Subject: The Massorah? |
Bible Note: Kalos, You saying I'm bashing, but I say I'm using them as an example. Doesn't it make sense that the earlier the translation of the Bible that it would easier to translate back to the original language which would give a better understanding of the Word? Later translations (I feel, and just my belief) can make it more difficult to go back to the original manuscripts, and therefore if using a much later translation makes it almost impossible to get the full meaning. The NIV, and the Amplified, etc. are fine if one chooses to use them, but I prefer to use the King James Bible, and I'm talking about the 1611 version. I meant no offense toward Tim, but I believe strongly in the Massorah because it's a protecting a wall so to speak of the original manuscripts (languages) and therefore makes it more difficult to mistranslate. Obviously there had to be a reason for the Massorah, because some men, or women would, or could translate the Word incorrectly because let's face it were human. And these translations could of been meant to confuse one intentionally. I'm just being realistic. Oh it could sound better, but some could not getting the full meaning of the Manuscripts and that's my concern, and believe it should be everyone's concern, don't you agree??? Also in the 1611 Version at the beginning of it there is a letter to the reader warning of this very thing I'm speaking of. One should check it out! In the Love of the Living Water, Serenetime |