My Bible study

I must be careful about discussing religion. When in college, we had discussion groups and we could argue any point and someone would argue back and everything was done with truth in mind. When I got into the Navy, however, I discovered that did not work in the non-academic world. Some of those who thought they were the most devout were so shallow in their faith that I often had grown men crying. I decided That was not the way to go. I told a lady friend here who wanted to discuss various religious topics that "I didn't want to be the guy with a millstone around my neck and cast into the sea."
 
Don Alaska said:
Want confusion? Here is a long video about Bible translations. Only watch if you are truly curious about the Bible.

Click to expand...
I watched that last night. It was a slow TV night, so I started watching.

I had always assumed that the translations went through multiple languages, not that part of the Bible was written in Hebrew, part was originally written in Greek, and only a small portion was originally written in Aramaic. (Of course, I knew the Old Testament was Hebrew, but I believed the New Testaments to have gone from Aramaic to Greek to English, meaning I erroneously thought that lots of the idioms were lost because of being sequentially filtered through 3 cultural lenses.) I had no idea that the NIV was basically the product of Evangelicals overtly translating to suit their views. I found it remarkable that the narrator only needed a week or two of classroom instruction for him to be able to translate from the Greek all on his own.

Lots of fascinating stuff as to how significantly the meaning and actual content had been [sometimes infuriatingly intentionally] changed to suit PC norms. What surprises me the most is that the Catholic version (NSRV) took such liberties the least, and they annotated where there were different inferences that could be reached based upon then-current idioms and contextual definitions. I had assumed it to be as influenced by political forces as the King James version. The NSRV seems to be the translation with the most secular scholarly intellectual honesty, containing full disclosure of what translation choices were made, why they were made, and what alternate translations might be. I got one sitting in my Amazon wish list.

As a side note, the narrator exclusively referred to dates as C.E. (the Common Era) as opposed to A.D. (Anno Domini.) I thought that C.E. was a secular whitewash of Jesus from our lexicon, and am surprised to hear him adopt it.
 
Last edited:
John Brunner said:
Yeh, but then there's the "just being a humanitarian won't get you into Heaven" position. (edit to add: I know that's not what you said.) I think the concern over being imperfect is part of a fear-driven faith (believe or suffer forever!), but I don't want to wander too far afield here.
Click to expand...
We are all sinners but are offered grace though belief in Jesus' death and resurrection. We do good works if we follow him. Not to get into heaven. It is not pay to play. He released us from the old law, giving us the New Covenant of Love; God above all and our neighbor as ourselves. That Covenant will solve all.
There are a lot of interesting videos on youtube on aspects of the Bible that get me to thinking.
 
John Brunner said:
I watched that last night. It was a slow TV night, so I started watching.

I had always assumed that the translations went through multiple languages, not that part of the Bible was written in Hebrew, part was originally written in Greek, and only a small portion was originally written in Aramaic. (Of course, I knew the Old Testament was Hebrew, but I believed the New Testaments to have gone from Aramaic to Greek to English, meaning I erroneously thought that lots of the idioms were lost because of being sequentially filtered through 3 cultural lenses.) I had no idea that the NIV was basically the product of Evangelicals overtly translating to suit their views. I found it remarkable that the narrator only needed a week or two of classroom instruction for him to be able to translate from the Greek all on his own.

Lots of fascinating stuff as to how significantly the meaning and actual content had been [sometimes infuriatingly intentionally] changed to suit PC norms. What surprises me the most is that the Catholic version (NSRV) took such liberties the least, and they annotated where there were different inferences that could be reached based upon then-current idioms and contextual definitions. I had assumed it to be as influenced by political forces as the King James version. The NSRV seems to be the translation with the most secular scholarly intellectual honesty, containing full disclosure of what translation choices were made, why they were made, and what alternate translations might be. I got one sitting in my Amazon wish list.

As a side note, the narrator exclusively referred to dates as C.E. (the Common Era) as opposed to A.D. (Anno Domini.) I thought that C.E. was a secular whitewash of Jesus from our lexicon, and am surprised to hear him adopt it.
Click to expand...
He uses C.E. in his academic work. I am sure you won't become a Biblical scholar in a few weeks of Greek, especially since there are several dialects to deal with. If you read the NSRV, I think you will find the footnotes to be very enlightening. After Vatican II, the Catholic Church had a lot of catching up to do since Catholics up to that time were mostly discouraged from reading the text because of the easy way it is to be mislead when you are reading in translation. They used a lot of Protestant scholarship and produced a very good work using many of the ancient manuscripts that were not available to earlier translators. I am glad you watched the video @John Brunner.. I wasn't sure anyone would watch it when I posted it, but I hoped there would be somebody curious enough to take the time. Aaron Henry has had a long history on YouTube and other platforms that began when he was still in graduate school, and I have wondered if he was related to Matthew Henry, the Concordance scholar of years ago.
 
