Pristine Grace
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 3
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: Translation Discussion

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Orignially posted by Disciple
    if there is nothing but conjecture and assumption and this is one's opinion then it is probably best to keep it to oneself that you may not be playing the role of the fool.
    Am I there yet?

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by wildboar
    My argument for the KJV rendering of Matt. 24:30 is that it does not make this interpretive decision for the reader but allows him to make it for himself. The NIV forces an interpretation upon the reader. This must be done in some instances of course, but I believe it is best to leave the options open in the translation if it is possible to do so.
    here is the explanation of prepositional phrases from the moderator of the Biblical Greek Email List:

    In earlier Greek one could normally assume that a prepositional phrase was adverbial UNLESS the adjective indicating that the phrase is to be understood as so-called "attributive" to a noun or nominal expression, as, e.g., TO SHMEION TO EN TOIS OURANOIS. In Koine that rule is much less strictly observed. In general I think one OUGHT to try to construe prepositional phrases with elements that they modify adverbially, if that's possible, before trying to understand them as construing with a nominal expression. Thus, in the examples above I would assume that EN OURANWi construes with FANHSETAI, that APO KATABOLHS KOSMOU construes with GEGRAPTAI; in the second passage there's no grammatical reason why APO KATABOLHS KOSMOU couldn't construe with the participle ESFAGMENOU, but surely it makes better sense to read "stands written ever since the creation of the world" than to read "the lamb slaughtered ever since the creation of the world."

    On the other hand, there's the text upon which Paul builds in Roman 1:17 and elsewhere,hO (DE) DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI, cited from Hab 2:4. In terms of older Greek grammar one would normally understand EK PISTEWS as construing with ZHSETAI, yet it is generally understood that for Paul EK PISTEWS construes with hO DIKAIOS and so is "attributive" or adjectival. At any rate, usage with respect to prepositional phrases is not nearly so clear-cut in NT Koine Greek as it was in the earlier Attic.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
    Am I there yet?

    Milt
    not at all. but this is a danger if one were to seriously propose this option. i think we should be careful in this area of accusing translations of being theologically biased. the accusation would perhaps have more basis if done by a single individual or denomination, but even then, one must either have the notes from the translator as to why a rendering was adopted or must be able to read minds in order to prove that claim. i find that 99.99% of the time there is a significant exegetical issue at hand and it usually isn't motivated by theology or political agendas. anyway, this was not aimed at you milt unless you were seriously proposing arminian bias for the "faith in Christ" rendering.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    GA:

    I'm quite uncertain myself as to whether faith of Christ, faith in Christ, or even the faithfulness of Christ is intended here. Ephesians 2:8 tells us that faith is a gift of God, so no matter which translation is correct nobody should think that faith is something produced by themself.

    As disciple pointed out, the Genitive has a rather wide range of uses.

    The Douay-Rheims version actually has "faith of Christ" in Gal. 2:16 and the ESV has "faith in Christ" which is the opposite of what one would expect if theological bias were the motivation. The NET Bible has faithfulness of Christ. Young's literal translation has faith of Christ. The NRSV has "faith in Christ" in the main body of the text but "or faith of Christ" is found in a footnote. The Geneva Bible has "faith of Christ" but every reformer that I have read who has commented on this verse seems to read it as though it says faith in Christ. The thought has even crossed my mind that a double meaning is intended.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by wildboar
    I'm quite uncertain myself as to whether faith of Christ, faith in Christ, or even the faithfulness of Christ is intended here. Ephesians 2:8 tells us that faith is a gift of God, so no matter which translation is correct nobody should think that faith is something produced by themself.
    very good point wildboar. it really matters not as to doctrine of soteriology which way one translates it. i think that is the important thing to remember. no one doctrine stands or falls on the particular nuance of the genitive in one verse. that's where the principle of the analogy of faith comes into play.

    The Douay-Rheims version actually has "faith of Christ" in Gal. 2:16 and the ESV has "faith in Christ" which is the opposite of what one would expect if theological bias were the motivation.
    again, a very good point wildboar. another element to factor in here is the fact that the DR is based on the Latin.

    The NET Bible has faithfulness of Christ. Young's literal translation has faith of Christ. The NRSV has "faith in Christ" in the main body of the text but "or faith of Christ" is found in a footnote. The Geneva Bible has "faith of Christ" but every reformer that I have read who has commented on this verse seems to read it as though it says faith in Christ. The thought has even crossed my mind that a double meaning is intended.
    yet another good point. perhaps there is a deliberate ambiguity in the nuance of the genitive construction here where paul wishes to communicate a dual idea of faith in Christ and faithfulness/faith of Christ.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    My point exactly!

