Most Accurate Bible
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
You're making that up, I assume because you don't know Hebrew.
The letter does have a sound.
Vayeeshoah, there's a shva nach under it (It's not written because it's assumed). It's a guttural breath at the end of the word. There are no characters in Hebrew which can be placed and not be sounded, such a thing simply doesn't exist.
וַיִּשָּׂא
The ישא means Marry - I am not sure the etymology. But if it's ancient it makes sense. It alludes to the fact that Jacob was traveling to meet Rachel, his future wife.
East here is referring to Aram-Naharaim, or modern Iraq. It is also referred to as old, since it was where the city of Ur was - the birthplace of Abram. Not to mention in Genesis 2:14, the third and fourth river are the two rivers that outline the borders of Aram-Naharaim.
And he didn't just 'peregrinate', he had a purpose for going. Laban was the brother in law of Isaac, Isaac was the father of Jacob. Jacob was going to work for Laban, he did so for 20 years (not just the years he promised for marriage).
There is another level of complexity in the fact that not only the original text but the original language has been lost.lix said:
So an accurate translation of the Greek would not be an accurate "translation" of the original, necessarily. And this is particularly true of the very center of the Christian Bible - the direct quotes of Jesus.
Still irrelevant. This has nothing to do with anything. Level of complexity has not changed. Still the same. Do you even know what accuracy is? Do you really think that accuracy is the same as exact? Your making claims about the level of complexity as if it changes anything or has an effect on anything being written in this thread. I'm sure translators out there are aware of whatever the level the complexity may be. Whether it is really complex or not complex at all, it doesn't make a difference in deciding which translation is accurate. Every translation is being related to the same original writing. Every translation has the same level of complexity to deal with. Who cares? Wow there is high level of complexity. OK fine. Then what? The question remains exactly the same. Which is the most accurate?
Last edited:
You're wrong about silent Hebrew letters not existing. You're right about Iraq. You're wrong about peregrination. Peregrinate is the most accurate word for the Hebrew writing that you posted.
Okay, please prove to me silent Hebrew letters exist in Biblical Hebrew. I'll grant you that modern Hebrew ignores some dip-thongs and guttural pronunciations. But in terms of biblical Hebrew, or proper Hebrew...you're dead wrong. I will give my support; I can read and write biblical Hebrew - I've been to school to learn how. Can you support your claim? Do you even know Hebrew? Why are you arguing if you've no education, nor background in a language with someone who does? Is it because you're an arrogant imbecile?
In fact, give me any case where it 'exists', and I will transliterate it.
I'd dispute the definition of 'peregrinate' but my evidence was already listed above. You don't know Hebrew, and therefore you don't KNOW what the original word says...much less how to pronounce it or its proper spelling.
Please lixluke, enlighten me.
In fact, give me any case where it 'exists', and I will transliterate it.
I'd dispute the definition of 'peregrinate' but my evidence was already listed above. You don't know Hebrew, and therefore you don't KNOW what the original word says...much less how to pronounce it or its proper spelling.
Please lixluke, enlighten me.
אני יודע עברית. אתה לא.
If you knew even the first thing about Hebrew you would know that Hebrew is an abjad. No letter alone has a vowel. א (aleph)(the first letter of the alefbet) can make the sound "ee" with chirik, "oo" with a kubutz, "ah" with a segol amongst numerous other vowels. If you knew Hebrew, you'd also know that every single letter in every single word has a vowel...even when they don't write it (such as a shva..which indicates guttural break).
Please, try again.
If you knew even the first thing about Hebrew you would know that Hebrew is an abjad. No letter alone has a vowel. א (aleph)(the first letter of the alefbet) can make the sound "ee" with chirik, "oo" with a kubutz, "ah" with a segol amongst numerous other vowels. If you knew Hebrew, you'd also know that every single letter in every single word has a vowel...even when they don't write it (such as a shva..which indicates guttural break).
Please, try again.
What is the original writing of the New Testament? The "quotes" from Jesus, in particular - is the Greek the "original"?lix said:
Which is the most "accurate" Bible: the translation most faithful to the Greek, or the rendition most likely representative of the original language?
And what are we to do with the "virgin" Mary, the singular "God" in the opening lines of Genesis, and other suspect renderings or the ESV? True to the faith, but not to the literal text, are they "accurate"?
Last edited:
Again irrelevant. Accuracy is relative. You don't know what accuracy means. All of your post think accuracy is talking about exact.
Wrong. The first letter is silent. It doesn't make any sound without an accent under it. It is a completely soundless silent letter. Your entire argument is completely pointless.
