 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > A new, new, new, new, bible | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/14/2002 8:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | To the person who truly does not want to debate but only to believe, that person's mind will not be changed. But a foundational reason why such a position isn't tenable is this: how can translation that are not the word of God have such a profound effect on other Christian's lives? The point being this: if translations such as the NIV are from the author of confusion, why aren't they confusing the people they are designed to confuse? How can translation that are "reportedly" from Satan do such great works for God?
It is something that cannot really be denied. There are Christians out there who are Christians and yet do not like the KJV? How can this be, if the KJV is the perfect word of God? Of course we could all be deceived, but so could God, I suppose. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/14/2002 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | The funny thing about the 1611 KJV is that there are two variations, the "he" bible, and the "she" bible. In Ruth 3:15 in the earliest 1611's, she is referred to as "he." Luckily they caught the error quick, but the earliest KJV's were flawed in this way, and if you find one of the original "he" bibles, they are worth approx. 165,000 dollars. The history of the English bible is very interesting outside of arguing which one is right, etc.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Barry Davis
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 2/14/2002 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Questions for KJV Only Advocates
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
2. What Bible would these KJV Only people recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
4. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
5. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
6. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
7. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
8. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
9. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
10. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
11. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
12. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an old English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
13. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
14. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favor of the translation)
15. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
16. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?
17. Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
18. Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
19. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
20. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
21. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
22. Why would the Holy Spirit misguide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
23. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
24. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
25. Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)
26. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
27. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
28. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
29. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
30. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
31. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
32. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
33. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
34. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
35. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
36. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
37. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
38. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
39. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
40. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
41. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
42. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
43. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
44. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
45. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
46. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
47. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
48. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
49. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
50. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
51. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
52. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
53. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
54. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
55. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
56. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."
57. Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
58. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
59. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
60. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
61. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
62. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
63. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
64. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
65. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
66. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 2/14/2002 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Well since everyone else is bowing out I will too, after clearing up some things that seemed to be questions (in a way). There are only about 12 words that seem unclear in todays English, but a LITTLE study could releave that in short time, first by context of the verse or surrounding verses, then a dictionary. It never hurts to expand your vocabulary, but that is subjective I guess. The thee's and thou's are important in that they are singular "you's" and there are verses that start out in the singular and expand to a group, you miss that if everything is "you". I KNOW that all we have are copies and copies of copies, I hadn't got that far yet.
In 99 percent of the modern "translations" we find that a man must make HIMSELF right before God in a verse that the King James and New King James state we should RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth, now right division would entail something tangible to divide, or am I missing something? "Message" is used several times in the Bible so I think that God is perfectly able to say message instead of word. Besides it is kinda hard to cut up a "message" (in the mystical sence) with a penknife.
Why do all modern translations compare themselves with the King James? Just curious.
I will get some websites for refutations of Jimmies oops James' waste of paper.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/14/2002 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Rb. Nothing wrong with the KJV. I like itl I keep a copy. We used it in my public school to study the Bible.
But its many of the tings that YOU have said that need correcting.
You are not a very good advocate for the KJV when you put yourself in the spotlight instead of that wellused text.
Thank about what you are really trying to accomplish. Pick one.
Take a pole here to see what folks think about what I'm suggesting. | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/15/2002 6:11 AM (GMT -6) | | I do find it interesting that RB says,"I see the perfect word of God when I read..." is that not a very subjective way of looking at scripture? Could not everyone say that, not only about the Bible, but at just about any book they read?
The King James Version was before other translations and many people are use to it, that is why many modern translations are compared to it, so people can get a grasp in the differences between the translations, not because the King James Version is a greater or more authoritive translation (I use translation for King James because that is what the translators believed it was).
12 words? I can find more than 12 words in one gospel that people wouldn't understand. But the question is, why shouldn't people have a Bible that is updated in the way they speak? Why shouldn't the Bible be in today's language? Why shouldn't the TNIV translate "with child," as "pregnant?" In the final view, I simply do not understand the point of KJV only advocates. GOd preserves his word how HE sees fit, not how a person sees fit, which is exactly what RB is doing?
(I have decided this is too interesting to bow out of....I would be interested in a response to some of Barry's questions...) Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/15/2002 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | I heard some lady on the radio complaining about the "with child" - "pregnant" thing. They say the difference is that "with child" means that the baby was conceived at conception, and "pregnant" means it is just a fetus. I thought that was kinda stretching it.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/15/2002 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Barry,
Where'd you get that list? That's pretty interesting, except that I believe there were several Bibles before the KJV.
For the...KJV version! (hey, a little support for the ol' English, eh!)
Starkman!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 2/16/2002 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Do you want me to go through the list and explain them? Context can give you most of their meanings. You forgot rereward. (rearward) Perhaps you were wearing a muffler on your ears cause it was cold when someone was telling you what it meant, but the muffler let your hearing.
