| Archive for seedfieldtalk.myfastforum.org A discussion forum on Christian topics. |
| Darthmiller |
Which BibleI'm not going to throw my two pence in just yet, but I would like to know....What is your favourite Bible and why? Which translation is best for study? Which is best for reading? Should everyone read the same edition? |
||||
| admin |
Which Bible?Personally I like the NIV but I think its great in Bible studies when you get people using different versions. It helps you to see there are different ways of translating scripture and help you get to a consensus of meaning.I would just like to take this opportunity of thanking you for your contributions to this forum. I don't post much as it takes me all my time to keep the website up to date but I'm really pleased people are using this facility.  Love in Him - Janet R
|
||||
| Jannine Ebenso |
Currently I am reading La Bible en francais courant but I suppose you mean English Bibles.
I tend to use NIV most at the moment. I was using NRSV but it has fallen to pieces and I can't find a new one at the moment. I also like NASB, but don't have a personal copy yet, usually borrow it. When I want to just read and get a different view of things I use the Message, but sometimes laugh at the Americanisms. The Nigerians think it is hysterical. KJV - just doesn't click with me I am afraid, can't understand the poetic way it is written. (I never studied Shakesepeare at school either so could be related.) Bassey has a NKJV, but still I still can't undertstand it! (Tres stupide!) Best for study - I don't think any one translation is best for study. I always use many different translations, not all of which are in English. ( I have 10 English translations /paraphrases on my shelf, plus 2 French translations). For study I also use the KJV (or NKJV), but struggle with it. Best for reading - depends on my mood. Again, I mainly use the NIV at present. Memory verses - I try to always memorise the NIV translation as I find if I mix my memory verses it becomes very confusing. What was the last question? Oh yes...No I don't think we should all read the same version - unless you want to read in unison at a presentation or something. Same as Janet, I think the varieties of translations that we have at Bible studies make them richer. When I worked near Liverpool we had one Bible study member who could understand NT Greek and he had a Greek NT and lexicon with him at each meeting. We used to learn a lot from having him read the original. |
||||
| countrydancer |
which bibleI have used the NIV for a long time but recently changed to the English Standard version and am enjoying using it. I think it is good to use different versions just to read the scriptures if you are reading a chapter or through a book all at once. Also good to get insights by reading different versions if preparing a study.Best if studying to keep to one version a translation not a paraphrase and one that keeps close to the original and doesn't make too many assumptions or interpretations for you. Also best to keep to the same version for memorising scripture. Best to keep to the same version for reading scripture in church (the one that is in the pews so that the congregation can follow) By the way I don't think it is helpful to put the bible reading up on the screen. It is better to encourage the congregation to handle the word of God and find their way around it and have it open for the message. If the preacher has a point to make from a different version they should bring that up in the message. I like to look at the Desiring God website with all the messages from John Piper. The leadership at Bethlehem baptist church changed their church over from NIV to ESV for pew bibles, study and memory verses. If you look on their website under messages on the Bible you will find one on the reasons for this change. |
||||
| countrydancer |
Here is the web link to the article on Desiring God as to why John Piper prefers the ESV to the NIV
http://www.desiringgod.org/Resour...ation_Why_Bethlehem_Uses_the_ESV/ |
||||
| thequietman |
Thanks D-- sorry, country dancer, I have just used your link to John Piper and was really quite excited by the ESV examples. So much so that I would like to have one in time for my holiday next week. My problem is that Wesley Owen don't seem to stock the ESV with giant print. I am so used to my NASB with larger print that I would probably struggle with smaller type. Short of binoculars for glasses or a fancy magnifying glass, are you aware of this bible being available in larger print? |
||||
| paulvipond |
Which BibleTry www.thebookdepository.co.uk.Large Print Bible-Esv ISBN-10: 1581346581 ISBN-13: 9781581346589 Format: Leather Bound Page Number: 1488 Publisher: Crossway Books Publish Date: 2004-10-07 £25.62 free delivery |
||||
| thequietman |
Thanks, Paul. I'll get the little woman to pop into Wtaerstones and get one ordered. | ||||
| paulvipond |
Which Bible?After 25 years of NASB I am now trying out the ESV. While all translations have some element of paraphrase I prefer those described as "essentially literal" to "dynamically equivalent". Although if you can get beyond the americanisms The Message is excellent for a fresh view.I have to confess that Seedfield has the NIV because I pushed for it. I didn't think I stood much chance of getting NASB (the dreaded word American in the title). As dynamic equivalence goes the NIV is pretty conservative but it is a bit too calvinist in its judgements for me. (See Ps 51:5). My birthday present was the New Intrepreter's Bible, a commentary which gives both NIV and NRSV which interestingly highlights the weaknesses of both in different places. At least Tom Wright's commentary on Romans does. |
||||
| paulvipond |
Shiny New ESVSo, Quietman, have you tried out a shiny new ESV yet? |
||||
| Eli |
Favourite Bible... hmmm... the one that I have in my hand claims to be the inspired word of God and beneficial for teaching, rebuking etc....
We should rejoice that we have so much choice. Some Christians would quite literally die for just a few pages of a 1970's Living Bible paraphrase, let alone the products of modern scholarship. God's book never claims to be an easy book. God isn't into watering down His Word for those too lazy to read it and pray for understanding. You have preachers and teachers to expound the Word if you get stuck - that's what they're there for. OK - My shortlist for English speakers... The best (and the only ones worthy of the title- "Holy Bible",) are any of the literal "word for word" translations (KJV, ESV, NKJV etc.) The worst (and possibly most misleading,) are the "Dynamic equivalence" versions (NRSV, NIV, TNIV, TEV etc.) that substitute contemporary idiom and ideas or whatever the translator thinks is OK with what God actually said. PS. How THE MESSAGE ever got to be classed as a Bible is a complete mystery to me. It is blatantly "new age" in its outlook and approach. Must be one of Satan's finest slide-tackles on an inattentive church. The NIV misses out complete verses (take the Lord's prayer in Luke 11 as a case in point - Where's the Father from? Why don't we want God's will to be done? Don't we want to be delivered from evil?) This is way too scary to be coincidence. The TNIV is tampered with beyond belief by the PC translation committee so as not to offend anyone. |
||||
| thequietman |
Hi, Eli. It's good to have you on board. I must admit that I have managed to extricate myself from behind my computer chair after realising that my latest aqquisition happens to be the esv and is one found to be in your "acceptable" list. I myself don't like the message, but that is more to do with lack of verse numbers and composition than the translation. I can't agree with your views that the message is 'new age' as that really is satanic!
