This is the thing with stories, they reflect the limitations of the tellers imagination and knowledge. This passage certainly doesn't reflect the knowledge or wit of an all knowing god but of a storyteller with poor observational skills.

AntiChristian:
Leviticus 11:20-23.
20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

Your writing reflects your lack of critical thinking skills and comprehension. Or perhaps, rather, your dark spiritual elements.

Simple answer:

1. poor Hebrew to English transliteration. 2. Functionally, only 4 legs are used for walking, the 2 hind ones are for special movements. Then, the Bible was specific in that regards. Lev 11 Vs 21 recognises that the 2 hind “jointed” legs are part of “legs” just not considered for walking.

3. Poor choice of english word description for creepy crawly things. KJV (the most accurate transliteration) says “creepy or crawly things. Also “winged creatures that go on all four”. 4. Also, “walk” does not imply actual walk like in land creatures but a symbol that insects do “move about”.

Long answer:

Original language matters. Original language was Hebrew. Hebrew is a very complicated language that has many levels like an onion.

As such, most hebrew words do NOT have an exact English equivalent or transliteration. Therefore, the most basic or closer English word is used in cases to describe Hebrew word.

I suspect you already know this somehow. Or maybe you really are impaired in deep critical thinking.

BTW: I am a doctor, quite aware of area of zoology et al. There are creepy crawly creatures that “walk”. Also, only 4 legs are functional for movements. Use google.

AntiChristian:
Leviticus 11:20-23.
20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

Au contraire, this wreaks of your lack of imagination and unintelligence. Undoubtedly, you are deluded to think you sound “smart”.

The writer of this scripture is far more intelligent than you to have written something from “divine” inspiration and superb memory.

I bet you cant recall what happened to you last night even if you were given a script to jog you.

….”professing to be wise, become fools in their darkened minds….therefore GOD gives them over to their own wicked delusions” Apostle Paul in the book of Romans.


You will still give an account to the ONE who inspired these books despite your flexing of artificial intelligence.

Arrogant fools.

LordReed:
This is the thing with stories, they reflect the limitations of the tellers imagination and knowledge. This passage certainly doesn't reflect the knowledge or wit of an all knowing god but of a storyteller with poor observational skills.

SeraphEl:
Your writing reflects your lack of critical thinking skills and comprehension. Or perhaps, rather, your dark spiritual elements.

Simple answer:

1. [b]poor Hebrew to English transliteration. 2. Poor choice of english word description for creepy crawly things. KJV (the most accurate transliteration) says “creepy or crawly things. Also “winged creatures that go on all four”. 3. Also, “walk” does not imply actual walk like in land creatures but a symbol that insects do “move about”.

Long answer:

Original language matters. Original language was Hebrew. Hebrew is a very complicated language that has many levels like an onion.

As such, most hebrew words do NOT have an exact English equivalent or transliteration. Therefore, the most basic or closer English word is used in cases to describe Hebrew word.

I suspect you already know this somehow. Or maybe you really are impaired in deep critical thinking.

BTW: I am a doctor, quite aware of science of zoology et al. There are creepy crawly insects that “walk”. Use google.

How is king james VERSION the most accurate translation?

LordReed:
This is the thing with stories, they reflect the limitations of the tellers imagination and knowledge. This passage certainly doesn't reflect the knowledge or wit of an all knowing god but of a storyteller with poor observational skills.

Limitations that remain unlimited and working wonders till tomorrow in every cadre and spectrum of life.

Maynman:

How is king james VERSION the most accurate translation?

Its one of the earliest translations. It is the closest if you will to the original meaning of the Hebrew text.

Like telling a story. If you want to hear the most original story in its original words/meanings, find the earliest person who heard and told the the story. The 7th person is more accurate than the 17th person who “passed” on the story.


Google any Bible scripture and compare the various translations and you will see that many of them deviate or convey different meanings.

When you get to such issues of varying meanings, it’s best to compare to KJV or even earliest translations such as Geneva bible.

SeraphEl:


Its one of the earliest translations. It is the closest if you will to the original meaning of the Hebrew text.

Like telling a story. If you want to hear the most original story in its original words/meanings, find the earliest person who heard and told the the story. The 7th person is more accurate than the 17th person who “passed” on the story.


Google any Bible scripture and compare the various translations and you will see that many of them deviate or convey different meaning.