Mary Stetler said:
We are all sinners but are offered grace though belief in Jesus' death and resurrection. We do good works if we follow him. Not to get into heaven. It is not pay to play. He released us from the old law, giving us the New Covenant of Love; God above all and our neighbor as ourselves. That Covenant will solve all.
There are a lot of interesting videos on youtube on aspects of the Bible that get me to thinking.
Click to expand...
Well said !
 
Mary Stetler said:
Curious. Has anyone here gotten into the Ethiopian Bible? Just got one on Amazon and am a little nervous about The Books of Enoch and Jubulees (sp)
Click to expand...
Why be nervous? The Ethiopian bible is a lot older translation than the King James. Does that make it less or more holy than the KJ? That is a personal decision for the reader to make. The King James isn't that old of a translation. You can search online and find out about all that were involved in translating the bible under King James.

From my studies of old, the Dr. George Lamza translation is the most accurate ever. It doesn't change the meaning of any scripture, just clarifies some of the faulty translations that on some scripture led to wild speculation why some one would say such a crazy thing. I advise anyone interested in reading the most accurate translation of the bible available to get the Lamza translation. It helps clarify a lot of confusion without the need for study guides or your ministers interpretation.

Think about it. Why would Jesus say something so silly as trying to put a camel through a needle eye? In defense of the King James, regarded by many scholars as the only infallible sacred text, they explain that the needle was an opening in a mountain that a camel would have difficulty going through, indicating that it is possible, but difficult, for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. That never made sense to me as Jesus was very clear about rich men and God's kingdom. In other places Jesus talked about not piling up treasures here on earth, but rather in heaven. The idea of a camel down on his knees scooting through a very small opening in a rock, just didn't make any sense to me being a ranch girl. I didn't and still don't know much about camels, but somehow common sense had me thinking something wasn't right and camels weren't that stupid.

In the Lamsa Bible, the well‑known verse from Matthew 19:24 — often translated as “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” — is rendered differently because of the source text Lamsa used.

Lamsa’s translation is based on the Peshitta, the Aramaic Bible used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Syriac Christian traditions. In Aramaic, the words for “camel” and “rope” are written identically, so early translators sometimes confused them when moving from Aramaic to Greek, Lamsa, who grew up in the Aramaic‑speaking culture of the Church of the East, believed the original Aramaic text was more accurate and preserved the original meaning of the bible.

As a result, in the Lamsa Bible, Matthew 19:24 reads:
“Again I say to you, It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”

Now, that makes sense! While they used large eye needles for making and repairing tents, with heavy thread, no way could anyone put a rope through it. This example made sense to anyone hearing it at that time when tents, tent makers, and tent making equipment were very common.

This change reflects Lamsa’s view that the Greek New Testament contains a mistranslation due to the confusion between these two Aramaic words. He argued that the original Aramaic text should be the basis for English translation, rather than later Greek manuscripts, especially since Jesus spoke Aramaic.
 
Last edited:
Von Jones said:
I also never understood why it was always suggested to read the New Testament before the Old Testament when beginning to read the Bible. I never did.
Click to expand...
Because ministers, preachers, evangelist, deacons, elders, etc., push a rush to salvation. The New Testament is about salvation through Christ and one doesn't need to know anything about the Old Testament to receive salvation. How to be saved differs from one person to another. Some on TV say to pray with them as they pray on TV and you will be saved, but then call the toll free number.

I wonder if no one called that number and they didn't get donations for their FREE bible study guides, would they continue to pray with you until they ran out of money running those expensive ads?

If they advised you to start reading the bible from the beginning, then most would quit when they got to all the begat and begot rambling. I know as a teen going to church with my mom on Wednesday night when they read and rambled on about the old testament, I was out like a light on the third begetting. Sometimes I woke up when they talked about the fiery furnace and Meshack, Shadrack, and Abednego. My Grandpa had three horses he named after those characters because they were rescued from a barn fire, so it was more interesting than the begetting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top