The Translation Error Page - New Testament

[may]

The translation "divine" is unwarranted and unnecesarily ambiguous. It cannot be used to support the translation "a god." All I am interested in is the translations that use "a god" - I want to find these translations and read the preface to see if the people actually knew Greek.

the translations( was God )is unwarranted and unnecesarily ambiguous it cannot be used to support the translation as it goes against the rest of the bible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, you are accepting the existence of other Gods? Is Jesus one of them?

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

You alone are the Most High over all the earth.psalm 83;18 as the bible tells us there is only one most high, and this most high sent his only-begotten son
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life john 3;16...................its good isnt it to know that there is a way to everlasting life . there is no salvation in any one else ,Jesus is the way the truth and the life .

You didn't answer the question.

 

[may]

Quite right. Many modern translations do render it "murder" rather than "kill."

(Exodus 20:13) "You must not murder.​

"You must not murder." Heb., lo´ tir·tsach´. Note that the Heb. verb ta·harogh´, "should kill," is not used here. interesting to look up exodus 2;14

At this he said: "Who appointed you as a prince and judge over us? Are you intending to kill me
Lit., "Are you talking so as to kill me?" Heb., hal·hor·ghe´ni ´at·tah´ ´o·mer´?
just as you killed the Egyptian?" Moses now got afraid and said: "Surely the thing has become known!"

(Deuteronomy 5:17) "‘You must not murder.
(Matthew 5:21) "YOU heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.’
(Genesis 9:6) Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.
(Numbers 35:21) or in enmity he has struck him with his hand that he might die, without fail the striker should be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood will put the murderer to death when he chances upon him.
(Romans 13:9) For the [law code], "You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet," and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[may]

[/i]



You didn't answer the question.

no, the bible did and that is good enough for me .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(Exodus 20:13) "You must not murder.​

"You must not murder." Heb., lo´ tir·tsach´. Note that the Heb. verb ta·harogh´, "should kill," is not used here. interesting to look up exodus 2;14

At this he said: "Who appointed you as a prince and judge over us? Are you intending to kill me
Lit., "Are you talking so as to kill me?" Heb., hal·hor·ghe´ni ´at·tah´ ´o·mer´?
just as you killed the Egyptian?" Moses now got afraid and said: "Surely the thing has become known!"

(Deuteronomy 5:17) "‘You must not murder.
(Matthew 5:21) "YOU heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.’
(Genesis 9:6) Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.
(Numbers 35:21) or in enmity he has struck him with his hand that he might die, without fail the striker should be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood will put the murderer to death when he chances upon him.
(Romans 13:9) For the [law code], "You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet," and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

So what are you trying to say here?

The Hebrew verb means murder, and is used in that sense every time that it appears in the Hebrew bible and in the Greek LXX and New Testament.

For example, when the Bible says that God commands the armies of Israel to kill people, the word for murder used in the ten commandments and the summation of the ten commandments in Jeremiah 7 and Hosea 4 are not used. This applies to both the Hebrew and the Greek.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what are you trying to say here?

The Hebrew verb means murder, and is used in that sense every time that it appears in the Hebrew bible and in the Greek LXX and New Testament.

For example, when the Bible says that God commands the armies of Israel to kill people, the word for murder used in the ten commandments and the summation of the ten commandments in Jeremiah 7 and Hosea 4 are not used. This applies to both the Hebrew and the Greek.

I have some detailed notes on this at home and will post it later tonight.

 

[may]

So what are you trying to say here?

The Hebrew verb means murder, and is used in that sense every time that it appears in the Hebrew bible and in the Greek LXX and New Testament.

For example, when the Bible says that God commands the armies of Israel to kill people, the word for murder used in the ten commandments and the summation of the ten commandments in Jeremiah 7 and Hosea 4 are not used. This applies to both the Hebrew and the Greek.

yes the best way to translate it is murder, the new world translation has got it right.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

yes the best way to translate it is murder, the new world translation has got it right.

It is very interesting to me how both the Hebrew writers and Greek translators protected that word.

There is a lot of killing in the Bible. God commands Israel to kill people in the Old Testament, and murder is not used, but kill. Jesus also is said to kill people in judgment in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation, and the Greek word used for murder in the 10 commandments is not used. Very interesting.