When you get to such issues of varying meaning, it’s beat to compare to KJV or even earliest translations such as Geneva bible.

King James Version which came after the geneva version is just an English translation that was created by tyndale, a Jehovah witness. It’s only the text that included “jehovah”.

Kjv is just a English translation, it’s not telling any story. KJv is a politically motivated text.
Let’s go to do the real hebrew books and see how accurate kjv is.
First off, in the translation of Exodus 20:13 as ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

Any scholar of the Torah will tell you that the verb in the original, ratsah, means ‘murder’.

Did you actually read my post to understand? Or just to respond?

First, The bible is telling a story. Second, i said “story” as an analogy to translational accuracy.

Did i not say, Geneva precedes KJV?. Actually, there were other English translations that preceded Geneva.

I really don’t care if KJV used Jehovah or not. Not really the point and frankly irrelevant to this topic.

Maynman:


King James Version which came after the geneva version is just an English translation that was created by tyndale, a Jehovah witness. It’s only the text that included “jehovah”.

Kjv is just a English translation, it’s not telling any story. KJv is a politically motivated text.
Let’s go to do the real hebrew books and see how accurate kjv is.
First off, in the translation of Exodus 20:13 as ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

Any scholar of the Torah will tell you that the verb in the original, ratsah, means ‘murder’.

SeraphEl:
Did you actually read my post to understand? Or just to respond?

First, The bible is telling a story. Second, i said story as analogy to translational accuracy.

Did i not say, Geneva precedes KJV. Actually, there were other English translations that preceded Geneva.

I really don’t care if it used Jehova or not. Not really the point and irrelevant to this topic.

What language was the story written in?

If there are others that precedes KJV, how is kjv then the most accurate translation?

The point is KJV is riddled with errors and it was created for a political reason.

“Sigh”. Look, I am not here to argue KJV and your conspiracies.

Because, KJV is the most commonly known and accessible to most people of TODAY. And in today’s ENGLISH.

Look up Geneva and you will see its English is OUTDATED.

In fact most people don’t use KJV because it’s considered outdated English.

Maynman:

What language was the story written in?

If there are others that precedes KJV, how is kjv then the most accurate translation?

The point is KJV is riddled with errors and it was created for a political reason.

Yawn, neither am i too.
The most accurate translation is different from the one with modern English.
Because kjv contains updated English doesn’t make it accurate.

And NIV has more modern English in it than kjv.

SeraphEl:
“Sigh”. Look, I am not here to argue KJV and your conspiracies.

Because, KJV is the most commonly known and accessible to most people of TODAY. And in today’s ENGLISH.

Look up Geneva and you will see its English is OUTDATED.

In fact most people don’t use KJV because it’s considered outdated English.

SeraphEl:
Your writing reflects your lack of critical thinking skills and comprehension. Or perhaps, rather, your dark spiritual elements.

Simple answer:

1. poor Hebrew to English transliteration. 2. Functionally, only 4 legs are used for walking, the 2 hind ones are for special movements. Then, the Bible was specific in that regards. Lev 11 Vs 21 recognises that the 2 hind “jointed” legs are part of “legs” just not considered for walking.

3. Poor choice of english word description for creepy crawly things. KJV (the most accurate transliteration) says “creepy or crawly things. Also “winged creatures that go on all four”. 4. Also, “walk” does not imply actual walk like in land creatures but a symbol that insects do “move about”.

Long answer:

Original language matters. Original language was Hebrew. Hebrew is a very complicated language that has many levels like an onion.

As such, most hebrew words do NOT have an exact English equivalent or transliteration. Therefore, the most basic or closer English word is used in cases to describe Hebrew word.

I suspect you already know this somehow. Or maybe you really are impaired in deep critical thinking.

BTW: I am a doctor, quite aware of area of zoology et al. There are creepy crawly creatures that “walk”. Also, only 4 legs are functional for movements. Use google.

I only need samples doc as regards that verse!

You clearly lack comprehension. Are you awake? Go get some coffee then return and reread my posts.

I said outdated not updated.
I am referring to accuracy not modern language.

You clearly have issues with KJV. I am not here for that. That’s on you.

Maynman:
Yawn, neither am i too.
The most accurate translation is different from the one with modern English.
Because kjv contains updated English doesn’t make it accurate.

And NIV has more modern English in it than kjv.

