Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 1/28/2002 11:34 AM (GMT -6)

Question? What IS the Bible? From a news release today;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48340-2002Jan28.html

We learn that there is going to be a "NEW" translation. A translation of WHAT, exactly?
If we are to translate from one of the many transcripts available, would a gender neutral use of a word that does not exist in the text be concidered a translation? This is kinda queer don't you think? What is the purpose for this new, new, new, new translation?

From part of the article we find that Zondervan states that they would not go through with this non-translation translation.

"After meeting with critics, the Bible society said it would halt publication of Britain's inclusive edition and had "abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version.""

That is until it seemed that society had accepted sodomites and women holding positions that non-gender neutral "translations" state that only men should hold. Now, they can try to recoup some of the money they wasted on the new, new, new, new "translation".
So, what do we have here? We now KNOW that the old addage that has been thrown out by the owners of copywrites of the various "translations", was just a ruse (to make them more "readable"). We now know that their intent was just as those that defend the KJ position has always stated. TO CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD TO FIT MANS SIN!

We also know that Zondervan Publishing is ran by LIARS. So much for your DYNAMIC translation! Or should I say, Demonic translation?

Barry Davis
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 6

Posted 2/1/2002 3:45 AM (GMT -6)

Hi,
I always find it humorous when the KJV is used as the standard of literalism. Did you know that the KJV is gender-neutral in places also?

Consider the following passage:

(Mat 5:9) Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
children of God.

Literally, "children" is "sons". Sounds like the KJV translators made an interpretive choice here, just like the translators of the new NIV, NLT, etc....! Why is it okay for them, but not for modern translators?

The fact of the matter is, if you would consider the passages where they are translating in gender-neutral language, it is actually more literal than the translations that are not. Never is the gender neutralized where it is specifically referring to a man or woman or to the Godhead -- it is only in places where it was obviously intended to mean both genders, or mankind in general.

Barry

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/3/2002 4:33 PM (GMT -6)

Barry,

What is the gender of "peacemakers" in that verse? Clearly when the text indicates inclusivity there is no reason to argue about the verses meaning, now is there?

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/7/2002 5:56 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Sweet quote, Payaso. I love that line.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/7/2002 2:55 PM (GMT -6)

So, when Hebrews 11:11 takes the faith away from Sarah and gives it to Abraham, with no manuscript evidence, that is a translation? All because she laughed AT THE TIME. She certainly believed it when her stomuch started getting big!

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/7/2002 5:52 PM (GMT -6)

I ran into a girl who works at the local Christian bookstore last week. She is a KJV advocate. A recent convert. I told her that I wondered if she was a hypocrite and should consider quitting her job because she is selling many Bibles that

"ARE NOT THE WORD OF GOD!!!"

You know. Contributing to Satan's work??? I mean that has always been his plan from the beginning right? Get us to doubt God's word? She said, "Wellllll, I just found out about a week ago."

I'm thinking, "Okaaaaay....maybe you should have quit your job a week ago?" "Welllllll..."

WELL NOTHING! Here's another point I thought of later. "What do you think of all your fellow co-workers who are Christians who are selling defunct Bibles? Hmmmm??? The Christians who landed you the job! Never mind that! What do you think of the rest of Christendom who reads those Bibles? People you fellowship beside in church with? Hmmm....??? Your right and they are heretics."

Point is, we have all kinds of commentaries, teachers, seminaries, colleges, churches, church history, etc, for helping us to understand the Bible! Forget about just having the "right" translation. I'm having a hard enough time as it is!

These pithy issues serve nothing more than to divide brother against brother, sister against sister, brother against sister and sister against brother. And set a "priviledged few" upon their theological perch to goggle with pertuberant eyes at the rest of us putrid NIVers, LBers, NASers, etc.

Get real.

Brandon

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/9/2002 10:13 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for speaking up Brandon...personally, I find it offensive that anyone would call the NIV "demonic." Let's see...Satan tampers with the Bible and comes up with the NIV, which does what? Leads a tremendous amount of people into a greater relationship with who? God. Hmmm, if Satan was THAT stupid he would have been defeated a long time ago.
Don't like the NIV? Fine, get another translation. But try and reframe from making it this big "Satanic" issue. No translation is the word of God. They're all TRANSLATIONS! As such they are subject to interpretation in various places. That happens with all anicent documents where they don't have the originals. And all translations need updating because language changes.
For instance, the KJV read today is not the original KJV first translated, but updated one. The NASB also has been updated. Continuing to do so keeps the word of God vital. Harold

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/10/2002 3:55 AM (GMT -6)

Payaso asked:

quote:
Brett,

My Parsi has fallen off lately; I just haven't kept up with it. Refresh my memory, what does "siste viator et memento mori" mean again?

