seedfieldtalk.myfastforum.org

DavidH · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

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 Rolling Eyes

)

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 Wink

.
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
_________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

paulvipond · Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 60 Location: Bury

Eli · Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject:

paulvipond · Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 60 Location: Bury

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 Wink

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? Shocked

_________________
Make you walk in the dust of your rabbi, Jesus

DavidH · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

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? Wink

) 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 Laughing

)

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!" Laughing

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. Crying or Very sad

Sorry about the length - got carried away a bit... Embarassed

_________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DavidH · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

Just 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
_________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DavidH · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

Sorry 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 Very Happy

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.
_________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Darthmiller · Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 27

DavidH · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

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.
_________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Darthmiller · Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 27

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)

_________________
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.