Why is it that christians miss the mark when it comes to translations of God's Holy scriptures?
612279
I like what you just said above friend, pips are without excuse, whatever excuse they have ,  is running out,its getting tired.
847129
Literally, a missing of the mark, according to the Hebrew and Greek Bible texts. God himself sets the “mark” that his intelligent creatures are to reach. Missing that mark is sin, which is also unrighteousness, or lawlessness. (Rom. 3:23) Sin is anything not in harmony with God’s personality, standards, ways, and will, all of which are holy. It may involve wrong conduct, failure to do what should be done, ungodly speech, unclean thoughts, or desires or motives that are selfish. The Bible differentiates between inherited sin and willful sin, between an act of sin over which a person is repentant and the practice of sin.\n\nAnything not in harmony with, hence contrary to, God’s personality, standards, ways, and will; anything marring one’s relationship with God. It may be in word, in deed (doing wrong acts  or failing to do what should be done, or in mind or heart attitude  . Lack of faith in God is a major sin, showing, as it does, distrust of him or lack of confidence in his ability to perform.
32248
It is very difficult to mistranslate a text to take it out of context. For one thing, God repeats Himself often in the text so that we can cross-reference book with book such as the book of Samuel with the book of Chronicles, the book of Matthew against Mark, Luke and John. You have to WANT to this to make it work. Some have. There are translations based on the Latin Vulgate that I ignore, and stick to those that use the Textus Receptus. But the context of the Bible is clear...\n\nGod sent His Son into the world to die and prove His power over death by rising. Through His blood we have redemption from our sins so that we may freely come into the presence of the Almighty.
348340
Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?\n\nThe preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)\n\nTranslators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.\n\nWas the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?\n\nJerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.\n\nOther inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.\n\nIn Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write ???? within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.\n\nWhich form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?\n\nNo human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the super
877013
True, and it is what I've been saying all along. When I was a Christian, I still didn't believe in the letters of Paul. Was it not the prophets of the ancient times that brought laws and the word of G-d through revelation (ie. a burning bush, the direct voice of G-d)? Then years later, the "new" testament is revealed through letters and secondary sources written by people who weren't even there.  Another great point, thanks for the question.
110952
This was the value of the Dead sea scrolls.  It gave scholars a chance to see what had changed in time since they were written and modern day editions.  The surprising thing was that there was a remarkable similarlity.\n\nHave you heard the saying, every translator is a liar?  This is because language changes with the culture.  A word like gay has has had its meaning changed dramatically over the last fifty years.\nUnless scholars change the words of scripture to reflect current usage, then the meaning will be lost.  So to stay authentic, the bible translations must change.
892686
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse: \n\n\n1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text. \n \n1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. \n \n1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. \n \n1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. \n \n1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. \n \n1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. \n \n1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. \n \n1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. \n \n1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.  \n\nThese versions make more sense than the King James because how can Jesus be with God and BE God at the same time? Also, if Jesus IS God, then that would contradict John 1:18 where it says: "No man has seen God at any time."
259044
Your question also begs a more basic question:  regardless of version, timing, or translation, human beings wrote the contents of, and chose and assembled, the texts that were called The Bible.  (Same with the Talmud, and the Koran.)  So it's reasonable to ask, why do so many believe it to be God's word?  I mean, it could be.  But why do people today so strongly believe it to be so, with such certainty?  When all they have is other people's word for it?  It is indeed remarkable, and hard to understand.
634446
When reading the scripture after prayer and in the asking of wisdom and understanding of what one is going to read, then it will be clear if a person is reading an allegory, often referred to as parables in the New Testament - stories given to portray a deeper lesson to be learned.  As far as language and is it implying statement or question - read it either way and see what the impact is.  There are also many instances where you can insert your own name into the passage as opposed to an ingeneral you, or race of people, and see the what the impact is.  But without the Holy Spirit to open your eyes and ears and grant you wisdom and understanding, the scripture is simply a string of words like any other book that will not make a lot of sense to you as God's Word is not understood by people who are not of God.  Just as a story written in a foreign language is not understood accept by people of that language.
1090817
Some of the "missing books" are:\n\nI & II Esdras\nTobit\nJudeth\nEsther\nWisdom of Solomon\nEcclesiasticus\nBaruch\nSusanna\nBel and the Dragon\nI & II Maccabees\n\n___________________________________________________\n\nFirst, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.\n    That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:\n    1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.\n    2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.\n    3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.\n    4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.\n    5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.\n    6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.\n    7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.\n    If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.\n\nBTW: The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the Bible, nor does the Koran.
903037
Good question.\nThe Christians should stick to THEIR Bible-- the new testament.
720517
Every scribe that translated or rewrote would have added the notes in the margins from previous scribes, and then added their own notes. \n\nThe stories passed down are inspired by the word of God, are manipulated by kings and pharisees and written by men.\n\nNothing surprises me.
839372
I had a book, once upon a time, about numerous different translations of the Bible, one of which was the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (I still have copy of the translation though).  It was rated by religion scholars as one of (if not the) worst translations for the very fact that the translators did not have a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek (by the translators' own admissions, they felt they didn't need it!).  They worked by translating individual words with dictionaries.  It also mentioned that a review of it came out in some scholarly magazine titled "How Not to Translate the Bible."  It has been accused of being very biased towards their religion, and I would have to agree.  Despite their claims, the name "Jehovah" (actually "YHWH", "Jehovah" is an English corruption) does NOT appear in any of the original New Testament manuscripts, although in the NWT, the word "Jehovah" does manage to appear.
1075317
You may have noticed that when people 'quote' the scriptures, they tend to take them out of context. The preachers are there to help 'teach' the things of God more accurately. However, personal study is important.\n People will always quote the bible because they want to be right. Unfortunately many miss the mark of proper scriptural handling.
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
338774
Because they think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.  It's long, feel like I just wrote a novel\n.\nPeople in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.\n\nDo these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?\n\nThe purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.\nFrom almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”\n\nThe translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.\n\nThe reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.\n\nKing James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals wa
494392
What are you saying? That we shouldn't read the Bible because we don't speak Hebrew?\nThere are basically two different kind of translations. There are the literal translations which aim to translate the original text word for word and then there are paraphrases or so called "dynamically equivalent translations", which aim at reproducing the meanings, the original readers would have understood.\nSo not all English translations are inaccurate. In the King James Version, although a literal translation, there were some mistakes, such as the one you mention. These have been corrected in the New King James version. \nIn the NKJ it reads "murder", not "kill".