One of my favorite English profs in college used this quote once in a lecture, and I wrote it down and loved it ever since. It means "Pause, Traveler, and remember you will die."

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/11/2002 11:23 AM (GMT -6)

Well, it is good that the updated "NIV" finally got the science right, huh. Men NEVER loose the ability to produce sperm because of AGE. Disease and injury, yes, age, no!

As for the other "translations" (of what?) they can be useful as commentaries. As for your arguments AGAINST, the KJ, old stuff! AND Satan WAS defeated, AT THE CROSS!

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/11/2002 6:45 PM (GMT -6)

RB: Satan was defeated at cross...what has that got to do with translations? Try and stay on the subject...unless you believe that God wrote in KJ, then the KJ is a translation. And you don't read the original KJ, for it has been updated many times. I would suggest (if you are brave enough to have your views shattered) you read James White's "The King James Only Contraversy." Regardless, in a world of lost souls it would seem that you would have something better to do than hang your hat on such a issue that, one, cannot be proved, and two, does nothing but divide the church. Good show! Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/11/2002 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

Payaso: thanks much for the posts...the comparsion of the different verses and why they were updating them made me excited for a copy so I got on the list and they're going to send me one. God has done so much through the NIV in my life I am glad they care enough to keep it as acturate as possible. Any way, thanks much. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/11/2002 6:50 PM (GMT -6)

RB: if you don't know what the other translations are translating, than perhaps you shouldn't even be in this debate. Because you obviously have no grasp of the issues involved. Harold

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/12/2002 6:05 AM (GMT -6)

We now know that their intent was just as those that defend the KJ position has always stated. TO CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD TO FIT MANS SIN!

rb, have you ever actually translated greek or hebrew? From your posts it doesn't seem like you have. Hebrew, despite cultural values, is a VERY gender inclusive language. Words like "Adam," mean mankind as in all living human beings, this can be seen by the word "Adamah" which means ground or earth. The reason we have always translated it "man"-kind is that Adam was the first man. You would be surprised but their are many words like this. Unless you are still living in the dark ages and have a male dominated mind, then this shouldn't be much of a problem.

Since you are obviously a KJ person due to your lack of considering it a version by adding a V, or your responses, then you probably believe that we should only use the Septuigiant for OT translation. Even though the KJV translators used both Hebrew, Greek and Latin, it seems many KJ only people seem to focus on the greek for their defense. Well, greek is very gender inclusive also. If you get outside of koine greek and look at classical greek to devoid yourself of personal bias, then you see that many of the terms we use as male-only, are not as male oriented as we think, but stand for humankind.

Of course if you are the extreme case that believes that we shouldn't mess with the KJ"V" because those translators had some special power from God that other translators don't have, then you probably won't even consider these things. Ahh well.

Kyle Essary

Edited by - Kyle Essary on 02/12/2002 11:06:10 AM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 2/12/2002 7:08 AM (GMT -6)

And we wonder why the Catholics were not excited about putting the Bible in the hands of the laity.

Maybe we should stop reading translations and say if you cannot read Greek, Hebrew AND Aramaic, you are not entitled to an opinion on biblical matters. And for that matter, no more theology done in English. Only Latin or German (if you're really progressive). That would really solve a lot of problems I think.

It would stop THIS debate, and that's worth something isn't it?

"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

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/12/2002 10:22 AM (GMT -6)

Well then, with this revelation from Modes we need to combine this thread with the Open Bible thread, since now all the commentary has to be in Latin and/or German

Nah, we would still argue over the meanings of what the Latin, German, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic actually mean. The English just makes the distance a little further and the arguing a little more fun.

Kyle Essary

Edited by - Kyle Essary on 02/12/2002 3:23:20 PM

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/12/2002 5:12 PM (GMT -6)

kyle,

Male dominated such as a bishop being the husband of one wife, or, for the man was not made for the womand but the woman for the man, or, for by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin.......and the gift of grace by one man, Jesus Christ...

