Recovery Bible = Corrupted Word Of God!

[Bible-believer]

RV Chinese version is even worse. Lots of "re-defined" terms. Most of the Chinese promote RV to a great extent, almost equating it to "the Original." I wonder how many of them know Greek or Hebrew.
I have a close friend from LC who told me more than once that she wanted to be a martyr to be an overcomer.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

RV Chinese version is even worse. Lots of "re-defined" terms. Most of the Chinese promote RV to a great extent, almost equating it to "the Original." I wonder how many of them know Greek or Hebrew.
I have a close friend from LC who told me more than once that she wanted to be a martyr to be an overcomer.

I’m very glad that I don’t speak or read Chinese, just for the sake of sanity alone. Just reading their English RV, has plenty of things to move you away from the real, living Word of God. So they can keep drinking that Koolaid, or “Leeaid”, but I’ll just stick with what is simple, understandable, and living.

There are plenty of examples in history, where people died in crusades, and denied themselves everything, including total abandonment of all family and society, for what? Just to show to the world how spiritually devoted they are, and so that others can use them as an example. After all, if I understand my Bible correctly, is it the same Apostle John that wrote about overcomers in Revelations, wrote about “overcoming” in 1 John 2? There are plenty of things addressed in that chapter that should be spoken and proclaimed today, rather than the total brainwashing and disabling scam teachings, perpetuated and sold by the LC.

[Timotheist]

KJV is not without severe criticism.

The best example is its translations of "Sheol" and "Hades" into various words.

NASB is pretty fair on this one point, so I suggest comparing those two versions, and then tell me how great the KJV is.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

KJV is not without severe criticism.

The best example is its translations of "Sheol" and "Hades" into various words.

NASB is pretty fair on this one point, so I suggest comparing those two versions, and then tell me how great the KJV is.

Timotheist,


I have said in this thread, that there is no such thing as a perfect translation, however off all that’s out there, I don’t see anything better than KJV. You are not the first or the last person that said something about the translating Sheol/Hades as hell/grave and pit. Sheol is used 65 times in OT and translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. Which one of these you have issue with? Are you not happy about not enough hell as some? Or you not happy with grave? I noticed that the people who don’t believe in existence of hell had major problems with KJV, so clarify please. In the NT, hades is used 11 times and translated as hell 10, and grave 1.

As far as NASB goes;

Do you mean this NASB Bible that has been edited 10 times, and revised 4 times?
Do you mean that the Bible that you referred to, read one thing in 1971, and reads opposite of that in their 2020 version? Please read both for yourself and tell me which one of those 4 version of NASB should be used for comparison.

Those translators and editors must have an oracle of God, updating them constantly on the changes to the text. Sounds like something I heard for a while in the LC.

Just some facts about NASB.

Edited:
New American Standard Bible
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation
A Corporation Not for Profit
La Habra, California
All Rights Reserved
www.lockman.org

Revised/published.
1971, 1977, 1995, 2020.

Derived from
American Standard Version

American Standard version is derived from, English Revised Version 1881–1885, which is translated from:
NT: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857, (Reproduced in a single, continuous, form in Palmer 1881).
OT: Masoretic Text with some Septuagint influence).

And if anyone knows anything about Westcott and Hort, then one will understand why the NASB has been through 10 editions and 4 revisions.
Just for the record.

And here is even a bigger one for you. One of the main people who did work on NASB, has renounced it, as a total scam!

Frank Logsdon Denounces New American
Standard Version (Transcript)

*

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
- Frank Logsdon



As a side note:
“In 1965, United Bible Societies (also known as USB, over 146 nations), and the Catholic Church agreed to prepare a “common text of the Bible”, and adopted a Westcott and Hort Vaticanus text.”

[Timotheist]

Now I did say the NASB is better “on this one point”.

Regarding how I feel about ‘hell’, I have a lengthy post in a thread entitled “Heaven and Hellenism” on this forum that I posted way back. I will leave it up to you to read it or not.

Here, to summarize using the language in this thread, the concept of a heaven/hell destiny is a “total scam” perpetrated by the Protestants in those days.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Now I did say the NASB is better “on this one point”.

Regarding how I feel about ‘hell’, I have a lengthy post in a thread entitled “Heaven and Hellenism” on this forum that I posted way back. I will leave it up to you to read it or not.

Here, to summarize using the language in this thread, the concept of a heaven/hell destiny is a “total scam” perpetrated by the Protestants in those days.

Ok, I guess I will just say that I do believe in heaven and hell, and also believe in the eternity with God, or the Lake of Fire. So maybe one day, I’ll check out that thread and see what’s there.
Thanks

[Bible-believer]

Dr. Gipp "Where Are the Originals"

Youtube link: For your reference

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Timotheist,

You are not the first or the last person that said something about the translating Sheol/Hades as hell/grave and pit. Sheol is used 65 times in OT and translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. Which one of these you have issue with?

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

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

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

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

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

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

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

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

Thanks for mentioning the basics of Translation 101.

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