    Originally posted by Wildboar
    Ephesians 2:8 tells us that faith is a gift of God, so no matter which translation is correct nobody should think that faith is something produced by themself.
    My exact point when I mention that I prefer to intrepet Paul by his entire body of writing as it aids the understanding of the specific text. That is, I believe, the greatest benefit of having such a complete cannon: we can verify and trust in it by its own means since it is a self sufficient organism!

    Disciple:

    Originally posted by Disciple
    this was not aimed at you milt unless you were seriously proposing arminian bias for the "faith in Christ" rendering.
    I know, brother, I was just being jocose.
    I believe that I was responding and thanking you when you were writing the post quoted above, so I do not believe you read my word of thanks and appreciation and my explanation about why I used the word bias. We "got crisscrossed" because today it seems that we are operating in "chat room" speed.
    You will find my previous answer before yours, trust me; it is upthere somewhere about three or four posts before the one quoted in this one. (Isn't that confusing?)

    Anyway, thanks again both of you!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: My point exactly!

    Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
    I know, brother, I was just being jocose.
    I believe that I was responding and thanking you when you were writing the post quoted above, so I do not believe you read my word of thanks and appreciation and my explanation about why I used the word bias. We "got crisscrossed" because today it seems that we are operating in "chat room" speed.
    You will find my previous answer before yours, trust me; it is upthere somewhere about three or four posts before the one quoted in this one. (Isn't that confusing?)
    i realize that now (i.e., that you were being jocose). i did not miss your post. and yes it seems we are operating in "chat room" speed. i didn't want to miscommuicate that i was actually calling anyone a fool. but we must be careful at the claims that we make when we do not possess all of the details and intents of the hearts. i appreciate your inquiry regarding gal 2:16. it is an interesting question to consider. thanks!
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
    I could go on and on here citing authors that back up the KJV in this instance when in others instances these same authors prefer the NIV, but I would like to find out what is the opinion of both of you, as Greek students how you would render these verses:

    faith of Jesus Christ? - The faith that belong to Christ, or a supernatural saving faith, a faith that helped Him to obey until death and "commit His Spirit to the Father" even after the Father had forsaken him. (editorial comments are mine) or

    faith in Jesus Christ? - The faith that after two verses of "Just as I am" in a Billy Graham crusade one simply decides that he will have, at his own choosing and volition, without any need for the work of the Holy Soirit. (again, editorial comments are mine).

    Here is an example,. but here there is an agreement between the two translations:

    Mk 11:22, (NIV), "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.
    (a scripture abused by the Charismatics):

    Mk 11:22, (KJV), And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

    "Have faith in God", in which the Greek may be rendered as: Have the faith of God. Or, "have the God kind of faith", which is the only kind of faith that can indeed remove mountains

    I have my own opinion on that, of course, but I woud like to ask you and promise to use your renderings in my research files, if I may, how would you have rendered these scriptures?
    here's something that was posted several days ago on B-Greek:

    Using "faith" and "Jesus"/"Christ"/"lord", I have two groups: one with only a case relationship (genitive in each case here), the second describing the same relationship but with a preposition (in this case, EN + dative).

    Rom. 3:26, PISTEWS IHSOU
    Phil. 3:9, PISTEWS CRISTOU
    Rev. 14:12, TISTIN IHSOU

    Gal. 3:26, EN CRISTWi IHSOU
    Eph. 1:15, EN KURIWi IHSOU
    Col. 1:4, EN CRISTWi IHSOU

    For any beginners following this thread and trying to figure out what the point is, here's my summary (& if I've misrepresented the classical > koine usage patterns, I'd welcome any corrections from those of you who work with classical more than I do):

    It is worth noting that although there are relatively few prepositions [i.e., in the NT], they occur very, very frequently in the NT. They occur more frequently in koine Greek than in classical. As the koine emerged into the wider world and began to be spoken widely by non-native speakers as the lingua franca of the Greek (and later the Roman) empire, it became necessary to be more explicit. Whereas in classical Greek various shades of meaning and relationship could easily be expressed by use of a particular case alone, this created a greater burden on those without the native intuition of usage. Thus the number of prepositions is reduced, but those that remain are used much more frequently to specify the nuance intended by a particular case. In the following [in email version, "above"] examples, notice how the preposition makes the statement more specific and less ambiguous than the parallel statement without the preposition. Although context usually clarifies, PISTEWS IHSOU could be read as either "faith of Jesus" (i.e., the faith which Jesus exercises) or as "faith in Jesus" (i.e., faith which has Jesus as its object).
    this specifically addresses the issue in Gal 2:16.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Thank you Doug!