As to translating the greek, why? What it gets back to is faith, did God leave us doubting? Which greek text do we use, none of them are the same, there are variations in them all, oh, yeah, that is a pet cow there, oh, "well they all agree in most places" looking glass on the word "most", the thing that we have to place before us is final authority, what exactly is the final authority in our physical lives? One of many translations? One of many greek texts? One of many Hebrew texts? Which one? Does God play an active part in preserving his word or did he just throw it out there and say, "there ya go boys, don't blow it!"
Put your hand in front of you. Look at it. Just like you see your hand, and know it is real, I see the perfect word of God when I read my King James Bible, no flaws, no errors, no strikes (16 stikes out of the NIV, and numerous doubts about ones that were there). Jimmy Whites book has been refuted so many times I giggle that you would even bring it up.
Now that we know that you do not have a final authority on which you can stand, what shall we say when you say anything else? What IS your final authority? Wind? Waves?
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make you mad, just trying to get you to think on your position a little harder. I once USED the NIV. Defended it quite well. But when I confronted God with this problem, he gave me a peace and understanding of the word of God that I never had before that. Where before I struggled through verses, I ate up books. I'll throw it back at you, if God was not in it, why did he comfort, teach and admonish me like never before?

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/12/2002 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

Just like Woltersdorff used to say in "Art in Action", BACH belongs in the Church where it was born, and where it lives; not in the glass cased atmosphere of the concert hall.

Similarly, Scripture is born and lives in the Church. Nowhere else compares.

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/13/2002 4:08 AM (GMT -6)

You bring up a good question rb, you said, "Did God leave us doubting?" refering to the multiple greek manuscripts. I concede to you that there are many, many greek manuscripts and despite what many scholars have said, some do have extreme differences. I will concede you that, but for you to say that the KJ has no errors? Why did God wait 1609 years to get the truth out? And what about the rest of the world that doesn't speak English, should we teach them english just so that they can read the perfect King James Bible? You can claim that you aren't trying to make me or Brandon or Harold mad, but to make a statement like "Now that we know you have no authority to stand on," is pretty low. I stand by the word of God, not the King James Bible. I would refer to put my faith in the Spirit of God, who can reveal the meaning to me regardless of text, rather than put it into the works of men 400 years ago.

Personally, I read NKJV and use NAS for clarity when I don't understand what the NKJV says. So I am not in the NIV boat like many of the others who have posted. In fact, I happen to be someone for whom the NIV confuses. I don't know why. I also like the Message. I would never rely on it for Bible study, but it is a fun read, and fun to look at the interpretation that Peterson puts into the text (even if I disagree).

So, I don't get where you say that we are without authority. Did ya'll read Miss E.'s post about authority? If not it is under Meph's Book Discussion thread. WARNING: THAT WHOLE THREAD IS A DIFFICULT READ, BUT GOOD IF YOU CAN WORK THROUGH IT

Kyle Essary

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/13/2002 12:31 PM (GMT -6)

Payaso,

"I stand by the word of God"

Please define this. Is it something that is floating around and jumps into a text you are reading, a mystical thing? Or is it written?

I think God chose English because he blessed the English and America for their preaching of the Gospel at that time. He also knew that the time was fast approaching when the end of this age would be here. Look at the English language, it is the language of commerce. China is recruiting teachers for conversational English, many countries have English as a second language. I know people that use the King James to teach people English, so your inquiry is varified there.
I find it much easier to believe that God worked through men to give us his perfect word in the language that we speak and think in. I find it inconceivable that God would lie about his word, when he states that he would preserve it unto ALL generations. As you acknowlage, the various Greek and Hebrew documents that we have do not agree in many places. Which one is the word of God?

-------------------------
Confusion: every person reading a different "translation" trying to keep up with the Teacher reading the Living Bible.

God is NOT the author of confusion.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/13/2002 3:44 PM (GMT -6)

No. But apparently Ken Taylor is.

Rb -- it was Kyle who said that. Still want to ask him?

As to your talk about English, I'd much rather see you postulate about God using major routes of influence. (also the Roman Empire)

But for languages, a FAR MORE interesting matter can be explored as to why it MIGHT be that God chose to use the Hebrew and the Greek vehicles.

