Isaiah points out that we need to be good stewards of our temporary home. Intriguing that it was written thousands of years ago.
5 The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left.
Hi Jack, before going into the message in Isaiah, seems like NASB is a fake bible! The proof is in the verses that you quote! And under old testament covenant and laws, NASB is guilty for the pollution of earth!! (Btw, ESV is a fake bible!)
Please compare with verses from KJV… Isaiah 24:5-6
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
So tell me then which bible do you choose to use and why, @jmonickaraj1. I have struggled to choose an acceptable translation because there are so many different opnions on which version is accurate. I have used the NIV (which I strongly dislike), the ESV (which is so far my favorite), and the KJV. Also, what do you think of the NKJV? Anyone else can add too.
I hear ya! I always feel that, while we are to not worship the earth, we must have good stewardship with it, because God commanded us to do so in Genesis.
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 2:15, 19 KJV
I think that the word pollution in the NASB could better be interpreted as corrupted. Man fell when he ate the apple in the garden, and since then we have been living in a sin-cursed world. I would say that this is more what this passage is referring too rather that actual environmental concerns. Correct me if I’m taking this out of context. I do completely agree we should not completely neglect the earth that God has given us.
I’ve used NIV before (aka nearly inspired version, aka new infidel version ) I prefer the NKJV, but those are the only ones I’ve had much experience with. I do like reading the Tyndale bible (circa 1600s?) For fun, but I’m also a teenager who plays banjo, so maybe my concept of fun is weird? As to the OP, check out where GOD was giving reasons for the wiping out of the canaanites, he talks about how they polluted the land so much that it would vomit them out
True. And, did you know that the people who edit, translat, and publish the NIV bible have actually taken out some verses? Google it and I think you’ll be surprised by what you find! For example, look up the NIV version of the Lord’s Prayer and the KJV version in Matthew. The older translation has the entire thing, but the NIV only has a portion. Don’t ask me why but that is one example of a few that I have found.
Yeah, I noticed that cuz when I started reading the bible every day I had an NIV, and I always had to check the footnotes to complete verses. It had a nice fake leather cover too, so I ended up looking super spiritual cuz it got worn out quickly
Taryn, I use KJV for 2 reasons… 1. for accuracy, literal translation without any interpretation (main reason). 2. the poetic style of writing from long term memory point of view.
I used NIV long ago but later on when I looked for some translations to buy a bible, I checked NIV, and I found it not the same NIV as was before. Shouldn’t then they have called it NNIV?? Now I see it is not just me and @Dragonslayer has seen something similar with NIV!! (Gunnar, I’m glad that you gave up that new NIV!) After this new NIV experience, I never had the motivation to try out any other translation. I decided to simply use KJV. NKJV might be ok but I can’t tell for sure.
Sure. I have noticed with Romans 8:1 of such text dropping in both NIV and ESV. Now that I google, I bump into this blog. https://faithalone.org/blog/romans-81-may-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means-part-2/
I think I see the problem. The translators are making out decision for you in dropping out text on some basis. In Romans 8:1, I see “majority opinion” “veto power” (meaning, number of manuscripts, or the agreement among “super” manuscripts) as the basis for their decision of dropping out. I think that is not correct. But more than dropping out, if there will be interpretation of text on some basis, I consider it more dangerous. I will respond to Ben and share my thoughts on ESV.
I have a friend who is a Bible translator. He shared a story where he was trying to find the exact, critical right word (in whatever language was the target) as there was a wide variety of possible translations. He sought the advice of a Hebrew expert. The Hebrew expert started laughing and said that his desire to find the exact right word was the problem. The Hebrew meaning conveyed more than what a single word could in the target language. It wasn’t if it meant this OR that, it was that it meant this AND that. My takeaway… until I become an expert at Hebrew, Greek (and possibly Aramaic to boot), I will be dependent on the work of translators, but don’t feel bad for me… I’ve got the Spirit to help me out. One other takeaway from that conversation was that a translation can be an excellent word for word translation and still not convey the same meaning of a sentence (and vice-versa). I often use translations from opposite ends of the spectrum simultaneously. I find (attempted) direct translations, amplifications and (eeek!) even paraphrased work to be useful.
