Official Bible Interpretation Thread

Man, you're confusing me, lol

 

Yeah, I noticed the same thing between translations. Some just have different styles and depending on the reader, one would like a poetic style while another would like a very literal style. Some translations are written for first grade, 8 grade, etc reading levels while others are at college level.

I always enjoy NWT, NASB, and NLT, myself.

 

I like the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) and the Douay-Rheims translation as an alternative to the KJV which heavily borrowed from the Douay translation.

 

If you were to ever be around (as a fly on the wall) you would see 2 women and multiple cats around at any given time...by multiple I mean from one to 3 or 4. Anyway... even my mother will talk about how sometimes Every Single Cat will begin to look over your head, in the other direction - with quickness - at nothing...

Yes, all of them seem to see something at times that definitely no human eye can discern. Well, occasionally I may see something out of the corner of my eye, but I don't care and don't fear it because of my bond with God Yahwey Jehovah.

(When visiting my brother and his spouse have remarked about the cats "doing that".) lol

Hey, its most important to keep one's sense of humor!

 

The only bibles I am familiar with are the KJV and the Living Bible, which of the 2, I prefer the KJV. I can't help it...I love the beauty of the lyric of the words. I have say, looked up on the internet a verse or 2 but don't usually see anything that different - tho I know I have heard of that word, She'ol, that concept, tho' I believe that is decidedly non-protestant.)
I was "brought up" in the church, and as an adult now don't attend, but do continue with my readings, my thinking, my values. Just plain Baptist, southern style but my style.

 

I am reading the Douay-Rheim from http://www.drbo.org/, and I'm really liking it.

The footnotes are interesting.

 

thanks for that def

 

That edition does have excellent footnotes.

When you see me quote something that looks KJV, it probably came from there.

I am glad you are finding it fruitful.

 

From a literary standpoint, the KJV can't be beaten, but as a translation it has problems. For example, the unicorn. Do you believe in unicorns? If you don't, you must not believe in the "word of God" according to the KJV, because the KJV mentions them as real creatures in two of its books, Job 39:9-12, and Psalms 92:10--unless the word was mistranslated. The NIV,NRSV, and Living Bible translate the word as "wild ox".

 

Here we have a passage (Matthew 5:26) that is translated:

Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.
- Douay Rheims Bible


verily I say to thee, thou mayest not come forth thence till that thou mayest pay the last farthing.
- Youngs Literal Bible


As each of these bible translations are claimed to be the most accurate, translated literally from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, how then to account for the difference?

 

Differences in:
era
audience
synonyms

The Douay-Rheims translation usually, rather than reflecting literally from Greek or Hebrew, reflects Latin (Vulgate) phrasing and wording.

Compare:
The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ JESUS by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, among the Gentils to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things: that the manifold wisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worldes, which he made in Christ JESUS our Lord. In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him. DRV

to

That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. KJV

Ephesians 3:6-12

Challoner revised the translation stylistically bringing it closer in line with the KJV's style.

 

Rest assured that I do, indeed, believe in unicorns.

 

I also do not prefer the Living bible, nor the others I have read, for certain texts,...such as one in which the "meaning" has become "simplified."
To me, the "main idea" re the God of the Old Testament vs the living God, Jesus, in the New Testament does remain the same regardless of the version. That being said, when I can't really understand a verse, such as Several in Revelation, I've found looking them up in different sources to leave me still not knowing.
All men (women) are not meant to understand everything. The older I get, it is like the more and less I understand.
I have read several books from people that have technically died and visited the other side, but come back. One of them is Touched by the Light (I think that is the name, if not Embraced by the Light) . It is written by a guy from Georgia that was (accidently) electrocuted through a phone during a thunderstorm, what he remembered and his very hard road to recovery after that.

 

Does the Catholic bible discuss She'ol, and topics such as this?

 

OK, worlds, I am probably crazy and stupid, but other than Youngs being more verbose )) are they not saying relatively the same thing?

 

The example I used is small but may reflect an important distinctive difference.