Are you interested in those?

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/13/2002 4:33 PM (GMT -6)

The word of God, I believe, is the message of Christ and the teachings of Christ. That is the point of the Bible; it's message. Since you told me to put out my hand, you reminded me of one of my philosophy profs that once told us to picture a man pointing at Christ. He said that the man's hand was the Bible. Everything in it pointed to Christ, yet if you spend all of your time focusing on the hand, then you never learn about what it points to. I believe this is true. If we spend all of our time focusing on the literal Bible itself (pages, print, which translation) then we miss out on the relationship that it teaches us that we can have with Christ and in Christ.

Now, I do believe that your defense of why you believe God chose the English language to be partially acceptable when you look at history, but that is mere coincedence with the world's dominant Western races. For instance, the world's bible was greek until the vulgate because greek was a widely spoken language. The vulgate was translated since Latin had become the world's dominant language. Then came the "dark" ages after 410, and the confusion of various germanic tongues left us no reason to retranslate the Bible to a common tongue since there were so many, and since feudal society lacked much unity. Also, the elitism of the Roman church made it difficult to make a change to the Bible which they accepted as the word of God (the Vulgate). The Irish made attempts at translating the Bible into Celtic and Gaelic, but these never became major translations. Then after feudalism died down and nations began to reform and the church neared the Reformation, Germans and English both began major attempts to translate the Bible into their tongues since Latin was virtually dead outside of the church. Then after the Bishops, Tyndale and all of those other early English translations we get the KJV. A version of the Bishops Bible before it and a very good translation for the time. Since then, English has been the world's dominant language, and I believe that is why the King James Bible has done so well. Don't get me wrong, I love the King James, but I believe that just as you said that God will preserve his word to ALL generations, and since the English language of the King James is not the English language of today, that God would continue his tradition of preserving His word.

Now PoW, I would love to talk about why God chose Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Obviously Hebrew was a major language to the people God was working with when most of the Hebrew books were written. The same goes with the Aramaic, during and after the Babylonian exile. Greek had become a very common language by the time of the New Testament, but many times I wonder why some of the New Testament isn't in Aramaic. I took 2 years of Hebrew (and brief Aramaic) and am in my first year of Greek. I can tell you that I much prefer Greek. I don't know if it is the western mind or what, but it just makes more sense. Hebrew just seems to have too many possibilities for me. The same word can mean anger or nose, and many times it is hard to tell, by context, which one it could be since all of the other words around it in the sentence have 8-10 possible meanings. You can come up with some very funny translations if you aren't careful.

With all of that said, I think I will be stepping out of this debate on the KJV, as I believe it is pointless to argue over something so futile. Sorry rb (not that I added anything relevant to the argument, hehe).

Kyle Essary

Edited by - Kyle Essary on 02/13/2002 9:46:02 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/13/2002 7:33 PM (GMT -6)

RB: please direct me to one of places James (his name is James, not Jimmy) White has been refuted. Thanks. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/13/2002 7:38 PM (GMT -6)

Rb: I am curious you say when you read the KJ you read the "perfect word of God." What would you say to a person who doesn't see "the perfect word of God?" For instance, I know people who were only confused reading the KV, but now read NIV, another who reads the NASB, and another who reads the NRSV. All are people who, believed Christ died for them, are Bible believing Christians, but simply choose another translation to read? You may see the perfect word of God, but that is your subjective view. I simply don't understand why you feel the need to rip other translations. If the KJV works for you, great. But it may not work for others. Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/13/2002 7:41 PM (GMT -6)

Actually, RB, none of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the word of God. They're copies. You seem to miss the point (oh well). Perhaps we should teach everyone English so they can read the Bible in a language no one uses anymore. After all, we Americans are the apex of civilization, now ain't we?
PS. Kyle, thank you for your fine points and, I too, will be stepping out as well. I find the argument (and name calling of other translations) over translations being the word of God of no real worth, given that all translations basically point to the true way. When one checks the verses, they are just saying the same thing using different words...

Edited by - writerdad on 02/14/2002 12:50:21 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/14/2002 1:10 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Were the translators quoting from the Word of God when they used the Geneva Bible in the 1611 preface "The Translators to the Reader"?

LOL

Wouldn't C.S. Lewis is have loved that one?

77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:37 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual