Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck; 2sheep
One thing I am very curious about -- why would an organization which is straining so hard to distinguish its Jewish character as opposed to the "Christian Church," lean on a Bible translation that is the product of the Anglicans? If they claim they are distinct, they really ought to have their own translation. The Anglican church, which produced the KJV, would be hopelessly pagan in their view, what with their Christmas and Easter celebrations.

Which organization are you referring to? Jews for Jesus or other Messianic groups? A Hispanic Messianic congregation that I know has several members who are fluent in Hebrew and read from the Hebrew Text and simultaneously translate when not reading from the Reina Valera which is the 1569 Spanish translation with a revision in 1602, of the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus BECAUSE like its English counterpart, the KJV, its translators feared G-d, did a very painstaking job of translating, and didn't try to soften or pervert the message, unlike some of the newer perversions. Bible Gateway.com says: The Reina-Valera Antigua was first translated and published in 1569 by Casiodoro de Reina, after twelve years of intensive work, and later put out in 1602 in revised form by Cipriano de Valera, who gave more than twenty years of his life to its revision and improvement. The NIV translating team had 100 "scholars" from 20 denominations (how ecumenical!) working for ten years, but many of those scholars weren't translators, they were editorial reviewers and stylistic reviewers. Well, betcha by golly wow!

125 posted on 09/16/2002 6:01:46 AM PDT by Prodigal Daughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]


To: Prodigal Daughter
I see I'm not the only one here who avoids the NIV like the plague.
126 posted on 09/16/2002 6:11:15 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

To: Prodigal Daughter
and didn't try to soften or pervert the message, unlike some of the newer perversions

We can thank the KJV for bringing us the term "baptism." King James, because of the "sprinkle baptism" theology of the Anglican church, didn't want a literal translation of the Greek term of which "baptism" is basically a transliteration. If KJV had feared God enough to translate that term on the same standard that you claim for the rest of the text, we wouldn't be talking about "baptisms." We'd be talking about "immersions."

153 posted on 09/17/2002 12:07:38 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

To: Prodigal Daughter
The NIV translating team had 100 "scholars" from 20 denominations (how ecumenical!)

Better this, than the Anglican bias of the KJV.

154 posted on 09/17/2002 12:11:53 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson