Active Users:478 Time:02/05/2025 08:30:41 PM
That bad of translations? Larry Send a noteboard - 12/01/2012 05:55:38 AM
The Aramaic is only relevant for the New Testament and small bits of the Old Testament, but Hebrew Old Testaments don't anachronistically translate those into Hebrew. Even so, it's clear that the original language of the New Testament was Greek. Even with Greek, the Septuagint is helpful to have for historical purposes but not strictly necessary.

As for English, sometimes I think the worst thing to ever happen was the translation of the Bible into English.


Or are you also thinking of those fundies who believe that the only true edition of the Bible is the King James edition? xx(
Illusions fall like the husk of a fruit, one after another, and the fruit is experience. - Narrator, Sylvie

Je suis méchant.
Reply to message
I'm wondering if I own too many Bibles. - 12/01/2012 12:08:16 AM 904 Views
I'm in the same boat - 12/01/2012 12:14:11 AM 760 Views
Just FYI - 12/01/2012 05:34:15 AM 679 Views
I know - 12/01/2012 05:54:00 AM 764 Views
You need a bible that has 5 translations side by side - 12/01/2012 04:16:25 AM 964 Views
Not quite - 12/01/2012 05:31:57 AM 794 Views
That bad of translations? - 12/01/2012 05:55:38 AM 808 Views
May I ask why you have the NIV rather than the NASB? *NM* - 12/01/2012 09:47:55 AM 331 Views
I think it's better. - 12/01/2012 09:11:58 PM 794 Views
Bible geekery. - 12/01/2012 11:55:48 AM 757 Views
Time for me to buy a green sweater. *NM* - 12/01/2012 11:23:14 PM 330 Views
I only have 4 - 12/01/2012 01:58:13 PM 841 Views
I heard the Norwegian one had the controversial "Thou shalt slaughter Leviathan and eat him" passage - 12/01/2012 11:24:50 PM 694 Views
Indeed - 13/01/2012 09:49:06 AM 920 Views
NIV Study Bible is high on my list of Must Haves. - 12/01/2012 08:34:08 PM 755 Views
I'm a little confused - 12/01/2012 11:25:28 PM 712 Views
I shall un-confuse you. - 12/01/2012 11:42:20 PM 691 Views

Reply to Message