Yes there are christians dying, (all too frquently!!) in their hunger for more of God's word, and organisations such as Barnabus fund and Open doors are two that are totally dedicated to relieving this famine, and also assisting in the comforting of the persecuted children of God. ps for paul v. I have only just seen your post for me. The answer is YES I purchased the reformation study bible with BIG writing so I can read it easily. Wow, am I glad I went to Wesley Owen to have a look at what was on offer. |
||||
| thequietman |
just to clarify my last post, I have, of course, treated myself to the REFORMED esv and not the reformation esv (which I doubt is in existence just yet) The writing is so big I must have been temporarily blinded........... | ||||
| Eli |
"New Age" MessageNew Age philosophy permeates virtually every aspect of modern life. It is the beginning of an attempt to create a one-world religion that everyone can subscribe to. Depending on your viewpoint of the millennial reign this is to be expected at some point during the closing years before the Lord returns. With this in mind, it is no surprise that Satan will try to decieve "even the elect" by introducing his own slant on the scriptures.I think you'd have to look at THE MESSAGE with eyes tuned to New Age/Gnostic terminology to reveal just how far Eugene Peterson has incorporated its tenets into his version of the bible. For instance... The Message tends to drop the term "Lord Jesus" in favor of more gnostic sounding, "Master Jesus"... Of course, Jesus is both our Lord and our Master but none of the other versions (even the baneful Good News) uses the term "Master Jesus." Then some of the men from Cyprus and Cyrene who had come to Antioch started talking to Greeks, giving them the Message of the Master Jesus. Acts 11:20 And what we believe is that the One who raised up the Master Jesus will just as certainly raise us up with you, alive. 2 Corinthians 4:14 He who testifies to all these things says it again: "I'm on my way! I'll be there soon!" Yes! Come, Master Jesus! The grace of the Master Jesus be with all of you. Revelation 22:20-21 Not content with removing Jesus' Lordship, Peterson then goes for God's titles and Names... Abram said, "Master GOD, how am I to know this, that it will all be mine?" Genesis 15:8 King David went in, took his place before GOD, and prayed: "Who am I, my Master GOD, and what is my family, that you have brought me to this place in life? 2 Samuel 7:18 He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" I said, "Master GOD, only you know that." Ezekiel 37:3 Rolling on into the realms of sheer paganism, Deuteronomy 32:8 replaces the children of Israel with the "divine guardians"!!! When the High God gave the nations their stake, gave them their place on Earth, He put each of the peoples within boundaries under the care of divine guardians. Deuteronomy 32:8 "Divine guardians" are the commonly accepted spiritual "Masters" of much in the new age movement. The word, "oneness" doesn't appear in other translations. In fact, you'd be hard put to find an ordinary dictionary that has the word. It was adopted by new agers to put forward their views on unity and wholeness. Of course, The Message uses it liberally... I in them and you in me. Then they'll be mature in this oneness. . . John 17:23 Because there is one loaf, our many-ness becomes one-ness. . . 1 Corinthians 10:17 In Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:28, the Message changes "pray" to "the energies of prayer." Apparently, God no longer answers our prayers, instead, the prayer itself, generates "the energy." The Bible definition of prayer means "to ask." (Matthew 21:22) When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer for that person. Luke 6:28 The guiding light of the new age movement is Lucifer, which, of course, means "light bearer." Hence, new age disciples proudly label themselves, "light bearers." The Message proudly sticks the "light" in all over the place, sometimes even in places where the original doesn't have it!!! Psalms 36:9 fountain of cascading light Revelation 2:1 the golden seven-lights' circle Job 24:13 the light-filled path And to combine the whole thing... Revelation 22:5 The shining of God, the Master, is all the light anyone needs (should read... the Lord God giveth them light.) The Message writes the most blasphemous and openly New Age propaganda ever recorded in a mainstream Bible. It transforms the Lord Jesus from the "lily of the valley" to the mystic "lotus blossom from the valley pools." I'm just a wildflower picked from the plains of Sharon, a lotus blossom from the valley pools. A lotus blossoming in a swamp of weeds-- that's my dear friend among the girls in the village. Song of Solomon 2:1-2 In Micah 7:14, The Message performs more New Age garbage. It transforms "midst of Carmel" into a blatant new age phrase "centered in lotus land." Shepherd, O GOD, your people with your staff, your dear and precious flock. Uniquely yours in a grove of trees, centered in lotus land. Micah 7:14 Still not convinced? In Romans 15:13, the Message contains the most bizarre statement ever seen in a mainstream Bible. Oh! May the God of green hope fill you up with joy, fill you up with peace, so that your believing lives, filled with the life-giving energy of the Holy Spirit, will brim over with hope! Romans 15:13 Who??? In respect of readers who are below a certain age, I'll refrain from quoting the references below in full. Just to say that the Message turns a little potty mouthed in a number of places. If you have a copy of the Message to hand, you'll see what I mean... 1 Samuel 20:30, Hosea 2:10, Hosea 4:12, Jeremiah 3:2, 2 Kings 18:27, Jeremiah 8:13, Ezekiel 16:24, Nothing seems sacred to this catastrophe of a "translation," even descending to using the "G**D***" phrase Here is GOD's Message to the prophets, the preachers who lie to my people: "For as long as they're well paid and well fed, the prophets preach, 'Isn't life wonderful! Peace to all!' But if you don't pay up and jump on their bandwagon, their 'God bless you' turns into 'G** d*** you.' Micah 3:5 Supporters of the Message may say that their Bible is as readable as any piece of modern literature – and so it is. But do readers of the likes of "Harry Potter" find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Strangely, The Message seems to have a downer on the Law... John 1: 16-18 says We all live off his generous bounty, gift after gift after gift. We got the basics from Moses, We got what from Moses??? Of course, there are far more instances of "New-Age-speak" littered through the Message. I just lifted the above bits to give you a flavor. If we are to attach any importance to "The Word" as Christians, we should be very careful about the words that make up that "Word". Please, if anyone reading this is a fan of The Message, I'm not trying to offend you, just to open your eyes to the deception that is rife in the Christian world today. When Satan attacks the Bible, you know things are getting serious. |
||||
| paulvipond |
Gnostic Bibles?Well Eli, tho I must confess to a copy of The Message on my shelf it doesnt come down too much so I have no axe to grind but your gnostic description seems a little OTT perhaps.Master may have connotations (shades of Kung Fu and Master Po) but why lose out on Luke's recording of the apostles calling Jesus, Master. Why not refuse to relinquish a perfectly good biblical word to the tree huggers? After all we had it first! All English translations retain some paraphrase and some literalism. It is the balance between to two that changes and demands that we read with our brains in gear. I prefer the literalism of NASB or ESV so that I can see where theological choices have to be made. But even then the translators still make some choices for you and thereby enter the dreaded realms of "dynamic equivalence". Try ESV Rom 5:18 : "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." compared with the literal Greek rendition: "As through the trespass of the one unto all people unto condemnation, so also through the righteous act of the one unto all people unto acquittal of life." Gee thanks Paul, no verbs no subject - over to the exegetes then! Or how about Romans 7:21, "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand." In context Paul is talking about Torah not some generally applicable "law". So here the ESV avoids gnosticism only to slip into Kantian modernism straight out of the Enlightenment. As you rightly say the Bible is not an easy book. If it were would could have it down pat in a few months and then move on to the next "holy book". Better the inexhaustible riches methinks. All translations have their weaknesses. Trouble is so do all we who read them 
|
||||
| paulvipond |
Actually Quietman you had better check. There is a Reformation Study Bible ESV, courtesy R C Sproul, and you may have bought it 
|
||||
| Eli |
"All translations have their weaknesses."