The point I was making is that if you don't understand words, look them up.
I am sure that there are words in many books that are read every day that are not familiar to the reader.
You did not touch the "thee's and thou's" explaination, why?
As to seeing and believing every word in the King James, it may be subjective, but it is also a trust and faith, which I guess are subjective things also.
Responces to Whites "Controversy"
http://www.staggs.pair.com/kjbp/kjb-docs/tom_whitney_white_rubuttal.html
Books:
DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE by Donald A. Waite.
EXAMINING JAMES WHITE’S "THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY" by David W. Cloud [ISBN 1-58318-060-5]
I'll get some more later, have to go right now.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/16/2002 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | The problem, RB, with everything you have stated is it is, in fact, extremely subjective, a case of which could be made for any translation. Anyone could say when I read (fill in the blank) I see the perfect word of God. Faith is not subjective, for Christians believe there are historical proofs for their beliefs.
Why should I look up the words in the KJV that I don't understand when I can simply read the same verse in another translation which is much easier to understand? You have not shown any reason for me to believe that the KJV is in anyway suprieor to any other translation. Why should I take time out trying to figure out an archaic word, time I could be spending reading God's word in my own language, that I read everyday? In practical terms, it makes no sense. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/17/2002 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | I see the argument from the KJV only people the same way I see the argument from Catholics and Orthodox being the true church. When I dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox I ask them if a person can find God without their church. By and large (with a few Orthodox exceptions...which denies the vast amount of evidence to the contrary) they will reply yes. I then ask this: if a person can find God without the "one true" church, it would seem logical that a person can draw closer to God without the "one true" church. Therefore I cannot believe the argument that there is one true church in the sense that Catholics and Orthodox mean it.
In a different way, KJV only advocates encounter the same problem. You can label the NIV (or NASB, RSV, etc.) satanic or any other term. What you cannot deny is the vast amount of people who have been lead to God and a deeper walk in Christ. As such, what the argument from KJV advocates amounts to is a matter of personal taste taken to the level of dogma. The prime evidence to today is that the KJV is the least purchased and least read of the major translations. As history goes, what is likely to happen is that in 50 years we will have NIV only people because by then God will have raised up another translation with which to preserve his word.
No, God is not the author of confusion. But neither is there a need to label one translation the word of God either. If a person is confused about translations, than that person needs to study them, not cast labels at them. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/17/2002 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If a person is confused about translations, than that person needs to study them, not cast labels at them. Harold
Writerdad, does the bookstore you work at carry that "Cast Labels Version of the NIV? And if so, do they have the teen's edition? Red-herring Letters? Yellow-journalism Notes?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/17/2002 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: I keep hoping Zondervan will come out with one (complete with a blank front cover so I can do it up myself), but despite my pleas they insist on an actual translation (can you imagine?!). You might want to try The Door Magazine's website. If anyone would know where one might be found, they would. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/18/2002 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
We always here "The Greek says/means this" and then the explanation given of the word in Scripture that doesn't mean what it seems to mean in English (thus proving someone's point), or it does mean what it clearly says in English (thus...proving someone else's point).
I've yet to see a Bible printed whose main text or parentheticals state what the Greek (and Hebrew) means. It would be SOOOOO nice to have a Bible that adds paratheses or is made up in whole of exactly what the Greek and Hebrew means, if any two scholars can agree! Oh, there's the Amplified - well, ahem...I guess, but something scholarly but readable would be great.
Anyone know of this kind of Bible in print?
For the "Well, darnit, the Greek REALLY means this:",
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/18/2002 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I know THIS to be the language of Heaven (Swedish):
Johannes 3: 16 För Gud älskade människorna så mycket att han gav dem sin ende Son, för att de som tror på honom inte ska gå under utan ha evigt liv.
17 Gud sände inte sin Son till världen för att döma dem utan för att rädda dem.
Edited by - potonwheel on 02/18/2002 11:34:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/18/2002 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: that is why I never argue from the Greek or Hebrew with anyone. Calvinists are notorious for doing that. As soon as they point out that a word means this in Greek/Hebrew, I tell them I don't argue from other languages because I don't read them and I trust the translator enough to believe they gave the best meaning to the word they could AND I am sure I could find a person to say that word means what I think it means, so what does that prove? Everybody has their points to be made...Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/18/2002 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | If you have studied any non-romantic languages, you know that there are certain nuances which cannot easily be translated into English. Like we have all probably heard at one time or another in our churches, that the Greek Aorist tense means past completed action, present completed action, and most likely future completed action. Now, if we take an Aorist Infinitive and translate it, it comes out the same in English as the Present Infinitive. For instance, "to save" could mean past, present and future completed salvation or a present ongoing experience. There is no way to translate that literally from the Greek into the English, and that is why dynamic translations (NIV, NLT, etc.) are important. They give the nuances of the Greek where English is not capable.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/18/2002 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Kyle, sounds like its jsut a good idea to have more than one translation.