You clearly lack basic thinking.
You said geneva is outdated and kjv contains modern English which i wrote “updated”
And i said most accurate has nothing to do with outdated and modern English.
If you are referring to accuracy shouldn’t kjv be accurate to the hebrew language it was translated from?

I have problem with kjv by pointing out how it was created? You clearly worship kjv.

SeraphEl:
You clearly lack comprehension. Are you awake? Go get some coffee then return and reread my posts.

I said outdated not updated.
I am referring to accuracy not modern language.

You clearly have issues with KJV. I am not here for that. That’s on you.

SeraphEl:
Au contraire, this wreaks of your lack of imagination and unintelligence. Undoubtedly, you are deluded to think you sound “smart”.

The writer of this scripture is far more intelligent than you to have written something from “divine” inspiration and superb memory.

I bet you cant recall what happened to you last night even if you were given a script to jog you.

….”professing to be wise, become fools in their darkened minds….therefore GOD gives them over to their own wicked delusions” Apostle Paul in the book of Romans.


You will still give an account to the ONE who inspired these books despite your flexing of artificial intelligence.

Arrogant fools.

LoLz! The only thing your post deserves is a healthy dose of laughter. Bwahahahahaha!

Image123:


Limitations that remain unlimited and working wonders till tomorrow in every cadre and spectrum of life.

Well enjoy! LoLz!

AntiChristian:
Leviticus 11:20-23.
20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

Sample wo l'ofe, ewo ni koye e gangan?

Maynman:
You clearly lack basic thinking.
You said geneva is outdated and kjv contains modern English which i wrote “updated”
And i said most accurate has nothing to do with outdated and modern English.
If you are referring to accuracy shouldn’t kjv be accurate to the hebrew language it was translated from?

I have problem with kjv by pointing out how it was created? You clearly worship kjv.

Most Christians are not familiar with the history of Bible translations. They think that because KJV was used by the British missionaries that came to our side of the continent it means it was the best or most accurate. Some even think its outdated English construction means it's better than translations in more modern English forms. I just laugh. LoLz.

LordReed:


Most Christians are not familiar with the history of Bible translations. They think that because KJV was used by the British missionaries that came to our side of the continent it means it was the best or most accurate. Some even think its outdated English construction means it's better than translations in more modern English forms. I just laugh. LoLz.

Which is your best translation?

Image123:


Which is your best translation?

I don't have one.

LordReed:


I don't have one.

Allow us to have one in peace.

Image123:


Allow us to have one in peace.

LoLz. I didn't stop you before.

LordReed:


LoLz. I didn't stop you before.

The KJV is the best or most accurate English translation.

Image123:


The KJV is the best or most accurate English translation.

In what sense is it the best or most accurate?

LordReed:


In what sense is it the best or most accurate?

What are your indices for measuring accuracy?

Image123:


What are your indices for measuring accuracy?

I asked you first.

LordReed:


I asked you first.

You asked in what sense it is the best and most accurate, like i said you were stopping us from having one in peace. That's why i wanted to know your own indices so that maybe i could work in the same language/line as it were. Because certainly, we can't have the same indices.
Summarily though not exhaustive, my indices are a right blend of word for word and concept for concept interpretation, the right bias, its remarkable influence compared to others, completeness, and wide acceptance among all respected and revered CHRISTIAN leaders for centuries.

Image123:


You asked in what sense it is the best and most accurate, like i said you were stopping us from having one in peace. That's why i wanted to know your own indices so that maybe i could work in the same language/line as it were. Because certainly, we can't have the same indices.
Summarily though not exhaustive, my indices are a right blend of word for word and concept for concept interpretation, the right bias, its remarkable influence compared to others, completeness, and wide acceptance among all respected and revered CHRISTIAN leaders for centuries.

That's ok. You have said exactly what I expected and not far from what I already said.

If I was to set a criterion for accuracy it would be: as close as possible to the source material in word for word translation. An example would be the Wycliffe or Douay-Rheims Bibles which are direct translations of the Latin Vulgate.

LordReed:


That's ok. You have said exactly what I expected and not far from what I already said.

If I was to set a criterion for accuracy it would be: as close as possible to the source material in word for word translation. An example would be the Wycliffe or Douay-Rheims Bibles which are direct translations of the Latin Vulgate.

i've used the Douay-Rheims Bible but not much of Wycliffe. They're both good. In my view, there's almost no bad translation, having dealt a bit with little little day to day language translations myself, i know and understand there will be differences even if it is the same person doing it again.