So, where, oh where, do we find God's Word then? If all translations have their weaknesses, isn't this the same as saying that God can't preserve His Word? Trouble is, when a "translation" of God's Word reflects New Age thinking in its phraseology, even down to the "God of green hope," I think it's time to do a runner. I certainly wasn't as OTT as I could have been. I limited the comments to a mere few, just to provide a background to the piece. There is a pretty blatant plot to introduce new age thinking into Christianity of which The Message is only a part. "New Age" covers a hugely wide area of experiences, from tea leaf reading to crystals and stral projection (and all shades in between.) You don't see much of the extremes in churches (at least I hope not) (although I am aware of a Methodist church that has yoga sessions midweek.) The discerning can spot the infiltration fairly easily... Esoteric practices from mediaeval mystics paraded as "new worship" Wanderings into "Rabbinic" or other extra-biblical teaching to expound the Bible. Dependence on spiritual experiences to validate faith. "Storytelling" rather than exposition of the Word. Acceptance of worldly standards to modify doctrine. Use of modern psychology as a yardstick. plus lots more.. These things are happening in a church near you - I can almost guarantee it, it's so widespread. |
||||
| paulvipond |
Translations not the WORD. But unless you can go back to Greek and Aramaic [and decide which parchment takes precedent over which] most us are reliant on translations. All of which have their points. Otherwise we wouldn't debate the extent of paraphrase acceptable. As someone else said, in a completely different context, "It's like eating chicken. You have to know when to spit out the bones." If you look for a single translation in which God has "preserved His Word" we run the risk of entering the Twilight Zone of those who think you can use the KJV to revise "errant" first century texts.
For all readers who may be considered sad [like me!]or insomniac you can download for free a pdf of "Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation" at "http://www.esv.org/assets/pdfs/woge.pdf". Not sure I agree with the logic everywhere but the author makes a cogent argument for literal translation and literary style. (Surpise, surprise he was on the ESV team.) |
||||
| countrydancer |
which bible?EliI hold to the doctrine of innerrancy and use the ESV but what do you think about translating the scriptures in other cultures. I can think of friends of mine who worked for over 30 years in a tribal situation in Papua New Guinea. They worked with New Tribes Mission and are from a Reformed background with a high view of scripture and a desire to translate into the language of the local people. This meant they first had to learn the language, put it into written form and then translate the scriptures plus teaching the people how to read. This took many years but in their view was better than using pidgin English to try and get across the gospel in a way which would have been more open to misunderstanding. In fact it was twelve years before they saw their first convert. Now after thirty years they have just returned to the UK leaving a thriving church with its own leaders. My point is - how do you translate such words as sheep, bread and snow (I am the good shepherd, my sheep know my voice, I am the bread of life whiter than snow) for people who have never seen these items and have no concept of them? If bread means staple food do you use their equivalent? I think you will find that the majority of translators, if they are translating into the indigenous language and not pidgin English will try and find words and concepts which help the local people understand the meaning. This seems to me to be completely acceptable. |
||||
| countrydancer |
which Bible?By the way Eli, although I use a pen name most people at Seedfield would be able to work out who I am from that and from what I say. Have you some reason for remaining anonymous? We don't know who you are or where you are from!Regards David (my real name) |
||||
| paulvipond |
"The discerning can spot the infiltration fairly easily...
Esoteric practices from mediaeval mystics paraded as "new worship" Wanderings into "Rabbinic" or other extra-biblical teaching to expound the Bible. Dependence on spiritual experiences to validate faith. "Storytelling" rather than exposition of the Word. Acceptance of worldly standards to modify doctrine. Use of modern psychology as a yardstick." I am not going to jump to conclusions about what Eli means (some clarification would be interesting, Eli) but some refelections are prompted: 1. Extra-biblical teaching to expound the Bible. Where is the line here? Only "extra-biblical" greek scholarship gives us a Bible in english. Historic research into 1st century Judea gives us an idea of how Jesus' first hearers might have heard him. We only have God's Word because of the "extra-biblical" English we learned at school. And to crown it all technically Jesus' teaching is rabbinic. Where do you draw the line and why? 2. "Storytelling" rather than exposition of the Word. This is a very "western" comment, though of course we are westerners. Technically the largest proportion of the Bible is narrative (story - true story but still story). You do not find any sytematic theology in the ministry of Jesus. What you do find is.... "Once upon a time there was a man with a vineyard etc...." Perhaps what God has in mind is the story-telling of the Word. 3. Acceptance of worldly standards to modify doctrine. The examples are of course myriad, say for example "Gay marriage" or worse still "The poor are always with you" as an excuse for inactivity. 4. Use of modern psychology as a yardstick. Not sure what Eli has in mind here, perhaps he alludes to the trend to make everyone blame their problems on society, on their parents etc., without taking personal responsibility. Generally Christians should embrace the truth in any science while rejecting the false. All truth is God's truth - all that is in the Bible is true - not all that is true is in the Bible. |
||||
| paulvipond |
Re: which bible?
