Alternatively there have also been omissions of mystical references or terminology in some translations, like the magi and the Python spirit (πνεῦμα Πύθωνα), Acts 16:16, and still not much in the way of Gehenna and Tartaros being mentioned.
Proper English translation
Xavier Perez
Brody Watson
Yeah this idea falls apart because the meaning of that word is dependant on the context. You can't just redefine English words as you please… the fact is it means verily in the places where it's used in that way. Sorry if this idea goes against the inclination to change God's word to your convenience.
Like says, there are actually very serious changes floating around that need to be addressed. But all these people turning God's word into their personal play-doh and recommending multiple, conflicting bible versions don't really care about them.
Grayson Edwards
It's not "changing" God's word. "Amen" is the exact word used in the original. How do you change something that's already there?
And I don't know what you mean by redefining English words. I haven't discussed any English afaik. As for Amen, it's a Hebrew and Aramaic word. That's the whole point. That even though the Gospels were in Greek, this was one of the few cases where the evangelists decided to bring in the Aramaic in a transliterated form, rather than translate it (sort of like they didn't "translate" Marantha. They "transliterated" it directly instead). If they wanted to simply say "verily" or "truly", they would have used something like aleqoß (alethos). Instead they skipped the obvious and used "Amen".
And the context is always the same and it's said by Jesus as a predicate to his declarative statements. Sure, it can mean "verily", but my whole point is the Gospel writers still thought it right to not just depend on meaning but directly give the Aramaic. They wanted to keep the transliteration. Not simply the meaning. Why? I don't know, but I think we should keep it in translation. Simply because they saw fit to NOT translate it themselves.
Since you used "verily", I'm going to assume you're motivated by your love of the KJV. I love the KJV too and I've been defending it here. Doesn't mean you have to jump on everything that differs from it.
Zachary Jones
Odd how classical translations like Syriac and Latin transcribed it but the Reformation era ones did not.
Lucas Long
Lol actually in Syriac it would have been a cognate word, silly me.
Anthony Gray
Recommending the "Tree of Life" version, the DRB, NAB and Evangelical Heritage version is changing God's word though. That's what the post did.
All I meant there was taking the established meaning of a word and expanding it. It's really not something that should compel you to use corrupted versions like the "Tree of Life" version or whatever else. But according to that post, what he cares about is this and all the other major changes between these versions he couldn't care less about. And not only that, but he would even come onto a board and recommend others use these versions.
All I'm asking is for people to apply a similar level of reasoning to the whole scripture and realize that all the modern changes that are out there go far beyond such cases as this. There are major instances of deleted and changed words that affect major doctrine to be considered. To recommend four different, conflicting versions then is a case of great irresponsibility.
For instance, the "TLV" and others delete the words "but after the Spirit" from Romans 8:1. They delete the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. They delete the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22. Some of them change the words "I must work" to "We must work" in John 9:4. These are of great significance and it's just the tip of the iceberg of changes. How can you recommend multiple bibles at once when they don't even say the same things in these places.
Blake Williams
user didn't recommend it as much as suggest the irony or such of it having the 'amen'. The rest were mentioned for including it and the Lutheran one was recommended to OP.
Josiah Johnson
Your deliberate exclusion of the reasons for this is the real omission.
Jacob Baker
So are we splitting hairs over this, but meanwhile ignoring all the massive faults in differences between the versions? He recommended it in that he failed to mention these glaring faults and only spoke positively about it. He only spoke positively about these translations, as if they all agreed.
Again, he only spoke positively about them and gave the impression that they all said the same thing, to the point that they could be listed together.
But the reality is each of them is vastly different from each other and each has many more significant departures than this. Why is that undeniable fact so loosely regarded?
The reasons for what? What is this vague insinuation? Why are you being so ambiguous, is it because you have absolutely no idea what you're saying?
In case you didn't know better, each of the "versions" mentioned handles all four passages differently. The "TLV" and "NAB" remove more from Romans 8:1 than what I mentioned. They remove "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The DRB only removes "but after the Spirit" but includes the rest. So which is it?
Only some of them remove Mark 10:24, but the DRB only removes Matthew 5:22, so which is it? The EHV meanwhile keeps both Matthew 5:22 and Mark 10:24, yet it removes all of the parts from Romans 8:1. So which variation is it in each of these places, and why would you include them all in the same list when none agree, even on these few (very important) places? And moreover, why would you act like these differences don't exist and allow the possibility that someone would use the wrong Scripture? And beyond that, why would you make ambiguous objections to someone who was trying to correct this situation and ambiguously oppose them without being able to say anything?
Adrian Bailey
Oh user, there's no need to be so forthright all the time, what joy is life then? Such stringency is best reserved for more solemn events.