WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY BIBLE TRANSLATIONS?

[joecoten]

What, in your view, is the distinction between "church" and "ecclesia", other than the different language?

Look at the original meanings of the words. Google it. The KJV translators would have been aware of it. Why would they do that?
The word church does not mean ecclesia. That's a rock-solid fact. We mean it to mean the same, but a word was added to Revelations.
That's all I'm saying. Maybe I'm hairsplitting, and maybe that's not what Revelation 22:18 is talking about. I'm not a scholar. It's just something I noticed.

 

[peldom10]

Church [Old English cirice, circe; Middle English chereche, chiriche, chirche; whence churche, cherche, etc.: -Greek Kuriakon...] which means "belongs to, or pertaining to, a lord." It may have first been used in relation to pagan gods.
Ecclesia [mediaeval Latin, and Greek - from : SUMMONED] -A regularly convoked assembly, especially the general assembly of Athenians.
The King James bible translators replaced the original word "ecclesia," with the word church.
The two words church and ecclesia have different meanings. I understand that the word of God cannot be broken, therefore the word church was added. My concern is the following...
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." - Revelation 22:18
I know it's just a word...maybe it's nothing. Just don't tell me that the KJV is flawless, because I know better.
(sources: aggresivechristianity.net and others.)

I didn't say it was flawless.
Example.....Pneuma in Greek is spirit but, it was translated as Ghost (KJV 1611 edition). Not respectful of God, Christ and The Holy Spirit but does not change the intent of reference.

Contra.......I believe it is NIV...( I don't waste time in these new age religion modified copycats)....that refers to ...Gods...... not a singular God.
Now that is a no no.

Assembly and a church (gathering place) is rather similar.
I wouldn't disparate that human error.

Your caution is noted...there are three/four books in the Bible warning of changes. A no no.

 

[Dino246]

Contra.......I believe it is NIV...( I don't waste time in these new age religion modified copycats)....that refers to ...Gods...... not a singular God.

No, you just throw shade in ignorance. Either do your homework, or hold your tongue.

 

[MsMediator]

I keep a few translations. It seems the latest one I get is always "better" than the prior one, in helping me understand. Reading a verse using different versions helps me to understand more.

 

[peldom10]

No, you just throw shade in ignorance. Either do your homework, or hold your tongue.

Here is the whole quote...why not show it...why quote a partial without the partial symbols?;

"

...."I didn't say it was flawless.
Example.....Pneuma in Greek is spirit but, it was translated as Ghost (KJV 1611 edition). Not respectful of God, Christ and The Holy Spirit but does not change the intent of reference.

Contra.......I believe it is NIV...( I don't waste time in these new age religion modified copycats)....that refers to ...Gods...... not a singular God.
Now that is a no no.

Assembly and a church (gathering place) is rather similar.
I wouldn't disparate that human error.

Your caution is noted...there are three/four books in the Bible warning of changes. A no no....."



Now that we are looking at the facts...what is your point?
It is the NIV edition.

Now the factual ignorance is proven.


.

 

[Dino246]

Here is the whole quote...why not show it...why quote a partial without the partial symbols?;

"

...."I didn't say it was flawless.
Example.....Pneuma in Greek is spirit but, it was translated as Ghost (KJV 1611 edition). Not respectful of God, Christ and The Holy Spirit but does not change the intent of reference.

Contra.......I believe it is NIV...( I don't waste time in these new age religion modified copycats)....that refers to ...Gods...... not a singular God.
Now that is a no no.

Assembly and a church (gathering place) is rather similar.
I wouldn't disparate that human error.

Your caution is noted...there are three/four books in the Bible warning of changes. A no no....."



Now that we are looking at the facts...what is your point?
It is the NIV edition.

Now the factual ignorance is proven.


.

I didn't quote the whole original post because most of it was irrelevant to my point, and I have no obligation to post irrelevant data. You throw shade at the NIV without even being certain of what the NIV says. So, instead of "I believe it is NIV", how about you do your own checking of facts.

 

[peldom10]

I didn't quote the whole original post because most of it was irrelevant to my point, and I have no obligation to post irrelevant data. You throw shade at the NIV without even being certain of what the NIV says. So, instead of "I believe it is NIV", how about you do your own checking of facts.

Had I known you have material interest in a particular bible edition I would have consulted with you first.

You apparently do not know...when partial quoting................"..............." ............is used. ASA standard, but, you probably don't know ASA guidance since yours is severely troubled.

 

[Dino246]

Had I known you have material interest in a particular bible edition I would have consulted with you first.

You apparently do not know...when partial quoting................"..............." ............is used. ASA standard, but, you probably don't know ASA guidance since yours is severely troubled.

If you're going to attempt to correct my punctuation, at least ensure yours is correct. The ellipsis has only three periods.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

It is not the romanticism of antiquity by the reliability of a translation which has stood the test of time. Big difference. If a Bible can continue for over 400 years as the Bible of huge numbers of Christians (and the sole bible of English-speaking Christians worldwide for over 300 years), as well as the "go-to" Bible for unbelievers, then you need to wake up and ask yourself "Is God's hand over this translation?" You will not find a single conservative commentator before 1900 who had any reservations about the Authorized Version.

As to the so-called modern scholars and critics, they have all turned out to be hoaxers. They have ignored everything that was written against the most corrupt manuscripts, and steadfastly promoted a lie.

"KJV is superior because it was here first & was the only one available for a long time"

People watched B&W TV before colour was available. It really had an impact on the world.
That doesn't make B&W the best choice now.
There are modern translations because they are in demand. They fill a need that the KJV cannot.

The KJV has it's place on my occasional use shelf.










.