You're a fucking moron lixluke.
This statement is factually accurate.
English Standard Version is probably one of the better ones to go with. More recent, so it has a lot more scholarship and study going into the translation and sources. Maybe the Holman Version, too, since it is also recent, and uses a compromise between formal and dynamic equivalence.
On the other side of the pillow, the KJV is probably among the most horrendous versions. Avoid the fuck out of it.
Best thing to do, though, is go learn Greek and Hebrew and use copies of the original texts. But that could be time-consuming.
On the other side of the pillow, the KJV is probably among the most horrendous versions. Avoid the fuck out of it.
Best thing to do, though, is go learn Greek and Hebrew and use copies of the original texts. But that could be time-consuming.
A perfect example of mistranslation is in Exodus. Not sure of exact wording, but here is the gist of it:
And god parted the red sea so that Moses and his lot could do a bunk!
Original:
And god parted the reed sea so that Moses and his lot could do a bunk!
One hell of a difference in geography. In the translated section the israelites travelled hundreds of miles south, on the same side of the river as the army to cross a SEA.
In the original version, the israelites went directly to the marshes in the nile delta, where the land was semi crossable and crossed the REED Sea. (Still there today).
And god parted the red sea so that Moses and his lot could do a bunk!
Original:
And god parted the reed sea so that Moses and his lot could do a bunk!
One hell of a difference in geography. In the translated section the israelites travelled hundreds of miles south, on the same side of the river as the army to cross a SEA.
In the original version, the israelites went directly to the marshes in the nile delta, where the land was semi crossable and crossed the REED Sea. (Still there today).
He means accuracy in translation from the original texts to English. That's what just about anyone means when they say "accurate Bible".
But you already knew that, so stop being so facetious.
That wouldn't have been a mistranslation, but a typo. But since the words for reed and red Hebrew, Greek, or Latin are not remotely similar in spelling or pronunciation, it can't be either a typo or a mistranslation. You're looking at it too much from the perspective of the English language.
Rather, it's an exaggeration. 'Cuz, you know, that kinda is what myths do.
I do not know where the mistranslation occurred but the hebrew word is REED, and somehow it transpired into the english 'translation' as RED. How is immaterial really, don't you think? Its wrong whichever way its done. Another one possibly is where he went up to Mount Sinai to get the tablets carved, no god handed them down, the bible says Mount Sinai as I understand it, but the actual text says a MOUNT IN SINAI. This has been traced now to MOUNT KHARKOM, which means Mountain of god. Indeed, an international team of archeologists found, at its base, an ancient hebrew settlement and a 12 stone altar.
Finally, the Egyptian Pharaoh Ankehaten; displaced the multi god culture of the time with a single god worship - the god RA - the sun. This is preceding the time of Moses. He wrote a poem to the sun god, which has been found in a recently discovered city in the desert, carved on some pillars. Following this man's death, Egypt reverted to the multi god society and erased the one god religion from their history. It is the same virtually word for word as some lines in the bible (sorry, cannot remember where in the Book of Psalms) but was written BEFORE the alleged biblical version. The words have been amended by whoever wrote the biblical version to reflect the scribe’s views and not those of an Egyptian Pharaoh. Could this have been Moses' "one god" approach? Moses must have copied the original text from these pillars, substituting the word Ra for God and using it as his basis for his own "one god" theory. Or did Moses copy it word for word only for it to be later lost in translation by those who only saw what they wanted to see.
Finally, the Egyptian Pharaoh Ankehaten; displaced the multi god culture of the time with a single god worship - the god RA - the sun. This is preceding the time of Moses. He wrote a poem to the sun god, which has been found in a recently discovered city in the desert, carved on some pillars. Following this man's death, Egypt reverted to the multi god society and erased the one god religion from their history. It is the same virtually word for word as some lines in the bible (sorry, cannot remember where in the Book of Psalms) but was written BEFORE the alleged biblical version. The words have been amended by whoever wrote the biblical version to reflect the scribe’s views and not those of an Egyptian Pharaoh. Could this have been Moses' "one god" approach? Moses must have copied the original text from these pillars, substituting the word Ra for God and using it as his basis for his own "one god" theory. Or did Moses copy it word for word only for it to be later lost in translation by those who only saw what they wanted to see.
Last edited:
RSV is the best... It may have mistakes (all of them do), but when its about the message RSV is definitely the best. ESV is simply to satisfy those who otherwise hated the RSV. They have to make money you know. Sure ESV may be better in some senses, but RSV preserves the message- but that is unacceptable to conservatives they would rather have every verse say Jesus.
Peace be unto you
Peace be unto you