Has the bible been altered? Not translated, interpreted, but altered?

[mee]

In order to understand and proclaim the message of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah’s Witnesses have over the years used many different English Bible translations. While these versions have their points of merit, they are often colored by religious traditions and the creeds of Christendom. (Matthew 15:6) Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore recognized the need for a Bible translation that faithfully presented what is in the original inspired writings.

 

[Joedjr]

In order to understand and proclaim the message of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah’s Witnesses have over the years used many different English Bible translations. While these versions have their points of merit, they are often colored by religious traditions and the creeds of Christendom. (Matthew 15:6) Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore recognized the need for a Bible translation that faithfully presented what is in the original inspired writings.

Hi Mee,
I like reading the NASB translation, is that one ok?
Joe

 

[mee]

Hi Mee,
I like reading the NASB translation, is that one ok?
Joe

All bibles are Good ,but you have to be aware that many have been clouded by manmade traditions over the centuries .

and the biggest thing that has happened to many translations is that the name of the Almighty God has been removed and replaced by LORD which is only a title, and not the name of the most high.


i like to use the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION because it has put the name of the most high back where it rightly belongs . and it is in the bible thousands of times .

some bible have the name in a few places but they have removed it for the most part .


for instance, in the KING JAMES BIBLE psalm 83;18 tells us the name of God

but in the NEW KING JAMES BIBLE it has even been removed from the few verses that it was retained in . not good

 

[Thomas]

Steady on, Mee —

All bibles are Good ,but you have to be aware that many have been clouded by manmade traditions over the centuries.

Like the invention of the name Jehovah?

and the biggest thing that has happened to many translations is that the name of the Almighty God has been removed and replaced by LORD which is only a title, and not the name of the most high.

Actually it is more than that, it is a respectful mode of address. If you choose to refer to God by His Personal Name, then on your own head be it. Personally, I would rather call Him Lord (Kurios) or Father (Abba), because that allowance has been made to me ... but not by name, not until He says so.

There is an interpretation of Exodus 3:13-14:
" ... [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

One view has it that by saying "I am that I am" (a notoriously difficult translation) The Lord is actually roasting the people for asking such an impertinent question of God as, "And who are you, exactly?"

Thoms

 

[mee]

Steady on, Mee —


Like the invention of the name Jehovah?


Actually it is more than that, it is a respectful mode of address. If you choose to refer to God by His Personal Name, then on your own head be it. Personally, I would rather call Him Lord (Kurios) or Father (Abba), because that allowance has been made to me ... but not by name, not until He says so.

There is an interpretation of Exodus 3:13-14:
" ... [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

One view has it that by saying "I am that I am" (a notoriously difficult translation) The Lord is actually roasting the people for asking such an impertinent question of God as, "And who are you, exactly?"

Thoms

he will prove to be what he will prove to be, is more like what is meant .

Nevertheless, Moses said to the [true] God: "Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of YOUR forefathers has sent me to YOU,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?" 14 At this God said to Moses: "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." And he added: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’" exodus 3;13-14



"I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." Heb., היהא רשׁא היהא (’Eh·yeh´ ’Asher´ ’Eh·yeh´), God’s own self-designation; Leeser, "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE"; Rotherham, "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Gr., E·go´ ei·mi ho on, "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One"; Lat., e´go sum qui sum, "I am Who I am." ’Eh·yeh´ comes from the Heb. verb ha·yah´, "become; prove to be." Here ’Eh·yeh´ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.


and as Gods own name means.... HE CAUSES TO BECOME ..... there is great meaning in that name and it sums up God very nicly . HE WILL PROVE TO BE


And I shall certainly take YOU to me as a people, and I shall indeed prove to be God to YOU; and YOU will certainly know that I am Jehovah YOUR God who is bringing YOU out from under the burdens of Egypt. EXODUS 6;7

 

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

he will prove to be what he will prove to be, is more like what is meant

According to your (manmade) tradition.

Nor does it explain the invention of the name Jehovah.

Thomas

 

[mee]

Hi Mee —


According to your (manmade) tradition.

Nor does it explain the invention of the name Jehovah.

Thomas

according to the inspired word of God , just as it should be . and Gods name in English is just right.

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth. psalm 83;18 ​

The important thing is to use God’s name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language.