I use: http://www.gospelcom.net/bible | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/18/2002 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 2/19/2002 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Starkman (and others),
An interesting tool that is accessible for laypersons that I have in mind is called an "interlinear". These are pretty readily available for the New Testament but harder to come by for the OT. What it does is give the Greek text and places the English directly under it. Or is it the other way round? I can't remember. But I know it exists and it links the words up for you. Now, of course, this still means you get only one English word (or phrase) per greek word or so but it does help. Besides, if you are willing to learn just the Greek alphabet, it would be enough of a resource to get you into a lexicon where you could get much more complete info. on a given word.
Barring that, I advise that people read at least two translations and usually I recommend the NRSV (or RSV) and the NASB.
OT stuff is much less accessible, a couple of good commentaries is your best bet.
Others agree with or contest this advice? If one does do all this, you can learn just about enough to be really dangerous.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/19/2002 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I definitely agree, the only problem is that interlinears primarily focus on the most literal meaning of a word which can sometimes confuse the meaning.
For the New Testament, I would recommend getting something like a Vine's Expository Dictionary. You simply look up the English word, and it gives you the different greek roots for that word, and which one is used in the verse you are reading and a pretty comprehensive amount of information about the word. They are only like 18 or 19 bucks at most bookstores. Any Christian bookstore will have one. If you like to use Strongs Concordance, then Vines also has the strongs number for each word. They work together pretty well.
For the OT, Vines has some words, but it is not very comprehensive. You best bet would be to get a set of commentaries. OT sets range in price from pretty cheap to 100s of dollars per book. Some good ones are the Word Biblical Commentary for text issues. It can get wordy at times though, so another easier one to follow is the New American Commentary Series. It is conservative in nature, but presents every view and doesn't attempt to force its views on the reader (always a plus in commentaries!).
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 2/19/2002 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman states:
"for the "Well, darnit, the Greek REALLY means this:","
Ask someone to tell you what Luke 2:5, 5:12, 36; John 3:22, 2:4; Acts 2:29, 43; Titus 1:2 literally mean in Greek.
I find it interesting that people will jump on the King James way of translating, that they didn't always follow the laws of grammer, yet they don't follow them either. Anacoluthon just doesn't always fit! Especially when something is trying to be proved. (preconceived ideas perhaps)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/19/2002 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Here ya go, rough translations based on modern lexicons. I wish I was to the point that I could just translate without lexical help or anything else, but that is years away.
quote:
Luke 2:5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
If your point is the omission of wife after betrothed, it is because betrothed or "espoused" is a participle and thus the "wife" is an implied substantive.
quote:
Luke 5:12 And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, there came a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and begged him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean."
What's the problem with this verse in your mind?
quote:
Luke 5:36 36 He also told them a parable: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old."
What's the problem here?
quote:
John 3:22 After these things, Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
quote:
John 2:4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come."
quote:
Acts 2:29 "Men and brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day."
quote:
Acts 2:43 And terror came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.
quote:
Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.
If your point on this word is that the KJV says world instead of ages, that is completely wrong in our modern understanding. In the mind of the KJV translators, the world began at the time that the ages began. It means before time began. The same goes with Matthew 28:20 where ONLY the KJV says "to the end of the world." Since the KJV translators thought that a destruction of the world would come at the end of the age, it means the same thing. With all of the various theologies on the end of time which we have today, the end of the age does not necessarily mean the destruction of this heavens and earth and the installment of the new ones.
Edited by - Kyle Essary on 02/19/2002 7:05:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 2/20/2002 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Pay,
So we should update Shakespear, because we are to lazy to study? No wonder the modern translations have gotten rid of that imperetive! Study to show thyself (singular) approved unto GOD, (not man). Study, who me?
As to them all having the same message. Believing IN the Lord Jesus is quite different than believing Jesus is Lord. One suggests that Jesus does not need us to be Lord the other suggests that he is not Lord until we make him so.
I don't understand why the modern translations would keep suspect passages such as the Pericope De Adultera if they don't believe that they should be there. Common, if you believe something go for it.
What are your thoughts about the Vellum transcripts? Are they reliable?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/20/2002 8:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Payaso: thank you for your instructive words. While it might seem like I am an "NIV Only" I read several translations, including the RSV, NASB and The ESV(English Standard Version) which just came out (I also like "The Message," but don't consider it a translation). We should remove all obstacles bewteen people and the word of God. Most people don't read Shake...but would read him if he were rendered in today's language. Same with scripture. As I asked before, why shouldn't people be able to read scripture in today's language? Are translators less holy than they were WAY back then? Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
| 77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:47 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|