 

[may]

If you know of a translation error in the NT, let's compile them here.

what about the translation errors in the OT scriptures, THE KING JAMES BIBLE in psalm 83;18 has retained Gods name . but in the NEW KING JAMES TRANSLATION IT HAS BEEN REMOVED it is a fact that this name should be in the bible about 7,000 times , and it was bad enough that the old version had retained it only in a few places. but now they are pushing the name of the most high even further into the background .oh dear the influence of the adversary is very active indeed.................... but no worries , Jehovah has made sure that there is a translation out there that is translated just as he wants it to be. here it is
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what about the translation errors in the OT scriptures, THE KING JAMES BIBLE in psalm 83;18 has retained Gods name . but in the NEW KING JAMES TRANSLATION IT HAS BEEN REMOVED it is a fact that this name should be in the bible about 7,000 times , and it was bad enough that the old version had retained it only in a few places. but now they are pushing the name of the most high even further into the background .oh dear the influence of the adversary is very active indeed.................... but no worries , Jehovah has made sure that there is a translation out there that is translated just as he wants it to be. here it is
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

That would have to be the topic of another thread. Frankly, this is an issue that I am unwilling to discuss.

 

[anders]

I agree with may (must be the first time) and our angel (happens quite often): The commandment should be rendered "Don't murder (unless God tells you that a certain murder is just a killing)". When I was a Christian, I accepted it that way. The Swedish translations have always used a "murder" word, not "kill".

 

[jonny]

Baptism as a rite pre-dates Christianity, and other cults practiced it in the first century, including the Jews.

Funny, I was wondering about this today since I've been reading in the New Testament about John the Baptist lately and was wondering if baptism had been practiced earlier. Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[jonny]

Question on this - are there original manuscripts out there still to compare the current versions of the Bible with? Are these types of things kept in the Vatacan library?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Question on this - are there original manuscripts out there still to compare the current versions of the Bible with? Are these types of things kept in the Vatacan library?

There are no originals. The Vatican does have a very old codex - a scroll cut like a book - of the New Testament.

The text of the New Testament is basically a scholar's redaction of these codex's along with the cosideration of various other fragments and texts. There are about 15k Greek manuscripts and another 35k Latin and Coptic mss, and the NT scholars consider all of them.

It's been a work in progress for the past 2000 years.

 

[Quagmire]

translation errors................... just to get the ball rolling how about John 1;1 the word was God:no:

That's not a common mistake. Only one translation that I know of translates John 1.1 incorrectly as saying "the word was a god," and it is obviously done for theological reasons that cannot be justified.

ESV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

BNT John 1:1 VEn In avrch/| beginning h=n it was o` the lo,goj word( kai. and o` the lo,goj word h=n it was pro.j with to.n the qeo,n God( kai. qeo.j God h=n it was o` the lo,goj wordÅ​

The main issue is highlighted in blue. I have underlined words in the verse with articles (the - 'o' or 'tov' in Greek).... JWs argue (alone as far as I know) that since there is no article (the) attached to God (highlighted in blue), that the noun 'God' should be translated as "a god."

However, in Greek, it is quite basic that a noun can be articular without actually having an article written, and the New World Translation does not consistently translate all of the article-less nouns as anathorous (without article).

Both "God" and "word" in the second part of the sentence can be the subject of the verb - both being in the nominative case. The word order gets changed in English because usually the subject goes first in the English sentence, and since "word" has the article, it is taken as the subject, although both are articular.

an even more relevent contraversy is the one concerning the translation of the word "Logos" itself.

Among ancient scholars the term "Logos" had many applications but it was never considerred a synonim for "word".

Originally the term was used (by Hereticlus) to refer to the substance from which everything was made, as well as the force and process behind the creation therof.
Something akin to the Taoist concept of the Tao (in fact several chineses translations of the Gospel of John open with "In the begining was the Tao, and the Tao was with God....")

It later came to be used in reference to Reason or Logic, more specifically a particular, transcendant form (a parrelel to Socrate's concept of "Devine Reason").
It was meant to idenitify the force that creates reality (as opposed to human reason which merely attempts to comprehend it).

Defining Logos as "word" is a fairly modern application, one that the author of John wouldn't have been familiar with.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

an even more relevent contraversy is the one concerning the translation of the word "Logos" itself.

Among ancient scholars the term "Logos" had many applications but it was never considerred a synonim for "word".

Originally the term was used (by Hereticlus) to refer to the substance from which everything was made, as well as the force and process behind the creation therof.
Something akin to the Taoist concept of the Tao (in fact several chineses translations of the Gospel of John open with "In the begining was the Tao, and the Tao was with God....")

