Found This:

Which is the worst translation of the Bible into English? Give an example or two of why you think it's bad.

For my money, it's "The Message."

For example, Revelation 2:4-5 is translated in that version as:

But you walked away from your first love—why? What's going on with you, anyway? Do you have any idea how far you've fallen? A Lucifer fall! "Turn back! Recover your dear early love. No time to waste, for I'm well on my way to removing your light from the golden circle.

ESV has

But you walked away from your first love—why? What's going on with you, anyway? Do you have any idea how far you've fallen? A Lucifer fall! "Turn back! Recover your dear early love. No time to waste, for I'm well on my way to removing your light from the golden circle.

NKJV

Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place

And here's a rundown of the Greek text:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4

Where did they get a reference to "Lucifer" or find anything that has to do with a "golden circle" in any of that?

THATS WHY I READ ONLY THE KJV.

That's why I read none at all. The only bible-like book I've read is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

SimonAndal: That's why I read none at all. The only bible-like book I've read is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Lol..

Also Saw this somewhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Bible_Project#Conservative_Bible_Project

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Conservapedia hosts the "Conservative Bible Project", a project aiming to rewrite the English translation of the Bible in order to remove terms described as "liberal bias".[81] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia's founder to be later liberal additions.

Also I don't really know, but it sounds like the ridiculous sounding translation above might be a literal word for word translation, which might explain its strange syntax. I don't know, though. Maybe the translator just sucks.

to add to this list, I would also say that the Jehovah,s witnesses bible is a pile of manure

SimonAndal: That's why I read none at all. The only bible-like book I've read is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

interesting

SimonAndal: That's why I read none at all. The only bible-like book I've read is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

I See!

No wander you are who you are.

eddy1977: to add to this list, I would also say that the Jehovah,s witnesses bible is a pile of manure

can you site an example?

truthislight:

I See!

No wander you are who you are.

_
Yes, and proud of it! I don't wanna be you, I love me!

mkmyers45:

Found This:

Which is the worst translation of the Bible into English? Give an example or two of why you think it's bad.

For my money, it's "The Message."

For example, Revelation 2:4-5 is translated in that version as:

ESV has

NKJV

And here's a rundown of the Greek text:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4

Where did they get a reference to "Lucifer" or find anything that has to do with a "golden circle" in any of that?

buzugee:

THATS WHY I READ ONLY THE KJV.

SimonAndal:

That's why I read none at all. The only bible-like book I've read is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

I do read each and all translations, though 9 times out of 10, I usually settle for KJV
and I am game for new translations too.
It is a travesty and some translations truly are fair game.
The rule of thumb or best practice is be on red alert when eat[/b]ing [b]the chicken(s) and spit out bone(s) when alarm bells starts ringing.

danwo:





Though 9 times out of 10, I usually settle for KJV, I do read each and all translations
and I am game for new translations too.
It is a travesty and some translations truly are fair game.
The rule of thumb or best practice is be on red alert when eat[/b]ing [b]the chicken(s) and spit out bone(s) when alarm bells starts ringing.

SPEAKING OF CHICKEN I COULD USE SOME KFC

buzugee:
SPEAKING OF CHICKEN I COULD USE SOME KFC

Dont say you arent looked out for. Take a pick, bon appetit

The Palms Mall, Lekki
282 Herbert Macaulay Way, Yaba
Kazuma Plaza, 2-4 Ede Street, Apapa
49C Ligali Ayorinde, Victoria Island
Shop 10, City Mall, Onikan
Plaza 307, Adeola Odeku Street, Victoria Island
34 Allen Avenue, Ikeja
Adeniran Ogunsanya Shopping Center or Mall, Surulere
15, Shasha Road, Akowonjo Round About, Akowonjo, Lagos

danwo:

Dont say you arent looked out for. Take a pick, bon appetit

The Palms Mall, Lekki
282 Herbert Macaulay Way, Yaba
Kazuma Plaza, 2-4 Ede Street, Apapa
49C Ligali Ayorinde, Victoria Island
Shop 10, City Mall, Onikan
Plaza 307, Adeola Odeku Street, Victoria Island
34 Allen Avenue, Ikeja
Adeniran Ogunsanya Shopping Center or Mall, Surulere
15, Shasha Road, Akowonjo Round About, Akowonjo, Lagos

you are appreciated Kingpin Danwo. i shall opt for the Ligali Ayorinde one.

