This Article Is Quite Long, But You Can Read A little
Bit At A Time If You Want To.
Add Your Comments Open AddYourComment.
SBT Copied This And Put Scriptures Quoted In
So You Can Open The Links.
See Comments Posted Scroll Down To
Scroll Down To
Then comes the problem of accurate translation.
Many words in New Testament Greek don't
have clear English equivalents. Sentence
structure, idioms, stylistic differences—
all of these are challenges when converting
versions of the New Testament books into English.
And this can't be solved with a Berlitz course:
Koiné is ancient Greek and not spoken anymore.
This is why English translations differ,
with many having been revised to reflect the
views and guesses of the modern translators.
King James Version, completed in 1611, but that
was not a translation of the original Greek.
Instead, a Church of England committee relied
primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from
Greek. According to Jason David BeDuhn,
of religious studies at
Truth in Translation, it was often very hard
for the committee to find the correct English
words. The committee sometimes compared
Latin translations with the earlier Greek copies,
found discrepancies and decided that the
Latin version—the later version—was correct
and the earlier Greek manuscripts were wrong.
that was a gorgeous work that was very accurate
in its translation and clear in its meaning,
but that didn't happen. "The King James Bible
is a beautiful piece of English literature,''
says BeDuhn. "In terms of the other two goals,
however, this translation falls short."
translations in King James were then often
converted into phrases that most closely fitted
the preconceptions of even more translators.
In other words, religious convictions determined
translation choices. For example, προσκυνέω,
a Greek word used about 60 times in the New
Testament, equates to something along the lines
of "to prostrate oneself" as well as "to praise God.
" That was translated into Latin as "adoro,''
which in the King James Bible became "worship."
But those two words don't mean precisely the
same thing. When the King James Bible was
written, "worship" could be used to describe both
exhibiting reverence for God and prostrating oneself.
While not perfect, it's a decent translation.
"worship" many things. A slave worships his owner,
the assembled of Satan worship an angel, and
Roman soldiers mocking Jesus worship him.
In each of these instances, the word does not mean
"praise God's glory" or anything like that; instead,
it means to bow or prostrate oneself. But English
Bibles adopted later—the New International Bible,
the New American Standard Bible, the Living Bible
and so on—dropped the word worship when it
referenced anyone other than God or Jesus.
And so each time προσκυνέω appeared in the
Greek manuscript regarding Jesus, in these newer
Bibles he is worshipped, but when applied to
someone else, the exact same word is translated
as "bow" or something similar. By translating the
same word different ways, these modern Bibles are
adding a bit of linguistic support to the idea that the
people who knew Jesus understood him to be God.
a fundamental tenet of Christianity—that Jesus is God—
was reinforced in the Bible, even in places where it
directly contradicts the rest of the verse.
In Philippians, the King James Version translates
some words to designate Jesus as "being in the
form of God." The Greek word for form could
simply mean Jesus was in the image of God.
But the publishers of some Bibles decided to
insert their beliefs into translations that had
nothing to do with the Greek. The Living Bible,
for example, says Jesus "was God"—even though
modern translators pretty much just invented the
words. Which raises a big issue for Christians:
the Trinity—the belief that Jesus and God are the
same and, with the Holy Spirit, are a single entity—
is a fundamental, yet deeply confusing, tenet.
So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus
as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek
manuscripts? Nowhere. And in that deception lies
a story of mass killings.
alt="12_26_Bible_06" class="mapping-embed lazysize imgPhoto full lazyloaded"
the world, speak in whispers and riddles?
It seems nonsensical, but the belief that he
refused to convey a clear message has led to
the slaughter of many thousands of Christians
by Christians. In fact, Christians are believed
to have massacred more followers of Jesus
than any other group or nation.
Christians who didn't. Groups who believed
Jesus was two entities—God and man—
killed those who thought Jesus was merely
flesh and blood. Some felt certain God inspired
Old Testament Scriptures, others were convinced
they were the product of a different, evil God.
Some believed the Crucifixion brought
salvation to humankind, others insisted it didn't,
and still others believed Jesus wasn't crucified.
death of Jesus, groups adopted radically
conflicting writings about the details of his life
and the meaning of his ministry, and murdered
those who disagreed. For many centuries,
Christianity was first a battle of books and
then a battle of blood. The reason, in large part,
was that there were no universally accepted
manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a
Christian, so most sects had their own gospels.
the Gospel of Simon Peter, the Gospel of Philip
and the Gospel of Barnabas. One sect of
Christianity—the Gnostics—believed that the
disciple Thomas was not only Jesus's twin
brother but also the founder of churches
early days, with some sects declaring the
others heretics. And then, in the early 300s,
become follower of Jesus, ended his empire's
persecution of Christians and set out to reconcile
the disputes among
a brutal sociopath who murdered his eldest son,
decapitated his brother-in-law and killed his
wife by boiling her alive, and that was after he
proclaimed that he had converted from
worshipping the sun god to being a Christian.
Yet he also changed the course of Christian
history, ultimately influencing which books made
it into the New Testament.
whether Jesus was God—the followers of a priest
named Arius said no, that God created Jesus.
But the Bishop of Alexander said yes, that Jesus
had existed throughout all eternity. The dispute
on in the streets of
with everyone—shopkeepers, bakers and
tradesmen—arguing about which view was right.
understanding of theology, was annoyed that
what he considered a minor dispute was
causing such turmoil, and feared that it
weaken him politically.
So he decided to force an agreement on the question.
reat Question Answered Is--
2001 Bible Translation Says Why
Online Now And Why?
r Go Back To SBTs Front Index Page