It later came to be used in reference to Reason or Logic, more specifically a particular, transcendant form (a parrelel to Socrate's concept of "Devine Reason").
It was meant to idenitify the force that creates reality (as opposed to human reason which merely attempts to comprehend it).

Defining Logos as "word" is a fairly modern application, one that the author of John wouldn't have been familiar with.

LSJ translates logos as "word, utterance" referencing multiple citations in Aristotle and Plato.

Logos does have a wide variety of meanings, but given the usage of logos as "word" in Plato and Aristotle, I don't think that your argument that it's a modern understanding of the word and that John could not have understood it like that has no merit whatsoever.

The citations are Plato Sph. 263e; Laws 664a, 835b; Aristotle Po. 459a. There are many more, but Plato and Aristotle were very popular.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I see in LSJ that the usage of logos in John is grouped with other Greek writers in the first century and earlier who used the term to refer to "The Word or Wisdom of God, personified as his agent in creation and world government."

citations are: LXX Wi. 18.15; Corp. Herm. 1.6; cf. Plu. 2.327c; Ph. 1.162... etc.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From the online LSJ lexicon at Perseus:

Logos is a pretty popular word with many meanings, but here is the proof that logos was used in the sense of "word" before John, particularly in the LXX to refer to the 10 commandments.

lo/goj, o( , verbal noun of le/gw (B), with senses corresponding to le/gw (B) II and III (on the various senses of the word v. Theo Sm.pp.72,73 H., An.Ox.4.327): common in all periods in Prose and Verse, exc. Epic, in which it is found in signf. derived from le/gw (B) 111, cf.infr. VI. 1 a:

VII. a particular utterance, saying:

1. divine utterance, oracle, Pi.P.4.59; l. mantikoi/ Pl. Phdr.275b ; ou) ga\r e)mo\n e)rw= to\n l. Pl.Ap.20e ; o( l. tou= qeou= Apoc.1.2 ,9.



2. proverb, maxim, saying, Pi.N.9.6, A.Th.218; w(=d' e)/xei l. ib.225; to/nd' e)kai/nisen l. w(j . . Critias 21, cf. Pl.R.330a, Ev.Jo.4.37; o( palaio\j l. Pl.Phdr.240c , cf. Smp.195b, Grg.499c, Lg.757a, 1 Ep.Ti.1.15, Plu.2.1082e, Luc.Alex.9, etc.; to\ tou= lo/gou dh\ tou=to Herod.2.45 , cf. D.Chr.66.24, Luc.JTr.3, Alciphr.3.56, etc.: pl., Arist.EN1147a21.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

3. assertion, opp. oath, S.OC651; yilw=| l. bare word, opp. marturi/a , D.27.54.

4. express resolution, koinw=| l. by common consent, Hdt.1.141,al.; e)pi\ l. toiw=|de, e)p' w(=| te . . on the following terms, Id.7.158, cf. 9.26; e)nde/casqai to\n l. Id.1.60 , cf. 9.5; l. e)/xontej pleone/kthn a greedy proposal, Id.7.158: freq. in pl., terms, conditions, Id.9.33, etc.

5. word of command, behest, A.Pr.17,40 (both pl.), Pers.363; a)nqrw/pouj piqanwte/rouj poiei=n lo/gw| X.Oec.13.9 ; e)ce/bale ta\ pneu/mata lo/gw| Ev.Matt.8.16 ; oi( de/ka l. the ten Commandments, LXX Ex.34.28, Ph.1.496.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

X. the Word or Wisdom of God, personified as his agent in creation and world-government, o( pantodu/namo/j sou l. LXX Wi.18.15 ; o( e)k noo\j fwteino\j l. ui(o\j qeou= Corp.Herm.1.6 , cf. Plu.2.376c; l. qeou= di' ou(= kateskeua/sqh [o( ko/smoj ] Ph.1.162; th=j tou= qeou= sofi/aj: h( de/ e)stin o( qeou= l. ib.56; l. qei=oj . . ei)kw\n qeou= ib.561, cf. 501; to\n tome/a tw=n sumpa/ntwn [qeou=] l. ib.492; to\n a)/ggelon o(/j e)sti l. ib.122: in NT identified with the person of Christ, e)n a)rxh=| h)=n o( l. Ev.Jo.1.1 , cf. 14, 1 Ep.Jo.2.7, Apoc.19.13; o( l. th=j zwh=j 1 Ep.Jo.1.1 .