The first reflects the usual authoritarian sentiment, a kind of commandment type 'shalt not'. This seems typical of the Church's disciplinary approach to doctrine.

The second uses the softer 'mayest' which lends itself to greater possibilities, less sureness of doctrinal discipline.

I believe that the great author John Steinbeck themed his novel 'East of Eden' very much on these kinds of interpretive differences. Though it's been 35 years since I last read that thoughtful work of art, I still recall this aspect of the biblical stories discussed in it.

 

I believe that you where the one who is talking about "romantic love" and then saying you only know God's love. I merely am bringing to your attention that to do so is some what contradictory.

Yes exactly.

Really? So are you now saying that only "Romantic love is the result of brain chemicals" and that every other thought and emotion is not?

It seems you really like to take phrases from the Bible, out of context and scramble them to together to make it seem like the Bible and Jesus are saying things they never said.

Jesus did say "from the beginning it was not so" and he did say "as the angels" but he did not say them at the same time and they did not refer to each other.

As for your "we were not created with physical bodies but as creative principle, spirit", the Bible clearly shows how man was created and it seems pretty clear that man was created as a physical body. In fact the Bible clearly states of man, that "dust you are and to dust you shall return" not spirit you are and to spirit you shall return.

Maybe it seems that way to you but I can tell you it is not that way for everyone.

Yes it is but in normal discussions it is usually nice when an "answer" has something to do with the question, other than being a unrelated string of phrases said after a question was asked of you.

Like I said; it is usually nice when an "answer" has something to do with the question, other than being a unrelated string of phrases said after a question was asked of you. So, while saying my dog is black can be said to be an "answer" to the question, it really doesn't answer the question, is it's going to rain today.

Perhaps you would like to explain it to us?

And these things have in no way changed God's creation the Earth?

You do like to keep saying the same things over and over, like if you keep repeating them they'll be true but since they aren't true in the first place repeating them does not make them any more true.

OK.

I have proved your "truth" is not true over and over again and yet you do not listen.

Yes and they have changed the Earth and yet you keep saying nothing changes God's creations. Are you now saying that the Earth is not God's creation?

And I pointed out that; erosion, earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift are reality and are not just my opinions?

 

Depends.

The CCCB has declared that a modified New Revised Standard Version must be used for English readings (the USCCB uses the NAB). In the NRSV, Sheol is left untranslated. The UK and Australia use the Jerusalem Version.
Like I had stated before, I prefer the RSV from a scholarly standpoint because the NRSV inserts gender neutral language (Paul's "brethren" becomes "brothers and sisters" and when looking at texts critically, this invalidates all conclusions). My RSV (Catholic Edition) uses the word Sheol in place of pit, grave, or hell as well.

In context of what the Catholic Bibles speak about, you should also remember that the Catholic Bible contains more texts than the Protestant or current Hebrew Bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books#In_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
That is a link to Wikipedia that lists the books not included in other versions of Scripture.

The Douay-Rheims (Challoner) has things like this RE: Sheol...
Genesis 37
[35] And all his children being gathered together to comfort their father in his sorrow, he would not receive comfort, but said: I will go down to my son into hell, mourning. And whilst he continued weeping,

[35] "Into hell"... That is, into limbo, the place where the souls of the just were received before the death of our Redeemer. For allowing that the word hell sometimes is taken for the grave, it cannot be so taken in this place; since Jacob did not believe his son to be in the grave, (whom he supposed to be devoured by a wild beast,) and therefore could not mean to go down to him thither: but certainly meant the place of rest where he believed his soul to be.

 

Why does the Catholic Church contain the extra books while the protestants do not?

 

When looking at legal documents (like Acts passed by governments) "shall" is synonymous with "must". so something can be rendered "Students shall attend school..." or "Students must attend school..."

May is synonymous with might, or could. "Boards may offer..." or "boards might/could offer...".

As soon as you have a "may not", you've made it synonymous with the firmness or definitiveness of a shall or must. Maybe you get that impression because you are unfamiliar with the style of the language? I do not think there is a difference (in terms of doctrinal certainty) in the two translations.