Forms

of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah

Awabakal - Yehóa

Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova

​

​

 

[mens_sana]

i like to use the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION because it has put the name of the most high back where it rightly belongs . and it is in the bible thousands of times .

some bible have the name in a few places but they have removed it for the most part .


for instance, in the KING JAMES BIBLE psalm 83;18 tells us the name of God

but in the NEW KING JAMES BIBLE it has even been removed from the few verses that it was retained in . not good

Unfortunately, the NWT also omits a few names of God, or maybe I just missed them: El, El-Elyôn, El-˓Olām, Shaddai, AbéÆr (Mighty One), Pahad, Elohîm, Baal, Adonai, Sebaoth, and even YHWH. (Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, V.4, p.1001).

 

[mee]

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Volume 1, page 572) states the following: "A study of the word ‘name’ in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs."

 

[mee]

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 649) says: "One of the most fundamental and essential features of the biblical revelation is the fact that God is not without a name: he has a personal name, by which he can, and is to be, invoked." Jesus certainly had that name in mind when he taught his followers to pray: "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified."—Matthew 6:9.

 

[mee]

Hi Mee —




Nor does it explain the invention of the name Jehovah.

Thomas

In 1611 what became the most widely used English translation, the Authorized Version, was published. In this, the name appeared four times in the main text. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) "Jah," a poetic abbreviation of the name, appeared in Psalm 68:4. And the name appeared in full in place-names such as "Jehovah-jireh." (Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24) However, following the example of Tyndale, the translators in most instances substituted "LORD" or "GOD" for God’s name. But if God’s name could appear in four verses, why could it not appear in all the other thousands of verses that contain it in the original Hebrew?

 

[Azure24]

mee, are you telling me you know God's personal name?

Oh, and by the way I (not advertising) prefer "The Concordant Literal New Testament Version". (Try it on google).

You may not like this one mee, as it PROPERLY translates the words "everlasting" (which is forever) into "eionios" (an age).

 

[Quahom1]

mee, are you telling me you know God's personal name?

Oh, and by the way I (not advertising) prefer "The Concordant Literal New Testament Version". (Try it on google).

You may not like this one mee, as it PROPERLY translates the words "everlasting" (which is forever) into "eionios" (an age).

Lol, the beauty of it is, no one knows how long an "eon" lasts. That's why it is used to describe "forever" in human terms.

Oh, and it means "ageless", not an "age".

v/r

Q

 

[mee]

even though the bible has been altered down through the centuries, the most high has made sure that the true meanings are made abundant especially in the last days Daniel 12;4


and now we have true knowledge and it is abundant.


the bible has survived great opposition throughout the centuries and some very brave translators have died at the hands of those in opposition .

i think of these brave people and look foreward to the time in the future when the great resurrection takes place , and then they will see just how things did progress . and how it all worked out . some people were even burned at the stake for even posseing a bible , and it was those in opposition who instigated that burning ,and we all know who must have been influencing them . yes it was the one in opposition to the true God (satan) very bad indeed

 

[Azure24]

Lol, the beauty of it is, no one knows how long an "eon" lasts. That's why it is used to describe "forever" in human terms.

Oh, and it means "ageless", not an "age".

v/r

Q

Ok let me explain...

The King James does say in Rev. 11:15 that Christ will reign "for ever and ever." However, when you add the 3rd "and for ever," it becomes unscriptural. Furthermore, as the Authorized Version of Rev. 11:15 is an unfortunate and misleading translation, the phrase "for ever and ever" is also unscriptural. Remember, Greek is a very exact language, but King James is a very inexact translation. Here's what God's "exact" Word says regarding this matter.

It never ceases to amaze me that words (most words in most languages) have fairly precise and restricted meanings until these same words are used in religion, where they apparently lose all logic and preciseness of meaning.

First of all, the Greek in Rev. 11:15 is not "for ever and ever," but "aions of the aions." The Greek is not "and," it is "of." It's in the genitive. Check this out for yourself. "Of" contrasts one thing with another. It does not "add" one thing to another. This is a big difference. Rev. 11:15, "aion" is in the plural, "aions." Now if you insist that "aion" means "for ever" or "eternal," how is it possible to have a plurality of "eternities?"

This alone proves that "aion" cannot be translated "eternal." There can be no plurality of eternity. Whatever "aion" means, it cannot mean "eternal."

"Eon" is the closest English equivalent to the Greek word "aion." Age is close, but has no adjective form, as eon does (eonian).

The Greek Scriptures tell us that Christ will reign "for the eons of the eons" or "the ages of the ages." Not "for the eons of the eons of the eons" as some might of thought I was suggesting. "For the eons of the eons" makes simple and exact sense, and is in harmony with other Scriptures. "For ever and ever" contradicts dozens of other Scriptures, as I can show you if you want. The truth is, "for ever and ever" is a contradiction by itself. Both language and logic forbid duplication of anything infinite. There is no such thing as "several eternities" or "multiple for evers" or "numerous everlastings."

