ole bible versus new bible

[blugiant]

chattinn to wan olda christian bout gospel ann imm told mii wen mii readinn da bible mii fe mekk sure itt a oldar version cah dem changing da newer versians. soo mii askinn iff imm wass cumplaininn bout da carrekkshans ar da mistakes. still mii neva waan fe chubble imm dat y neva ask imm witch versian more accurate? oonnoo knoo mii will chubble oonno dat y mii askinn oonnoo

soo iss deer a debate among christians bout da diffarances between olda vesian ann de newer versian aff de bible? oww does de changes inn da bible affect christians beeleefs dat bible iss da true wurds afff god iff man keepinn changinn itt?

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

First - which "older version(s)" and which "newer version(s)" are you referring to? There are many. Be specific and name which version(s) you're talking about.

Keep in mind that many Christians believe that "the Bible is inspired by God, written by men", and human beings are fallible. Such Christians believe that God is infallible, but humans are certainly fallible.

[Emperah]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

all mi kno is dat dem tek a lot of references to black out a de newer version dem

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
all mi kno is dat dem tek a lot of references to black out a de newer version dem </div></div>
Which version(s) are you talking about, please?

[Emperah]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

When you compare their kjv with other translations and re translations you see where they took out things like &quot;locks&quot; which at one time only black ppl had so they've changed that to hair.

my aunt reads these new translations that she says are easier to read and when I look in them a dat mi si. I think one of them is the NLT, and I can't remember all the rest but mi hear seh shi ha bout 11 different bible ova deh

[kia027]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

which versions was he referring to?

see a list of some of them here

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
they took out things like &quot;locks&quot; which at one time only black ppl had so they've changed that to hair. </div></div>
That ^ is utterly specious!

The word &quot;locks&quot; has always meant pieces - or bunches - of hair, and has never been limited to any one people. Medieval documents and literature refer to white Europeans' locks of hair. Renaissance documents and literature also refer to white Europeans' locks of hair. White Victorians made mourning brooches (pins) out of locks [of hair] of their deceased loved ones, and they also made other jewelry from braided locks of their own hair.

Anybody who is rewriting a bible to excise a perfectly good word used in proper context is probably mistranslating. There are all sorts of good and valid reasons to re-translate, but this is not one of those valid reasons. If the word in Hebrew or Aramaic - or Greek - used translates in English to &quot;locks&quot;, then that is the word that ought to be used.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kia</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
which versions was he referring to? </div></div>
This is the third time I'm asking that question. No one seems to want to name a version, now that they've talked about it.

[mountaingal]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

dehyah mentioned kjv, king james version, in the post to which you responded about the locks.

[franksterr]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

The many versions and use of different words can and does lead to subtle changes in meaning over time, this is most evident with the use of two figure of speech in the bible.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Son of Man</span> and<span style="color: #FF0000"> Son of God</span> to some Christians they are both right and true and or have the same meaning. While to others one is a metaphor, as Jesus is not the Son of any man in religious actuality, unless you consider God a Man, a thought which most Rasta has no problems with.
So the question is which is it???

John 9:35

New International Version (©1984)
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;Do you believe in the Son of Man?&quot;</span>
New Living Translation (©2007)
When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked, <span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;Do you believe in the Son of Man?&quot;</span>

English Standard Version (©2001)
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">“Do you believe in the Son of Man?”</span>

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, <span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;Do you believe in the Son of Man?&quot;</span>

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, <span style="color: #FF0000">Dost thou believe on the Son of God?</span>

International Standard Version (©2008)
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out. So when he found him, he said, &quot;<span style="font-weight: bold">Do you believe in the Son of Man?&quot;</span>

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And Yeshua heard that they had cast him out, and he found him and said to him,<span style="color: #FF0000"> “Do you believe in the Son of God?”</span>

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus heard that the Jews had thrown the man out [of the synagogue]. So when Jesus found the man, he asked him, <span style="font-weight: bold">&quot;Do you believe in the Son of Man?&quot;</span>

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, <span style="color: #FF0000">Do you believe on the Son of God?</span>

American King James Version
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said to him, <span style="color: #FF0000">Do you believe on the Son of God?</span>

American Standard Version
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, <span style="color: #FF0000">Dost thou believe on the Son of God?</span>

Bible in Basic English
It came to the ears of Jesus that they had put him out, and meeting him he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Have you <span style="text-decoration: underline">faith</span> in the Son of man?</span>

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: <span style="color: #FF0000">Dost thou believe in the Son of God?</span>

Darby Bible Translation
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him, he said to him, <span style="color: #FF0000">Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?</span>

English Revised Version
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, <span style="color: #FF0000">Dost thou believe on the Son of God?</span>

Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him, <span style="color: #FF0000">Dost thou believe on the Son of God?</span>

Weymouth New Testament
Jesus heard that they had done this. So having found him, He asked him, <span style="color: #FF0000">&quot;Do you believe in the Son of God?&quot;</span>

World English Bible
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said,<span style="color: #FF0000"> &quot;Do you believe in the Son of God?&quot;</span>

Young's Literal Translation
Jesus heard that they cast him forth without, and having found him, he said to him, '<span style="color: #FF0000">Dost thou believe in the Son of God?'
</span>

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
dehyah mentioned kjv, king james version, in the post to which you responded about the locks. </div></div>
Yes, but which KJV?
There are at least five King James versions that I personally have read... including a bona fide early 17th century version, which was the second KJV, IIRC, and was done when James I was still living. Each of these versions has some translational differences in them. I own (I believe) two... possible three... different KJV versions, myself - although I don't use those for study, as the KJV was always less accurate an English version of the bible than others. It is well known that James I deliberately changed certain words to suit himself.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

What/where is your confusion, franksterr?

The term &quot;Son of Man&quot; is no denial of His deity, regardless of how you translate that passage.

For the record, in its original language, the words used would be &quot;the Son of Man&quot;, and the meaning would be &quot;deity&quot;. The term &quot;Son of Man&quot; was an idiomatic Aramaic term meaning either &quot;Son of Mankind&quot; or self (&quot;I&quot - both, context dependent.

Even in modern English, the words are an affirmation of Jesus as deity. Jesus even answers in the affirmative in Matt 26:64. &quot;You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.&quot; And confirmation of this comes in th next sentence - Matt 26:65 &quot;Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?&quot; It wouldn't have been <span style="font-weight: bold">blasphemy</span> had Jesus not been claiming to be God/the Son of God/of God.

So what or where is your confusion, franksterr?

[franksterr]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What/where is your confusion, franksterr?</div></div>

Far from it I am in no way confused

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The term &quot;Son of Man&quot; is no denial of His deity, regardless of how you translate that passage.</div></div>

It depends on which Christian denomination you subscribe to. The phrase itself does not easily lends it self to divinity in no way. Some Christians try to say that it does if the beginning letters are capitalize. Its use in the Old Testament refutes the claim of divinity
here is one example
Numbers 23:19
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">God is not a man, that he should lie; neither <span style="font-weight: bold">the son of man,</span> that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?</div></div>

Hence the confuse among Christian sects.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the record, in its original language, the words used would be &quot;the Son of Man&quot;, and the meaning would be &quot;deity&quot;. The term &quot;Son of Man&quot; was an idiomatic Aramaic term meaning either &quot;Son of Mankind&quot; or self (&quot;I&quot - both, context dependent.</div></div>

Present the original language and such interpretation for my edification as that would be new to me....The term son of man always refers to humanity and not divinity in ancient scripts.
Son of Mankind is correct and I alluded to as much, in my first post. It could only mean deity if all mankind is divine making us all son of God....as all Rasta accept.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even in modern English, the words are an affirmation of Jesus as deity. Jesus even answers in the affirmative in Matt 26:64. &quot;You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.&quot; And confirmation of this comes in th next sentence - Matt 26:65 &quot;Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?&quot; It wouldn't have been <span style="font-weight: bold">blasphemy</span> had Jesus not been claiming to be God/the Son of God/of God.</div></div>

All thats is saying to me is that Jesus is affirming his humanity and being rewarded for his good works. He tore his garment because Jesus portrayed himself as the Son of God
Matthew 26
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">61<span style="font-weight: bold">And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days</span>.

62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be<span style="font-weight: bold"> the Christ, the Son of God.</span></div></div>

So you see in that translation the priest is upset by Jesus portraying himself as the Christ the <span style="font-weight: bold">son of god</span> not the <span style="color: #FF0000">son of man</span> - what does your bible say????? that my friend is the cause of the confusion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what or where is your confusion, franksterr? </div></div>

I stated earlier that I am not confuse but it is apparent now that you are???

[WitchyOoman]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

I'm not confused at all, franksterr.

[franksterr]

Re: ole bible versus new bible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not confused at all, franksterr.
</div></div>

Of course you were and it was a direct result of the many biblical version, as you were under the mistaken impression that the priest was upset because Jesus called himself <span style="font-weight: bold">Son of Man.</span>...No that was not why the priest was upset, what the priest was upset about was that he ask Jesus if he was the <span style="color: #FF0000">Son of God</span> and he implied in the affirmative without directly saying so <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thou hast said:</div></div> it is for the this trump up reason the achieve his goal.