Which particular version of the doctrine of innerancy, countrydancer? "........if God was interested in total inerrancy, why are the approximate 300 quotations in the New Testament not the writers' own translations of the inspired writings of the Hebrew Old Testament, but instead always from a Greek translation of the Hebrew: the Septuagint? Something of total accuracy is always lost, in a translation. And, while the Holy Spirit would have been helping the seventy pre—Christian Septuagint translators, the church has not understood that they enjoyed what we technically call inspiration." " The present interpretation of inerrancy as absolutely without error (sometimes adding the ‘escape clause’: in the original Manuscripts) has been heavily shaped by the Scottish philosophy of ‘common sense’ (cf. A. McGrath, Passion for Truth)" "Wayne Grudem, in his chapter on biblical inerrancy in Systematic Theology, defines inerrancy in the following way: ‘The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact’ (90)." What colour robe was Jesus forced to wear? Compare Matt 27:28-29 with John 19:2-3. Scarlet or purple? Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 both describe the hare as a ruminant. That is it chews the cud - except it doesn't. Phew! Nothing to do with salvation then! 
"Biblical infallibility is the theological term to describe the belief that the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice. This stance is also known as Limited Inerrancy. [1] In contrast, Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from errors in spiritual areas as well as in the natural (geographical, historical, scientific, etc.)." This last from Wikipedia which of course everyone knows to be inerrant 
|
||||
| Eli |
Re: which Bible?
My name is Eli. However, through experience gained in long participation in forums such as this, I find that revealing personal details tends to result in some undesirable results. Identity theft is a problem in today's society. A simple check with your personal details against unguarded comment that you give on message boards can reap benefits to the online fraudster. Secondly, from reading posts here, you all seem to know one another, presuppositions are made about arguments based on knowledge of personalities and arguments/discussions go back and forth centered around hidden agendas, known only between "those in the know." I prefer, at least for the moment, to remain Eli, my given name. If the board doesn't wish to engage with an unknown quantity, let me know and I'll not post any more. Theologically, it is unwise to pigeonhole people. 1 Corinthians 3 has some comment on "christians" who revere particular personalities. As for me, I'm not fixed to either Armani or Calvin (Klein) and my millennial stance was upright on the 1st January 2000
|
||||
| Eli |
Esoteric practices I had in mind was labyrinth walking and mystical mumbo jumbo that is beginning to permeate the church, although I notice that you didn't want any clarification on this point. As for rabbinicism, it has been the bane of Jewish tradition for thousands of years. One rabbi says one thing, another disagrees and behold, you have two camps. The Mishna, which is a collection of the verbal traditions of the rabbis, is a fine display of academicism but has tied up the chosen people for centuries in theological knots. We have one Lord and one Lord only. I'd disagree about the extra-biblical Greek scholarship argument. For one thing, remember the Bible has two testaments Hebrew/Aramaic and Koine Greek. Early translations were done by godly men who were anything but "extra-biblical" in their interpretations. To them, the manuscripts they had were God-breathed, even if they were copies of copies of copies. (A firm belief in providential preservation was paramount to these men) Scholarship then was biblical in emphasis (unlike today) Today, we have all kinds of people (even unrepentant sinners,) jumping on the translation bandwagon, based purely on their academic credentials rather than their standing before the Almighty God.. You don't find Jesus preaching a systematic theology as He didn't have to. His contemporary audience were almost entirely Jews, who already had one. Matthew 5:17 has Jesus stating that He didn't come to do anything with the law, as the Jews had it, but to fulfill every aspect of it. If, as modern commentators would have it, He was a rabbi, he would have spent His entire life interpreting the law for his disciples. As it was, He transcended the "jots and tittles" to fulfill every requirement of it. As for the psychology comment, it was an acknowledgement that a huge proportion of what passes for Christian teaching is post-modern in its emphasis. Post-modernism is (cut to its basics) an acceptance of all viewpoints as being equally valid. Modern psychological teaching (which, of course, changes every time a new book gets published,) tends to elevate mankind as supreme in the forging of his own destiny. "You are what you believe you are" (Descartian view) seems to be the current trend. |
||||
| paulvipond |
Re: which Bible?
Welcome, Eli. Yes I know some of the posters, the board was intended as an in-house communication tool, so I can confirm no hidden agendas, perhaps a few hobby horses, but the only pigeon holes are the ones we choose to climb in ourselves. |
||||
| countrydancer |
which bible?EliYou didn't answer my questions about Bible translation? Any thoughts? |
||||
| Eli |
Re: which bible?
I'm not a great believer in "dynamic equivalence" Remember, crucifixion, scourging and rolling stones over tombs are alien concepts to modern day Britain, as is the death penalty generally. Would you translate Christ's atoning death as Christ's atoning life imprisonment? When we translate the works of Homer (although I believe that it's arguable now that he actually wrote them - that's scholarship for you ) we don't use modern understandable equivalents for Trojan Horses and multi-headed beasts. If we're so faithful to the text of ancient fiction, why can't we be true to the Word of God?
Just a thought... ... but a big one. BTW It was the Calvinists who put the "fun" into Fundamental |
||||
| paulvipond |
Just missed it. Though come to think of the pattern of the floor tiles in our church hall might facilitate "Prayer Hopscotch".
|
||||
| paulvipond |
"Leviticus 18:6 - 21 (ESV) 6“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. 9You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister. 12You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s relative. 13You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s relative. 14You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. 19“You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her."
Just a thought but given that most commentators agree "uncover nakedness" is an idiom for sexual intercourse, not streaking, was the writer of Leviticus using dynamic equivalence?
|
||||
| Eli |
So why translate verse 20 differently then?