In Rev. 11:15 both "eons" are in the PLURAL. So if someone insists that an "aion" means "for ever" or "eternity," then "aions" would be "for evers" or "eternities." Hence it would have to be translated "for evers of evers" or "for eternities of eternities." What sense is there in such contradictory phrases?

 

[mee]

Ok let me explain...

The King James does say in Rev. 11:15 that Christ will reign "for ever and ever." However, when you add the 3rd "and for ever," it becomes unscriptural. Furthermore, as the Authorized Version of Rev. 11:15 is an unfortunate and misleading translation, the phrase "for ever and ever" is also unscriptural. Remember, Greek is a very exact language, but King James is a very inexact translation. Here's what God's "exact" Word says regarding this matter.

It never ceases to amaze me that words (most words in most languages) have fairly precise and restricted meanings until these same words are used in religion, where they apparently lose all logic and preciseness of meaning.

First of all, the Greek in Rev. 11:15 is not "for ever and ever," but "aions of the aions." The Greek is not "and," it is "of." It's in the genitive. Check this out for yourself. "Of" contrasts one thing with another. It does not "add" one thing to another. This is a big difference. Rev. 11:15, "aion" is in the plural, "aions." Now if you insist that "aion" means "for ever" or "eternal," how is it possible to have a plurality of "eternities?"

This alone proves that "aion" cannot be translated "eternal." There can be no plurality of eternity. Whatever "aion" means, it cannot mean "eternal."

"Eon" is the closest English equivalent to the Greek word "aion." Age is close, but has no adjective form, as eon does (eonian).

The Greek Scriptures tell us that Christ will reign "for the eons of the eons" or "the ages of the ages." Not "for the eons of the eons of the eons" as some might of thought I was suggesting. "For the eons of the eons" makes simple and exact sense, and is in harmony with other Scriptures. "For ever and ever" contradicts dozens of other Scriptures, as I can show you if you want. The truth is, "for ever and ever" is a contradiction by itself. Both language and logic forbid duplication of anything infinite. There is no such thing as "several eternities" or "multiple for evers" or "numerous everlastings."

In Rev. 11:15 both "eons" are in the PLURAL. So if someone insists that an "aion" means "for ever" or "eternity," then "aions" would be "for evers" or "eternities." Hence it would have to be translated "for evers of evers" or "for eternities of eternities." What sense is there in such contradictory phrases?

And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever."
revelation 11;15

Your kingship is a kingship for all times indefinite,
And your dominion is throughout all successive generations.PSALM 145;13​

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; DANIEL 2;44


In line with the rest of the verses



and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom." luke 1;33

 

[Thomas]

Hi Azure —

Ok let me explain...
It never ceases to amaze me that words (most words in most languages) have fairly precise and restricted meanings until these same words are used in religion, where they apparently lose all logic and preciseness of meaning.

Where one person sees them lose all logic ... another sees them transcend it.

Whilst the Scripture scholar seeks always for the best precision he or she can aspire to ... they know that all their words are in a sense themselves inadequte.

Inquiry into lexicon is subsequent to the enquiry into language, which is a far wider discipline. Lose sight of that, and you have lost sight of the real text.

The biggest complaint about theologians and philosophers of the worlds Sacred Texts is this forensic study of the meaning of words, letters ...

A grain of sand in a desert presents the man dying of thirst with a far different image than a grain of sand presents to a holiday maker on the beach.

A grain of sand trickling through an hourglass presents the man with an immanent sense of his own mortality with a far, far different image than that same grain of sand in that same hourglass presents to a man intent of his soft-boiled egg...

Lose sight of the Transcendant and one is like a blind man leading the blind.

But someone said it far better than I...

Auguries of Innocence
William Blake

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

...

We are led to Believe a Lie
When we see not Thro' the Eye
Which was Born in a Night to perish in a Night
When the Soul Slept in Beams of Light.
God Appears and God is Light
To those poor Souls who dwell in Night,
But does a Human Form Display
To those who Dwell in Realms of day."

Take the poet from the man ... you're left with a pendant.

If you ask me what the world needs, I'd opt for the poet, every time.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Oh dear ...

Of course, I meant to say:
"The biggest complaint of (not 'about') theologians and philosophers of the worlds Sacred Texts is this forensic study of the meaning of words, letters ..."

And, which made me smile:
"Take the poet from the man ... you're left with a pendant."
For pendant read pedant throughout.
(Has anyone read "1066 And All That"?)

Thomas