 

[fredoheaven]

Church [Old English cirice, circe; Middle English chereche, chiriche, chirche; whence churche, cherche, etc.: -Greek Kuriakon...] which means "belongs to, or pertaining to, a lord." It may have first been used in relation to pagan gods.
Ecclesia [mediaeval Latin, and Greek - from : SUMMONED] -A regularly convoked assembly, especially the general assembly of Athenians.
The King James bible translators replaced the original word "ecclesia," with the word church.
The two words church and ecclesia have different meanings. I understand that the word of God cannot be broken, therefore the word church was added. My concern is the following...
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." - Revelation 22:18
I know it's just a word...maybe it's nothing. Just don't tell me that the KJV is flawless, because I know better.
(sources: aggresivechristianity.net and others.)

Please forgive me to say this that you may misunderstood the English word church and its historical principles. You have it correct that "ecclesia" is a Latin word not a Greek word which is "ekklesia" though the Latin has the equivalent to the Greek . The Kjv translators had it correct because the English word " church" is used to translate the Latin "ecclesia " equivalent to its Greek counterpart.

 

[joecoten]

I didn't say it was flawless.
Example.....Pneuma in Greek is spirit but, it was translated as Ghost (KJV 1611 edition). Not respectful of God, Christ and The Holy Spirit but does not change the intent of reference.

Contra.......I believe it is NIV...( I don't waste time in these new age religion modified copycats)....that refers to ...Gods...... not a singular God.
Now that is a no no.

Assembly and a church (gathering place) is rather similar.
I wouldn't disparate that human error.

Your caution is noted...there are three/four books in the Bible warning of changes. A no no.

Please forgive me to say this that you may misunderstood the English word church and its historical principles. You have it correct that "ecclesia" is a Latin word not a Greek word which is "ekklesia" though the Latin has the equivalent to the Greek . The Kjv translators had it correct because the English word " church" is used to translate the Latin "ecclesia " equivalent to its Greek counterpart.

If you are honest, open-minded, not swayed by tradition, and take the time to actually study the topic, you will have to conclude that the KJV translators took one original manuscript word (I know there were only copies) and replaced it with a word that didn't appear in the original manuscripts.
Truth vs fake news...you choose.

 

[fredoheaven]

If you are honest, open-minded, not swayed by tradition, and take the time to actually study the topic, you will have to conclude that the KJV translators took one original manuscript word (I know there were only copies) and replaced it with a word that didn't appear in the original manuscripts.
Truth vs fake news...you choose.

Umm, lets take for granted your honesty, you didn't even deal with the Greek which is the same as the Latin word. You are just trying to impress me the Old High German word which we know the Kjb translators didn't ever used. You have it wrong my friend.

 

[fredoheaven]

Look at the original meanings of the words. Google it. The KJV translators would have been aware of it. Why would they do that?
The word church does not mean ecclesia. That's a rock-solid fact. We mean it to mean the same, but a word was added to Revelations.
That's all I'm saying. Maybe I'm hairsplitting, and maybe that's not what Revelation 22:18 is talking about. I'm not a scholar. It's just something I noticed.

This is indeed a product of poor researched. The Shorter OED With historical principle explains that the Latin ecclesia is used to translale the English word Church which is equivalent to the Greek ekklesia.

 

[joecoten]

Umm, lets take for granted your honesty, you didn't even deal with the Greek which is the same as the Latin word. You are just trying to impress me the Old High German word which we know the Kjb translators didn't ever used. You have it wrong my friend.

Do your homework. I'm not trying to impress anybody. I'm just stating a fact. Believe what you want. What's it to me?

 

[joecoten]

This is indeed a product of poor researched. The Shorter OED With historical principle explains that the Latin ecclesia is used to translale the English word Church which is equivalent to the Greek ekklesia.

If you do your etymology, you'll see what I mean. Up to you.

 

[fredoheaven]

Do your homework. I'm not trying to impress anybody. I'm just stating a fact. Believe what you want. What's it to me?

Alright, I would have to understand you. You need to check you facts first. Thank you

 

[Nehemiah6]

...the KJV translators took one original manuscript word (I know there were only copies) and replaced it with a word that didn't appear in the original manuscripts

You are falsely accusing the King James translators of fraud, when you probably have no clue about their integrity, nor the number of manuscripts, printed texts, and translations they had on hand.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Pretty good...apart from the fact that they added a word to the book of Revelation...but pretty good!

And how would you know? But if indeed they added one word, then the modern versions added thousands. So for the sake of one word -- presumably-- you wish to deride a translation?

 

[Nehemiah6]

The King James bible translators replaced the original word "ecclesia," with the word church.

To get very elementary, translation is not replacement. It is called translation for a reason. "Church" is the English equivalent of "ekklesia" (which you failed to properly spell even though you called it "the original word"). In the Greek it is ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia).

 

[Runningman]

Sometimes I'll be reading a certain translation and one verse will seem to say something perfectly. Better than any other. Later, I'll be reading a different translation and the same thing will happen with another verse. For this reason, I enjoy using Bible Hub.
Then there are the times when I'll be reading a passage and it will almost seem as though someone is standing behind me, shining a light over my shoulder onto the text. If I found a translation where that happened all the time, then I would've found the perfect translation.
"However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come." - John 16:13 BSB

I like the Berean Study Bible a lot because it crossreferences to other passages. Lately I have been enjoying the Lexham English Bible (LEB), but I see that, unfortuantely, it is not on Bible Hub. The LEB was created by one of Bible Hub's competitors, Logos Bible Software, and I guess the bottom line is that it's unwise to promote the product of a direct competitor. Logos also has a lot of good Bible study tools, too.