19“You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her." The shame of "Uncovering nakedness" goes way back to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve when they realised that they were au naturel. Admittedly, there is an element of some carnal knowledge in the passage you mentioned (if you're looking for it,) but uncovering nakedness isn't always sexual in content within the pages of the bible. Consider the story of the drunken Noah's discovery by his son, Ham, in Genesis 9. There is little in the passage to suggest any untoward relations between Ham and his father, (just the possibility of some puerile, ribald comment to his brothers,) but the behaviour of Shem and Japheth is telling. They reversed towards the sleeping Noah with a garment without actually casting eyes on him. The shame was in the nakedness, not the potential sexual contact. If we understand the shame attached to nakedness throughout the bible, it gives an increased understanding of Jesus sayings in Matthew 25:34f God's people ain't naturists! |
||||
| DavidH |
Hello and comments...There doesn't seem to be a place to say hello, so to speak, but hello anyway.Hope you don't mind me hanging around here occasionally. I have actually viewed this board before but failed to join due to other commitments and message boards. As most folk here know me, I won't spend a whole lot of time introducing myself. In fact, I'll not be around here much (so, apologies for some very late replies to postings  )
Oh, as this is posted under the Bible versions argument (er.. discussion,) most folk know me as a user of the AV/KJV. My reasons for this are many, largely to do with that particular Bible having been the keystone for mission and revival for 400 years. It's an accurate translation from the "Received Text" (Textus Receptus) - That's the set of manuscripts that didn't originate from a Vatican dustbin or from a collection of the writings of some desert dwelling, reclusive heretics .
Also, the proliferation of a huge number of variations on the Word, leaves the modern Christian unable to uniformly quote, or in some cases even recognise, the words of scripture. Cheery |
||||
| paulvipond |
Thanks, Eli. While deflecting me from my original question a wee bit your post threw me back onto a range of commentaries. The general consensus is the "cover nakedness" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The difference in v20 is that reference is no longer to a blood relative. Lev 18:6-19 avoids the blunt term incest. More interestingly still is that v7 clearly states that uncovering the "nakedness of your father" is the same as uncovering "the nakedness of your mother". Presumably a reflection that married couples are one and cannot be viewed separately in this context. Incest being condemned for both moral and consanguinity reasons. So looking at Ham in Gen 9 we may have reference not to nudity but to maternal incest. Anyway back to where we were with dynamic equivalence. Your post highlights the potential we all have for misunderstanding by taking a literal translation + adding the assumption that the words then have a literal meaning. Not that I have yet found anyone who really think that the "trees of the field" are really going to grow hands so that they can clap them. [Isa 55:12]
A question for everyone then. Where literal translation demonstrates an alien idiom ("uncovering nakedness") are we at liberty to find a contemporary idiom? This is a slightly different question to Countrydancer's, "how do you translate "snow" and "camel" in Papua New Guinea which has neither"? By the way, "Quietman", thanks for your confirmation that the "little woman" bought you a Reformation Bible not a reformed one!
|
||||
| Eli |
What filthy minded commentaries you have, paulvipond! However, since incest wasn't actually forbidden until the law of Moses, why would Noah have cursed Ham's son (who presumably would have been the result of the "uncovering" of Mrs Noah's nakedness?) As there were only eight people surviving the flood, incest would have been pretty much inescapable, which is why it wasn't forbidden until much later on. The old atheist question, about where Cain got his wife, is easily answered if you take God's Word as it is written rather than depend on some commentator's view (the majority of whom cross reference their source material anyway.) Anyway, what's alien about uncovering nakedness? It reminds me of the story of the NIV translators who were looking for a more culturally relevant term to replace the "Fatted Calf" in the parable of the lost son. They went to Smithfield market in London and asked the "professionals" what they currently called the item. To their dismay, the butcher said "we calls 'em fatted calves, sir". Translating "snow" and "camel" in PNG needn't present any more problems than translating "sand" and "sword" for the Eskimos. I watched a documentary on TV a while back about some PNG tribespeople, who were filmed as they experienced life in England. They were really excited when they experienced snow for the first time. They'd heard all about it but hadn't seen it and, up until then, had accepted the description on faith... Whoah, that has implications, doesn't it? Isn't that what a big chunk of Hebrews 11 is about? Why not ask about the "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" (KJV - Job 40-41) in current culture? They didn't even exist in 1611 when King James' translators were working. The description is usually guessed at by modern scholars as the "hippopotamus" and "crocodile". However, the description better fits some of the extinct (larger) dinosaurs that we see in our museums. OK, they're not around today but why, for the sake of "dynamic equivalence" make them something else entirely? We have evidence of animals that are no longer with us but were probably around in Job's time. Changing the words to make things fit doesn't always make things work. Oh, and if God can raise up children to Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9), He can sure give hands to trees
|
||||
| paulvipond |
I concede, Eli, I hadnt thought about Noah's progeny.
This is probably diverging now to where a new thread would be appropriate. For the moment however can I venture the following: 1. Marriage was holy even before the giving of torah. So it is highly unlikely that Noah and his sons practiced wife and mother swapping. Far more likely that the grandchildren inter-married. Even now 1st cousin marriage is legal. 2. Your fatted calf analogy only works because the question was asked of butchers - and how many of them new that the root word meant "grain fed"? A true test might be to ask the same question to the local florist! 3. I suspect you dont really think Lev 18:6-19 is really just about a prohibition on undressing your blood relatives. Otherwise v18 means you can undress a woman providing her sister is dead. Naah, I dont think so
4. Yes the PNG people were excited, so would I be if I got to go to PNG. The point of "white as snow" in the scriptures is not about snow though is it? Its about cleanliness and purity. So in PNG "white as a cockatoos wing" works for me. 5. And yes God could genetically grow hands on trees. But that is not what the scripture is saying is it? At the end of the day if we end up needing preachers and teachers to explain to us what "white as snow" [or whatever] means in context how far removed from "dynamic equivalence" is that?
|
||||
| DavidH |
In possibly my only reply to this continuing thread, I will state my views on dynamic equivalence and my preference for the KJV.