eddy1977: to add to this list, I would also say that the Jehovah,s witnesses bible is a pile of manure

aignt u being a big inhumane, have you read it before and dont understand the clear english there? or is it the fact that they make sure to use GOD'S NAME 'JEHOVAH' in all its actual place thats killing you. may god actually help you in your faith. TRUTH IS ALWAYS BITTER FOR THE BLINDED EYES .

nuella_50:
aignt u being a big inhumane, have you read it before and dont understand the clear english there? or is it the fact that they make sure to use GOD'S NAME 'JEHOVAH' in all its actual place thats killing you. may god actually help you in your faith. TRUTH IS ALWAYS BITTER FOR THE BLINDED EYES .

how can you explain you the NWT removed the definite article "a" in john1:1..i think he's rite its a pile of stinking manure

I dont lyk translation dat uses THEE , THOU, AND THY. use YOU

kjv lev. 16 :8
16:8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat

English Standard Version.
And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.


New Living Translation.
He is to cast sacred lots to determine which goat will be reserved as an offering to the LORD and which will carry the sins of the people to the wilderness of Azazel.


Young's Literal Translation
'And Aaron hath given lots over the two goats, one lot for Jehovah, and one lot for a goat of departure;


Douay-Rheims Bible
And casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord, and the other to be the emissary goat:


One sentence , five different meanings.

Mistranslation, mistransliteration or just deliberate obfuscation?

So much for the the inerrant words of an omni omni god.
lol

plaetton: kjv lev. 16 :8
16:8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat

English Standard Version.
And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.


New Living Translation.
He is to cast sacred lots to determine which goat will be reserved as an offering to the LORD and which will carry the sins of the people to the wilderness of Azazel.


Young's Literal Translation
'And Aaron hath given lots over the two goats, one lot for Jehovah, and one lot for a goat of departure;


Douay-Rheims Bible
And casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord, and the other to be the emissary goat:


One sentence , five different meanings.

Mistranslation, mistransliteration or just deliberate obfuscation?

So much for the the inerrant words of an omni omni god.
lol

Word of god that men wrote down, chose and assembled together through votes and are always reinterpreting and reinventing. . .We are told that the same god can write yet he keeps allowing men to be messing up his word. . .Interesting. . .

mazaje:

Word of god that men wrote down, chose and assembled together through votes and are always reinterpreting and reinventing. . .We are told that the same god can write yet he keeps allowing men to be messing up his word. . .Interesting. . .

Yes o.
A perfect and all knowing god writes, and then men edit.
welcome to the wonderful world of religion.

plaetton:
Yes o.
A perfect and all knowing god writes, and then men edit.
welcome to the wonderful world of religion.

That's why I yearn for the old days when god used to write on stone tablets. Everything was literally "Set in Stone" and editing was explicitily disallowed.

Martian:

That's why I yearn for the old days when god used to write on stone tablets. Everything was literally "Set in Stone" and editing was explicitily disallowed.

lol.

plaetton: kjv lev. 16 :8
16:8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat

English Standard Version.
And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.


New Living Translation.
He is to cast sacred lots to determine which goat will be reserved as an offering to the LORD and which will carry the sins of the people to the wilderness of Azazel.


Young's Literal Translation
'And Aaron hath given lots over the two goats, one lot for Jehovah, and one lot for a goat of departure;


Douay-Rheims Bible
And casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord, and the other to be the emissary goat:


One sentence , five different meanings.

Mistranslation, mistransliteration or just deliberate obfuscation?

So much for the the inerrant words of an omni omni god.
lol

The translations have exactly the same meaning ... it is just clearer in some and in the others you need to do a bit of research to come back to the clear meaning. Shall I say 'so much for your own intelligence' since you couldn't apply your Primary School Leaving Certificate to arrive at understanding the 5 translations.

now now now three atheist doing what they do best ^^^. Lol.

Where did they come from at once? Lol.

Its like they are constantly monitoring this "room" with a wipe,

lol.

seyibrown:

The translations have exactly the same meaning ... it is just clearer in some and in the others you need to do a bit of research to come back to the clear meaning. Shall I say 'so much for your own intelligence' since you couldn't apply your Primary School Leaving Certificate to arrive at understanding the 5 translations.

Ok o wise one. Kindly help your less intelligent nairalanders by explaining in detail, since you have done the research, how the five translations come to mean the same thing.
Pls.
Though we mock from time to time,We are all here to learn.
We are eager to learn this one.

plaetton:
Ok o wise one. Kindly help your less intelligent nairalanders by explaining in detail, since you have done the research, how the five translations come to mean the same thing.
Pls.
Though we mock from time to time,We are all here to learn.
We are eager to learn this one.

They all mean the same thing ... two of the translations have included the name of the exact place where the second goat goes to!

If one said 'send the second goat to the wilderness; and another said 'embalm the second goat for display in the national museum', you would have a case of different meanings ... but they don't. The second goat is 'sent away' in all the five translations! The reader/researcher still arrives at the same conclusion.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god"

--Jehovah's witnesses Bible.

seyibrown:

They all mean the same thing ... two of the translations have included the name of the exact place where the second goat goes to!

If one said 'send the second goat to the wilderness; and another said 'embalm the second goat for display in the national museum', you would have a case of different meanings ... but they don't. The second goat is 'sent away' in all the five translations! The reader/researcher still arrives at the same conclusion.

And what conclusion does your researcher arrive at?

Where in the bible, or an ancient map, is the wilderness of Azazel?
So Scapegoat,Azazel,wilderness,emissary goat,goat of departure all mean the same thing? is that the conclusion of your research?

We are still waiting for you to elaborate on how you reached such a conclusion.

italo: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god"

--Jehovah's witnesses Bible.

This translation is not wrong when you look at the original greek. One could even translate the passage as 'In the beginning was the word, the word was with Divinity, and the word was Divine".

Using the word divinity kind of depersonalises it. Many things can be divine without sharing one identity.

This is one of the main reasons that I argue that the bible was translated and collated by an institution with an agenda and that as such one cannot understand the bible till they understand the agenda and are down with it. The Church of the Roman Empire decided that Jesus was God and that influenced how they translated that passage. Anybody that is not down with the Trinity concept will have to find another way to translate the passage. And that is exactly what the JWs do.

In absoute terms no one is right and no one is wrong. It depends on what agenda you are allied to.

Pastor AIO:

This translation is not wrong when you look at the original greek. One could even translate the passage as 'In the beginning was the word, the word was with Divinity, and the word was Divine".

Using the word divinity kind of depersonalises it. Many things can be divine without sharing one identity.

This is one of the main reasons that I argue that the bible was translated and collated by an institution with an agenda and that as such one cannot understand the bible till they understand the agenda and are down with it. The Church of the Roman Empire decided that Jesus was God and that influenced how they translated that passage. Anybody that is not down with the Trinity concept will have to find another way to translate the passage. And that is exactly what the JWs do.

In absoute terms no one is right and no one is wrong. It depends on what agenda you are allied to.

Exactly.
Its like the two passages
" The kingdom of god is amongst you" and " The kingdom of god is within you".
A church goer would most likely go with first, and an agnostic would most likely go with the second rendering.
The first translation was chosen by the early church because it was much more useful and profitable for the faithful to believe that the christ and the kingdom of god was among them(as in a congregation) rather than being within them(which is what I believe that Jesus really taught).
This is what I call the great soul robbery.

plaetton:
And what conclusion does your researcher arrive at?

Where in the bible, or an ancient map, is the wilderness of Azazel?
So Scapegoat,Azazel,wilderness,emissary goat,goat of departure all mean the same thing? is that the conclusion of your research?

We are still waiting for you to elaborate on how you reached such a conclusion.

Since you are the one who disagrees that the 5 statements do not lead to the same conclusion, the burden of proof is on you!

seyibrown:

Since you are the one who disagrees that the 5 statements do not lead to the same conclusion, the burden of proof is on you!

Ha ha ha. Typical back to sender response from a confused bible scholar eager to defend ignorance by all means.

I do not need to prove anything more.They are there in plain English and in plain sight.
That is why I put them on display , for any one who can read and comprehend english to see the differences.

You on the hand,sought to contradict me by making the claim that all five renderings mean the same thing, so I asked you to kindly give us a lesson in advanced english or linguistics to prove that the five sentences, with different wordings, do indeed have similar meanings.

You are now chickening out by throwing it back to me. What a shame.
Where is the so-called research? If you had any good explanation, I am quite sure you would have rendered it.
So, I am guessing that you do not have any so-called researched explanation other than fanciful delusions.

But Why come here to display complex ignorance?