Can you match the pics with the verses below?
Genesis 3:22 changes forever to the age
A change in how long Adam would have lived had he eaten of the tree of life.
Deuteronomy 33:2 changed fiery law to ARE SPRINGS
Deut 33:27 beneath are the arms age during
Jdg 15:16 ...an ass upon asses
In what way is a heap the same as an ass?
1 Samuel 25:22 ...those sitting on the wall...
You lose part of the meaning of the text; namely that David would've slain all the males.
2 Chronicles 22:2 A son of twenty and two years..
This was a change from 42 to 22 years because they didn't know how to resolve a supposed bible contradiction with 2 Kin 8:26. I address this "contradiction" on my bible contradictions page under the 401+ section.
Nehemiah 7:64 removed polluted... and changed to redeemed from the priesthood
I find this change as rather distasteful because it makes it's seem like being a priest is a bad thing.
Job 1:5 sons have sinned, yet blessed God in their...
Opposite meaning.
Job 1:11 put forth,I pray thee,thy hand...
Satan praying to God? Hmmmm....
Job 2:9 bless God and die
This has the opposite meaning.
Psalm 2:12 Son changed to chosen one Psa 119:89 To the age...
Psa 141:7 as one tilling and ripping up the land, have our bones been scattered at the command of Saul
This is the only version that I know of that even mentions Saul in this verse, adding to scripture is a sin.
Prov 10:12,24,27, 11:13,26, 12:10,18,25, 13:11,24, 14:4,12,20,31,15:1,15,27,17:9, 20:14,21:31,
27:7,28:1,5,13. + more change but with and
Pro 27:6...and abundant the kisses of an enemy
The kisses of an enemy are deceitful, just because someone kisses you a lot it doesn't mean that they hate you.
Ecclesiastes 12:1 Creators
A verse that should teach Monotheism now teaches Polytheism.
Jonah 4:1 ...grievous unto Jonah-a great evil-and he...
Did Jonah actually think that the Lord sparing Ninevah was evil?
Jon 4:4,9 is doing good displeasing to thee?
Nahum 1:9 what do we devise against Jehovah?
The text doesn't say that Nahum imagined evil against God.
Nah 3:4 ...The goodness of the grace of the lady of wi..
Calling evil good? Isa 5:20
Zechariah 13:6 Because I was smitten at home by my lovers
That kind of rendering of the text to me seems to be quite irreverent, especially considering that it's a prophesy about our Lord.
Matthew 28:1 "and on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths,came..."
This verse seems to me to be logically incoherent.
Romans 16:19 simple changed to harmless
1 Corinthians 7:2 proper husband
Colossians 1:19 because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle
2 Thessalonians 3:11 ...disorderly,nothing working,but over working
This passage makes no sense!
Hebrews 4:12 changed word of God to reckoning of God
James 3:16 changed envying to zeal (zeal is good see Num 25,Act 22,1 Cor 14:12 Tit 2:14 Rev 3:19)
1 John 3:18 ...not love in word nor in tongue, but in word and in truth.
Where is the call to action? Where is the love in deed?
Revelation 16:16...they did bring them together
Changing he to they is still a change, very dangerous to be tampering with the words from the book of revelation (Rev 22:18-19).
Verses found on biblestudytools.com and brandplucked.webs.com/youngsliteral.htm
A few things in order when dealing with translation differences:
ReplyDelete1.) Words have a semantic range or a variety of meanings in a group of words that are appropriate to use depending on the context of a given passage. For example, the word "angry" has other words with similar connotations like mad, upset, irate, vehement, furious, and enraged. Those terms differ in degrees of forcefulness and may thus not fully convey what a person intends to say. Some places in Hebrew and Greek are even ambiguous.
2.) Words have changed in their meaning since four hundred years ago when Elizabethan English was spoken. A notorious example of this would be the word "gay" which is used in the King James Version of the Bible and how that same word is used today. Both the first point and this one are observations of how the meaning of a word is determined by its usage in context.
3.) The science of translation involves explanation or interpretation, since it is a process of making something known to you that could not otherwise have been known to you. Shades of the Hebrew and Greek are inevitably lost in translation, which is a good reason to have access to more than one Bible (even though you cannot have perfect knowledge about such unless you know the original languages for yourself). Even the King James from time to time has italicized phrases in the text to make it more easily read by a general audience.
4.) This article is misleading because it does not in any way, shape, or form take into account the nature of Robert Young's translation. It is unique amongst English Bibles because it is by far the most literal. There is little interpretive influence in the text. It even attempts to preserve Greek syntax and Hebrew idioms which forces the English to read in a manner that sounds totally awkward and unnatural. That's why you struggle to make sense of passages like Isaiah 5:20 and Nahum 3:4 in this translation.