God divinely inspired the Scriptures. Paul tells us this, or rather reminds us of it, in his second letter to Timothy. Putting his comments into context, Timothy was having difficulty with his church (How culturally relevant is that? ) Paul reminds him to stick with what he knows - the Scriptures, the Word of God that was taught to him by his mother and grandmother. Now, I'm aware that Timothy wouldn't have had the benefit of computers, printing presses or new translations but surely there was a whole set of matters in the fellowship that could only be settled using the tool that God had provided for the purpose. It was the same tool that the faithful Bereans had used to check whether Paul was preaching the truth. There were no translations, just the Hebrew/Aramaic writings of God's inspired people.
fast forward now, for the sake of relative brevity In the middle ages, the growing Roman church tried to hide the scriptures from what it viewed to be the "laity" or common people. "Let common people read the bible and, well, who knows what might happen?" Any version of the Bible left carelessly lying around the church was in Latin anyway. Only the clergy were generally educated enough to read, in contrast to 99.9% of Hebrew children who were (and still are,) taught to read the scriptures from a very early age. The "Church" hid the truth until brave men like William Tyndale used the new technology of the time to present the Word of God in language readable by the "laity". Sadly, what passed for the "Church" at the time saw to it that the translators received their heavenly reward early by putting them to death. Tyndale himself was imprisoned for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the eyes of the King of England". In the 1550's, under the protection of John Calvin, no less, a translation was made in Geneva that ultimately became the "Geneva Bible" (the first to add chapter and verse numbers). Other translations followed, mainly revisions to amend printing mistakes and other trivial stuff but the "Geneva Bible" became the "standard" for the English speaking people for the next 50 or so years. With the accession of King James I to the throne of England, the Protestant clergy approached him in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope as an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, they wanted a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification when different meanings were possible. This "translation to end all translations" was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. In addition to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, they relied heavily on Tyndale's New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even used the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first KJV rolled off the printing press. For the next 400 years, the KJV was the bible of both pulpit and pew. This was the very core of the "churched" society referred to in other posts on this board. Is it coincidence that the moral breakdown of our "Christian Nation" began around the turn of the 20th century, shortly after the publication of the Revised Version, the first major revision of the KJV in hundreds of years (and the first from the Alexandrian manuscripts that make up the Nestle-Aland Greek NT.) The KJV translators were deeply conscious that they were not just dealing with translating a bunch of dusty old papers but they were handling the "lively oracles of God." They knew that God didn't speak in a common vernacular (He spoke like GOD,) and had terminology that was all His own. "King James English" wasn't actually spoken by any of King James' subjects, even the very posh ones with lots of education and not even King James himself spoke like this - the "language" of the KJV was specially formulated to retain the patterns and flow of the Hebrew and Greek. If you don't believe me, check the style of Shakespeare's plays against that of the KJV - they just aren't the same, yet were written around the same time. No, they didn't employ Will as a style-consultant either. In ordinary speech, folk referred to each other as "you" in spite of how many of "you" there were. "Thee/thou" and "You" were retained in the KJV to indicate singulars and plurals to make it easy, for example, for people to follow whether Jesus was speaking to an individual disciple or to a crowd. I know that there are words in the KJV that don't appear in the original manuscripts but in the vast majority of editions, these words appear in italics. You don't get this honesty in any other translation that I'm aware of (although someone will doubtless find one somewhere )
Finally, the methods used in dynamic equivalence give far too much leeway for the presuppositions of the translators to be grafted onto the Word. The NIV (for example) contains many scripture-twisting howlers that are squarely down to dynamic equivalence and, in some cases, the very distinctive preferences of the translators (and I'm not talking about their Calvinist position either.) In fact, it is so bad in a couple of places that it actually equates Jesus with Satan - How wonderful is that? - I don't think. So, folks, that's why I stick with the old King. The language isn't as difficult as some would have you believe and, to be honest, a lot of people in our part of the world still use "thee" and "thou" in everyday speech. "Illiterate" miners and factory workers of the 18th and 19th century could manage to understand it, why can't the "universally educated" public of the 21st? As the saying goes "KJV - It Ruleth! OK!"
There have been hundreds of new translations to suit all kinds of fads and fancies but if you choose a version of the Bible based on whether it agrees with your own ideas about God and society, surely the cart is before the horse? A bit like the JW's did with their NWT. Incidentally, for a written work to be "copyrightable" it has to be 10% different to anything else in its field. This probably explains the rigid adherence to dynamic equivalence, which gives licence to change things to a state whereby they may be copyrighted (and thereby make money.) Also, how many people know that the NIV publishers are part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation? Interesting that the "News Of The World" "The Sun" and a chain of pornographic movie channels on satellite and cable come from the same stable as this Bible translation. 
Sorry about the length - got carried away a bit... 
|
||||
| DavidH |
For God So Loved The WorldJust on a point of interest, we all know John 3:16, or do we?"God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif." is from an early translation into Anglo-Saxon in 995AD "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe." is the Geneva version (1557) "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." is the first edition (1611) of the KJV Notice in all, there is the phrase "only begotten" (or "an-cennedan" in A/S, which equates to the same thing). In most modern versions this is rendered as "one and only" or "only" son. Whilst the word "begotten" isn't commonly used today, it does actually give the true translation and a source for our understanding about the relationship between the Son and the Father. After all, God did have more sons than Jesus (Genesis 6:2-4) but only one that was begotten (or born of man) Just a thought |
||||
| DavidH |
On Another PointSorry if this has been posted anywhere else but...The "Electronic" Bible that I use is called E-Sword. It's free and downloadable from http://www.e-sword.net/ (don't forget the hyphen in e-sword. If you type "esword.net" you get someone trying to sell you Swiss Army knives) It has multitudes of Bible versions (including the ESV - copyright free, I notice  for all you modern ESV types out there.) It also has loads of commentaries and dictionaries, Greek, Hebrew and a host of other goodies and all for the princely sum of...
...Nothing! You can't beat the price. It certainly improves the speed of referencing and it makes your paper concordance virtually extinct. It's easy to set up and the basic module has the program plus the KJV text of the Bible with Easton's commentary. Then you go mad, downloading all the modules and filling up your hard drive. Sadly, it is only available for Windoze but if you have Linux or Apple systems, "Sword" is free and almost as widely supported. |
||||
| Darthmiller |
Re: For God So Loved The World
source- Greek New Testament, United Bible society. The word begotten puts emphasis on the humanity of Christ. The Catholic Church preferred to emphasize the divinity of Christ where as the Anglican Church favored emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Just a thought |
||||
| DavidH |
Not sure what Greek version the UBS uses but I suspect that it's the Alexandrian sourced Nestle concoction that relies on dodgy ex-Vatican "older" manuscripts. Proper translations use the majority text. However...
