I cannot speak about this for other languages, but I am assuming it is the same.

There is a difference in seeing the greek and hebrew text as it is written on the manuscripts with the equivalent english word or series of words directly under each greek and hebrew word.

You will not read this in a manner of good sentence structure, although as I have said,  I really rather read it that way now. But that has become my personal preference. It was not like that to begin with.  I still compare to other translations to help in longer verses from time to time. 

So that is not really a "translation" it is the greek and hebrew "translated" word for word.   A "Translation" as I consider it is any publication that has rearranged the original word for word text into a proper sentence.

So as far as what to trust?   Trust that the word for word as best we can know is not biased by any particular way of thinking.   Study any translation you like with that word for word resource at hand and thats about the best anyone can do.



My personal preference for "translations" is the CLV and the Rotherham.   I pick those, because I spend much less time determining the added or omitted words with them.   But they still contain some I have to look closely at.  But I do not recall which right now.

[martincisneros]

It's not the 20,000 contradictions of the Greek and Hebrew that the KJV has that bother me, as much as when I started finding out how many words that should have been italicized in it that weren't.  In the KJV, italicized words mean that it's not in the original Hebrew and Greek, but is something that got put in there by the translators to help to either make the translation more readable or to help to give you a sense of the usage of the Hebrew and Greek since Hebrew and Greek written thoughts aren't exactly formed in the way that English thoughts are formed in writing.  The Concordant Literal has a similar system, except the words aren't italicized.  They're in light print, while the words that have Hebrew/Greek equivalents in their translation are in bold print.  But the KJV adds the word "when" in Ezekiel 16 to the passage on the salvation of Sodom and Gomorrah to convey the theology of the Reformers of "that'll be the day!!" when that's neither stated nor implied in the Hebrew text.  If it was going to be added, that word "when" in that passage should have been put into italics to indicate that it was their attempt at helping the English rather than conveying anything from the Hebrew.  They don't italicize it.  I've yet to find an edition of the KJV that italicizes it.  There's other passages like that, where something that wasn't in the Hebrew/Greek DIDN'T get italicized, but was published with the implication that this is from the Hebrew/Greek.  Just the number of times that the KJV lies like that bothers me.  A mistranslation is one thing 'cause there's a hundred reasons why it could have happened, but to add ideas that can't be verified with any Concordance/Lexicon or other study resource bothers me big time.

LOL!  Then what Bible do you suggest?

That's going to be a tricky question, because many translations are better in some areas than they are in others.  For instance, I personally believe that the "NASB, Updated Edition" is pretty close to the best translation on the book of Philemon that I've seen thus far.  But it's not a strict enough of a translation on other things for many people.  NIV just makes up stuff in Galatians that I won't even dignify with a quote.  Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and the Concordant Literal are pretty good, though Rotherham's isn't liable to the accusation of being a "Universalist translation."  And Rotherham's is easier to get the whole translation in one cover, instead of as multiple books.  Rotherham's and Young's Literal are good.

If you read the King James with the aid of the Greek and Hebrew, how close could you get to the truth?

Pretty close.  But there are so many traditions in each of our heads from the KJV that you sorta need the stricter translations just so that they'd be hard enough on the eyes to make you more conscious of what you're reading.  Many UR folks do tend to predominantly use the KJV since study resources for it are the easiest to find, and many of the UR authors of the last several centuries base their comments and studies on the KJV.  So, it winds up being easier for them.  To me, this is coming down to a humility and relationship issue with the Lord, more than about anything that any of us can figure out with our own heads.  Although I remember the day, I don't exactly know how I came into an understanding of this message of God's infinite grace, other than that I was sticking as close to Him as I could.  I remember praying repeatedly during the 90s that I'd know everything that all believers would know and understand a thousand years from now/then.  I just pray that it's not another 985 years before the others catch up!

[Molly]

10 For it became Him, because ["dia"] of Whom all is, and through ["dia"] Whom all is, in leading many sons into glory, to perfect the Inaugurator of their salvation through sufferings.

11 For both He Who is hallowing and those who are being hallowed are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to be calling them brethren,

12 saying, I shall be reporting Thy name to My brethren, In the midst of the ecclesia shall I be singing hymns to Thee.

--Hebrews 2 CLV

Verse 10 talks of Jesus as though he is two people.  We know the 'Him' mentioned in verse 10 is Jesus, because he is the 'Him' because of Whom all is and through Whom all is.  But, then it says this 'Him' has made the Captain of our salvation perfect through sufferings.  And, we know the Captain (Inaugerator) of our salvation is also Jesus.  Jesus here is both cause and effect (Father and Son).

And we also see here how the Son becomes the middleman, folding us into the One.

[laren]

Here is an interesting bible tranlation.  I picked it up coupel years ago, and very easy to read.  But for some reason can't find it anymore.

http://www.christianbiblesociety.org/bible.shtml

[Molly]

So that is not really a "translation" it is the greek and hebrew "translated" word for word.   A "Translation" as I consider it is any publication that has rearranged the original word for word text into a proper sentence.

Is that the program that you gave to download on the first page?  I took a look at it and couldn't figure out how to download but I'll go spend some more time on it.

Also, is the Greek the original language of the New Testament?

[Molly]

I just pray that it's not another 985 years before the others catch up!

hmmm...I'm praying I have another 985 years to catch up!  :laughing7:

[Molly]

Here is an interesting bible tranlation.  I picked it up coupel years ago, and very easy to read.  But for some reason can't find it anymore.

http://www.christianbiblesociety.org/bible.shtml

Thanks!

"The Christian Bible affirms that our Savior was born to a virgin [Mat. 1:23], . . . that He existed with God the Father before time began [John 1:1-4; John 17:5], . . . that He was more than human, as He is the Son of God [John 3:16], . . . that He is one with God, and Himself called God [Rom. 9:5; John 1:18; Heb. 1:8; John 20:28; Mat. 1:23]. "