I am reminded of another story I thought was kind of sweet. A guy who was here for a visit from living in Papua New guinea shared this. He was asked to help with an initial translation to a language. They got to John 14:2 “In my Father’s house are many rooms…” and there was nothing to even convey a room. The people there did have crude buildings, but there were no interior walls. Multiple families might live in one structure, but they would simply have their individual areas around a family fire pit. They struggled and finally asked a native speaking believer and he immediately had a phrase that seemed to perfectly convey the meaning… “In my Father’s house are many fires.” To us that makes no sense. To that tribe, it faithfully conveyed the message of Jesus to a people who had no reference to what Jesus was talking about.
One great resource is a site called Blue Letter Bible. It allows you to pick any translation and do a simple, in-depth look at the Hebrew (for Old Testament) or Greek (for New Testament) words being used and their original meanings. This comes in very useful for studying and cross-checking my verses. Here is a link, and if you have trouble figuring out how to work the site, PM me and I can explain further.
I think the non-inclusion of “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” is not included in many translations because the (generally accepted) oldest manuscripts do not include it. I am no expert, but I think that is the case in this instance.
Mike, I understand you cannot come up with a perfect translation. I know KJV is also not without such translation errors. I also understand even if you have understood the root language, still you may not understand what it tried to convey. Good example is right here in this thread, what is meant by the English language word - pollution? According to the translator it meant one thing, according a general reader another thing, so knowing the language may not help understand either. I agree God’s Spirit is there to help, even to understand a easily-understandable looking scripture.
What I question more is the spirit behind the translator or the translation. What I mean by that is this. According to Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word “חָלַף” or “chalaph” means “to pass on or away, pass through”. The original text word חָלְפוּ in Isaiah 24:5 is translated as “violated” in NASB while it is translated as “changed” in KJV. While choice of word may not be correct in both translations, KJV conveys the meaning more closely while NASB does not. Let me see if I can put my view. Say you have to comply by a rule. All things considered, you don’t comply, you violate. Simple to understand and more transparent in nature. Here the rule is the same, but no one adhered and hence a wrong doing. Whereas, you change the rule (either by skipping (omission) or by modifying (commission)), you make it look you are compliant, but you are on the wrong side. The second type of wrong doing is more crooked in nature, which I believe is what is meant to be conveyed in the scripture, but to me NASB played it down to mean a mere transgression which is already conveyed earlier in the same verse.
It may not be a big deal of difference for many, but I understand what is changing of ordinance and what it can cause!! I had an issue with an application of law and not with the law, but then when I raised the issue, instead of correcting its application, the law was changed!! I don’t think it is for no reason I had to go through that.
Psalm 119:71 Psalmist says, It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.
Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him,
And these are what I consider God or the Spirit revealing things in the scripture among other ways.
I would be careful with the reading with NASB.
P:S: As I read the surrounding verses, I think I understand it even more better, and the message is more in line with omitting (or changing) an ordinance. Isaiah 24:2 goes, And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the master, so with the servant; as with the maid, so with her mistress; etc etc. Therefore the warning is to the ruled as well as to the ruler! To meet selfish/vested interests, a ruled can violate laws while a ruler can change laws! Now how convenient to change scriptures to lay the blame only on the people (the ruled)! It is not NASB, many translations follow suit. Million dollar question is, how did they get together to get a translation like what they came up with??
This is a very interesting discussion. I know of one flaw in the KJV that my dad pointed out, in the new testament (either Peter or Hebrews I think) they translate Joshua as Jesus in the context of not entering into the rest. A friend of ours (actually the head of the translation project for the meeto language) said he one time asked an older (very wise) guy at a university which is the best translation. The response was, “whichever one you’ll read” which is a good point, as long as your reading the bible, people with no bible would be glad to have even one book