Strong's reads thus for the word that is translated from the TR as "only-begotten" in the KJV and the ASV and the NKJV G3439 μονογενής monogenēs mon-og-en-ace From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). It doesn't take an ace linguist to work out that mono means one or only and genes has the same thing going on that genetics does. The problem here, so I'm told as I'm no Greek scholar*, is a misunderstanding of the Greek language by modern "issue driven" translators. The word monogenes means one or unique in the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents. It does not mean unique, as in special, such as in the phrase, "his style of painting is unique." Here the Greek would be monadikos, not monogenes. In the New Testament the word monogenes is used eight times. In every case it is used to describe a relationship between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Since this is how the Holy Spirit uses the word in the New Testament, we must accept this definition when reading John 3:16. * I'm pretty glad I don't have to be one. I'd never have been saved if my linguistic ability were a qualification. God saw to it that I had the Bible in English. I've found, over the years, that it is generally those who don't like what God's Word says in plain English that are the first to resort to the smokescreen of scholarship and alternative "translations" to prove a point. The Jehovah's Witnesses do this in their "New World Translation". Rick Warren does it (in his "Purpose Driven Church") by using so many "translations" as to confound his readers. The "Emergents" (if they use the Bible at all) try to draw inferences from the writings of heretical medieval (and modern) mystics. All this is supposed to be enlightening. Instead, it creates division (like here on the Seedfield forum). Either we have God's Word or we don't. We can't have both states of being. Who decides? - God does. He speaks to His people through His Word today. The Bible is a closed book to those who are not in the faith. It cannot be understood without a living relationship with the writer. If we want to spend our time re-translating the Word into what we currently find acceptable or PC (like the NIV does) it is a very sad reflection on the state of a church that can't seem to accept God's Word at face value. The thing is, to be grateful that you have a Bible (of any sort) in your hand. So many Christians in the world would quite literally die for a copy of even the most awful translation. Indeed, they do so in large numbers**. Thousands died, even in this country, for the publication of the Geneva Bible and the King James Version. They were tortured and burned at the stake or strangled so that you and I could have the Bible for ourselves. ** For this reason, I hope that we're all going to boycott the next Olympic Games in Beijing. China actively persecutes Christians for the simple wish to have the Scriptures in their own languages. |
||||
| Darthmiller |
Strange I thought it wasn't to do with the age of the manuscript, I thought it was down to not knowing the proper translation of monogenes and having to choose between to Greek root verbs, one which which means "to become" (GINOMAI) and one which means "to beget" (GENNAO).
And just out of interest what makes them "proper" translations? And answers on a post card: Is older better in terms of source manuscripts or is newer better? Do translators today have more or less of an agenda than they did in centuries past? (just so you all know I do not care about this topic really. I read as many translations and versions as I can get my hands on and pray that God through the Holy Spirit will ensure I get the message) |
||||
| DavidH |
The issue about the "best" translation doesn't really revolve around the KJV vs NIV vs ESV vs whatever else. Most would agree that it is vital to have proper source material if you're going to produce a proper translation. Otherwise, you'd get a translation of "Noddy in Toyland" rather than one of the Bible. But then, we'll keep "The Message" out of this discussion
Don't push this analogy too far, (I realise its shortcomings,) but it's a bit like producing a modern account of the "Battle of Britain" using copies of the original pilot's notes and Official Documented Reports as against using some 1960's "Commando" Comic books and an interpretation of the 1960's movie, starring Christopher Plummer... The "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" is a collection of hundreds of copies of the Koine New Testament writings. There are no ORIGINAL GREEK manuscripts now, as they fell apart through loving use in the first century. Anyone referring to "The Original Greek," take note... What we do have is the multitude of careful copies, made through the ages by faithful saints who wished to preserve and circulate the written Word of God for God's people. This carried on the scribal tradition of the Hebrews who preserved God's Word in the OT. In the days before printing presses, people were far more careful about copying than we are today - the Jews especially so. As Christians, of course we believe that God is capable of preserving His Word throughout the centuries so that the Word today is exactly the same as the Word in the 1st century. At this moment, we need to consider the simplistic academic fallacy that states that if you find an earlier manuscript, it is bound to be a more accurate copy of the original as it's nearer to the source. Remember, if a current copy of the original reports of our Battle of Britain example were to be published this week, it would be more recent but a sight more trustworthy than a ten year old copy of "Commando" magazine, however carefully the old comic may have been preserved. In 1881, two academics named Wescott and Hort produced the "Revised" version of the Bible. They used this same argument to substantiate their claim that their translation was "better" than the KJV. They used two documents to support this claim. The CODEX VATICANUS had been hidden in the Vatican Library for many years. It was old, it was beautifully preserved but even the RC church had locked it away as being a bit dodgy. It has so many scribal errors and amendations that it could not, with any intellectual honesty, be really regarded as a viable "original" manuscript (in spite of its antiquity.) The other main manuscript is the CODEX SINAITICUS that was found in the "ready for burning" pile at St Catherine's Monastery on Mt Sinai. Again, the monks had decided that it was pretty worthless, even as a relic, but it was rescued and used in the re-translation of the Bible. Most modern translations use these two CODICES as primary sources. For other readers who may not be aware, the word CODEX refers to a book-bound bunch of papers as opposed to a scroll, which was a bunch of pages, stitched in one long roll (like the pictures you see of Jewish scriptures today) I'm probably the only sad person that actually reads the "Translators Preface" in various Bibles but I've sometimes been surprised at their frankness of confession about just how much they fiddle with the text to make it fit the "spirit of the age." The business about Alexandrian versus Antiochan manuscripts refers to their original sources. The TR (or majority text) was sourced from Antioch (the cradle of Christianity - Acts 11:26) whilst the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came from Alexandria. Alex, as we know, is in Egypt and, as all Bible scholars know, Egypt is symbolic of enmity with God's chosen people. So, if you're making a "proper" translation, it is wise to use the "proper" source documents. Otherwise, you end up with problems. My money would be on the Antiochan TR manuscripts rather than the ones that came from Egypt, were hidden for over a thousand years and then resurrected as a reject from an apostate church and touted as a "new and significant discovery" Just a couple of interesting asides - I think... Having worked amongst academics for the last twenty years, I'm aware of their huge desire for academic fame and glory. Money is rarely the issue but getting your name in print is everything. Research works by proposing the unbelievable and then trying to prove or disprove it. You don't get funding to reiterate the same old thing! In order to establish printing "copyright" on a written work, it must be proven to be at least 10% different to a previous work. Otherwise, it becomes subject to all kinds of plagiarism law suits. As each new version of the Bible exhibits a "Copyright" notice, each must be 10% different from the others. This is made a bit less scary as it might be as they all compare themselves to the KJV in their prefaces rather than each other (thus avoiding embarrassing legal battles between Bible publishers.) That's why the KJV gets so much stick - not because it's a bad translation - it most certainly isn't - but because of a legal loophole that allows a lot of demonstrably bad translations to get published. This is the modern world! But God's Word doesn't change. |
||||
| Eli |
Since it was your original question back in March, Darthmiller, isn't it a bit odd to say that you don't care about this topic? Since the other points seem to have been covered by others, I'll just make a suggestion about having agendas. Of course todays translators have more of an agenda. They're largely career driven and need the money. Medieval and Jacobean translators were already paid clergy so they gained nothing in cash for translation. Neither did they get much academic fame. You can find a list of KJ translators if you want to but I find the list of NIV translators far more illuminating in terms of agendas... Virginia Mollenkott - OT Style Consultant - Practising and militant Lesbian Her web page http://www.geocities.com/vrmollenkott/ speaks volumes. Marten Woudstra - Chairman OT Translation Committee and (now deceased) practising homosexual. In a very senior position on the commitee. These two certainly would have had an interest in toning down what they would have seen as the previous versions' perceived homophobia That's only the homosexual issue. When it comes to predispositions on doctrine, someone here (I think it may have been paulvipond) said that the NIV was a bit Calvinist. Again, another hobbyhorse that drives the translation. |
||||
| Eli |
I thought this was Darthmiller's original question. What's best? |
||||
| Darthmiller |
Proper and best are not the same thing, dictionary anyone | ||||
| Darthmiller |
Re: Which Bible
Just to remind you what my original question ACTUALLY was |
||||
| Eli |
Re: Which Bible
So, Darthmiller, after five months and five pages of opinion, can we have your thoughts on this topic? Is it now time to "throw in your two pence," or will you just answer the question with yet another question? Which is YOUR favorite Bible? Why? Which TRANSLATION do YOU think is best for study? Which is best for READING? Should we all be reading the same EDITION? Answers on this forum please. No postcards allowed
|
||||
| Eli |
Proverbs 16:25 is probably the best place to find the distinction. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (KJV) There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. (NIV) There's a way that looks harmless enough; look again—it leads straight to hell (The Message) There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (ESV) or (in the original...) ישׁ דרך ישׁר לפני־אישׁ ואחריתה דרכי־מות׃
|
||||
| Darthmiller |
What is your favourite Bible and why: A very dog-eared Gideons NT and Psalms as that was the Bible that lead me to Christ.
Which translation is best for study: For study I use two ESV because it is a clear, widely used word for word translation and the NRSV because although it is a thought for thought translation it does help me to get to grips with the meaning of a passage as well as the fact as tricky to translate Greek words have both possibilities recorded Which is best for reading: For me it is the NIV, it's sentence structure and word choices work well with my dyslexic brain (Although as dyslexics can be better with pictures, so the Manga Bible is pretty cool too) Should everyone read the same edition: Until we fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and all own time machines. Every one should read as many translations as possible. The word proper can be applied to several translations at once but best would really mean only one, which is why I asked for YOUR distinction. And this next bit is just a simple question which I do not pretend to know a definitive answer to (I'm not quite that arrogant yet, give me a couple more years of college) but here goes. Is it not possible that we know more about ancient Greek and Hebrew now than say, 300 years ago? |
||||
| Darthmiller |
Didn't answer the fact that there are two possible routes for the word Monogenes but thanks anyway |
||||
| Eli |
No. We* might think we* do, but then ancient Greeks and Hebrews didn't write the Bible. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2Tim 3:16-17 God's Word - man's hands. So the issue about modern linguistic knowledge is a red herring, repeated ad nauseam by scholars as a justification for their further "research". Hebrew hasn't changed significantly in 4000 years and Koine is a colloquial version of Greek with a limited vocabulary- that's why you get all the nonsense about "nuances" in meaning - English has too many words. God's Word is the same today as it always was. * Who's the "we"? Are you putting your trust in the theologically liberal scholars who keep tinkering with the scriptures in order to keep those royalty checks coming in? Remember, modern translations have added nothing to our understanding of God. Some of them have attempted to take away some of our understanding of God (but that's a different matter.) |
||||
| Eli |
Thought I'd stick my unwanted oar in here too. This quote from the ISV translation committee would seem to sum up your question.. The trouble is, the Greek isn't "clearly" saying "only-begotten". The traditional argument about the problem is that if MONOGENES is derived from a root of the verb GINOMAI (to become), then the word means "only existing" and hence "unique", but that if MONOGENES is derived from a root of the verb GENNAO (to beget), then the word means "only begotten". Taking the verse in isolation, there are indeed problems. However, God doesn't reveal these things in isolation... The trouble for the translators of this word is how do they reconcile that Jesus isn't the only Son of God. (Genesis 6:2 refers.) If God had other sons, how could Jesus be unique (in our current understanding of the word?) - Only Begotten is the correct translation (from GENNAO) since it underscores His relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. To translate it otherwise tells us nothing more than Jesus was an only child. Nothing astounding in that but the Only-Begotten Son of the Father - Wow! |
||||
| Darthmiller |
Firstly Eli thank you for the sensible length post.
Secondly thank you for clearing that up without talking down |
||||
| Darthmiller |
Maybe we should open up the other can of worms about the "Sons of God" and the "Nephilim" in another thread, might be interesting | ||||