Eastern vs. Western Bibles

[Jenamarie]

This link was posted on another message board I frequent (geared towards traditional Christians) in a debate on the "inerrancy" and "infallibility" of the Bible. Not wanting this thread to turn into a debate on that subject, I just thought I would share this article that goes into some of the differences between the Eastern and Western translations of the Bible, because I found it so interesting!

FaithWriters.com-Christian Apologetics - Surprising Differences in Bible translations across the world

[jadams_4040]

This link was posted on another message board I frequent (geared towards traditional Christians) in a debate on the "inerrancy" and "infallibility" of the Bible. Not wanting this thread to turn into a debate on that subject, I just thought I would share this article that goes into some of the differences between the Eastern and Western translations of the Bible, because I found it so interesting!

FaithWriters.com-Christian Apologetics - Surprising Differences in Bible translations across the world

Thank you, this is very good info to reffer to when discussing with people whom beleive the bible to be completely inherant as to what God controlled and directed its current canon to be as we know it; This info makes it very clear that Man , Not God, "has" changed his words.:)

[Justice]

Very good read. Thanks for posting.

[bytebear]

I hope this from the article isn't about us.

Many cults have risen up because people don't understand King James English.

Oh, it is.

Many of the well-established Christian cults were created because of misunderstandings. They misread, mistranslated and misunderstood the Greek or the King James Version of the Bible.

The Book of Mormon, for instance, was supposedly translated by 18th century Americans but its word choices and styles are Shakespearean, as if copied from King James. It even uses the word 'oxen' which was a KJV word meaning a castrated cow, but castrated cows were unheard of in the Americas.

Obviously this author does not understand the history of Lehi and his knowledge of old world ways.

Edited November 4, 2009 by bytebear

[Jenamarie]

Whoops, I missed that part. (I admit to scanning the last third or so of the article.) My apologies.

ETA: I mainly thought it was interesting from a "...as far as it is translated correctly" viewpoint. There's certainly evidence that depending on where you live the translation can be interpreted as meaning various different things based on culture and what's familiar to the people doing the translating.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Jenamarie

[bytebear]

Oh, the article is fascinating, and it is totally in line with LDS understanding of the Bible and translations. The author just doesn't understand that God chose KJV type language for familiarity and compatibility with a prophet who would likely question such alterations.

[Snow]

Oh, the article is fascinating, and it is totally in line with LDS understanding of the Bible and translations. The author just doesn't understand that God chose KJV type language for familiarity and compatibility with a prophet who would likely question such alterations.

What is obvious is that JS used the KJV for significant portions of the BoM, inserting variant readings here and there. What is not obvious and certainly not in evidence is that God Himself chose the KJV language.

[bytebear]

What is obvious is that JS used the KJV for significant portions of the BoM, inserting variant readings here and there. What is not obvious and certainly not in evidence is that God Himself chose the KJV language.

God could have used any language He wanted, but He chose to use the language that Smith was most familiar with. If Smith spoke Spanish, we would have a very different translation. If Smith used the Ebonics translation of the Bible, the Book of Mormon would be in that form.

[Snow]

God could have used any language He wanted, but He chose to use the language that Smith was most familiar with. If Smith spoke Spanish, we would have a very different translation. If Smith used the Ebonics translation of the Bible, the Book of Mormon would be in that form.

Correct me if I am wrong but Joseph Smith is the one person that knew completely how the translation process really worked and he said nothing about how he came to choose direct KJV language. We don't know if God told him to do it or if he just did it and God didn't correct him or if God even had an opinion.

If I am wrong, please reference the appropriate correction.

[bytebear]

Correct me if I am wrong but Joseph Smith is the one person that knew completely how the translation process really worked and he said nothing about how he came to choose direct KJV language. We don't know if God told him to do it or if he just did it and God didn't correct him or if God even had an opinion.

If I am wrong, please reference the appropriate correction.

You are correct in the decision for KJV or some other translation is unknown. Was it Smith or was it God. But I do know that later prophets have praised the KJV above other English translations. I think it is pretty clear that LDS leaders prefer it to other translations and feel Smith was inspired by it both in translation (of the BoM and the PoGP) and in a standard Bible version for the church to use.

[JohnnyRudick]

I tried to give reasons for the use of the KJB in the Restoration of the Church in older posts.

Just a note;)

Bro. Rudick

[Avrham]

This was a interesting read everywhere the bible translations are different but my old pastor told me in seminary years ago that "God speaks in any language to anyone ":):)I suppose he meant doesn't matter what language God would let you know:):)

I suppose people like to deal with semantics

[JohnnyRudick]

This was a interesting read everywhere the bible translations are different but my old pastor told me in seminary years ago that "God speaks in any language to anyone ":):)I suppose he meant doesn't matter what language God would let you know:):)

I suppose people like to deal with semantics

Actually no.

Most of us are referring to content not semantics.

It is an interesting fact to many that many translations differ in verses missing and even the actual changing of the meaning of texts.

Even among many English bibles the only justification for changing the meaning of a verse is "Better Manuscripts read. . ." and no reason to believe that the better manuscript was used as in another place they use the other reading of the first.

Check it out.

Bro. Rudick