    I did read the email you mentioned and read this one again with interest. It was very informative and useful. Although I stated that I have an opinion formed about it, this opinion is purely because I usually use the Greek to render a translation of a verse but in order to know for a fact what the author actually meant, I read other examples of what the same author says when speaking about the subject.

    With that in mind, I see in the NT "faith in Christ" being used for events or tragedies, or even specific spiritual needs . "Faith of Christ" however, I find it more related to issues pertaining to eternal Salvation.

    Mark 11:22 is not a soteriological verse, I think!
    I will cite only one example: Mark 11:22, as I mentioned in my original post, should be translated as it is both in the KJV and the NIV: Have faith in in God. The subject is not eternal Salvation. Jesus was merely explaining that He was powerful enough to curse a fig tree that had leaves but not fruit (appearance but not substance, there is a sermon in here) and it withered over a day! The disciples marveled that Jesus spoke with an inanimate tree and it "obeyed" Him. Jesus tells them that by exercising "faith in God" they would be able to accomplish the same feat even if the object spoken to was a mountain.
    (I propose that Jesus was not giving us a useless power to change the landscape, or the geography of a location, but He was speaking about obstacles that stand in our ministries' way and obstacles that would not benefit us at all, such as a fig tree that cannot feed a hungry Jesus.) - Editorial comments are always my responsibility -


    Galatians 2:16 is a soteriological verse.
    Galatians 2:16 is dealing with what saves us: Jesus or the law?
    Was Jesus' fulfillment of the Law on our behalf or our efforts to fulfill it? etc.
    Furthermore, in verse 20, if Paul declares to be crucified with Christ and "yet I live, not I but Christ lives in me... and the life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God...
    Since he said that he, Paul, is not the one who is living, but Christ in Him, then it is more sensical to translate and to assume that one who is not living, but is living by subrogation, has no life of his own, thus his faith must be the faith of the one who took over his life, the subrogate lives on behalf of the subrogatee. (I believe this to be a common sense interpertation of this text, I am open to correction.)



    Note: Perhaps some will raise the question (a valid one) that "how come anything in the Bible, especially in the NT can be not related directly with soteriology?" I would say that there are many verses throughout the Blble, and also in the NT where the word "salvation, save, deliverance" etc. et al do not mean necessarily eternal salvation. These texts are not necessarily soterilogical texts although they can be "metaphorized" into a Salvation message. Ex. Peter cries out: Save me Lord lest I perish. Peter was crying out for salvation from an impending or an imminent tragedy, not to be "eternally saved from sin". This text, however, can be used and is used as a metaphor for

    "I was sinking deep in sin,
    far from the peaceful shore.
    Very deeply stained within
    sinking to rise no more;
    but the Master of the sea
    heard my despairing cry.
    From the waters lifted me, now safe am I."

    (everybody) Love lifted me... Love lifted me...

    Well, point in question is: The context, the usage of the author when speaking about the same issue can and should be used in difficult to translate verses to indicate what he author is saying. Again, my opinion only!

    Thanks again!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Form, Function, and the “Literal Meaning” Fallacy in Bible Translation

    Here is a good paper published at this year's Evangelical Theological Society convention.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple
    check out this link:

    http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/kjv.htm

    i would personally steer people away from the KJV since we don't speak that way any longer and you'd need to carry around an English dictionary as well. if we want to understand the word of God, i'd recommend getting a translation that is rendered in the way we speak today not the way English was spoken in England several hundred years ago. that's my two cents.
    It is a very good idea to have a English dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (OED)—it's paramount to having a good Bible Atlas (The Carta Bible Atlas, 4th ed. 2002) to go along with a good bible.

    Certainly, the Received Text is best, based on many criteria. The English will shed a lot of light on the Greek; and you can easily pick out the omissions, additions, and transformations in the modern English translations, based on the Modern Critical Greek Text. I believe that the KJV is even more accurate than the NKJV, as the latter has borrowed many renderings from the NASV et al. Also the Majority Text that the NKJV uses is a selected majority text. You are not alone believing that the KJV is the most accurate translation.

    Actually, the KJV post-dates its Elizabethan English—I believe it more accurately reflects the Greek tenses (singular, and plural). While Maurice Robinson's defense of the Byzantine priority position is so technical, I do not think it is unfortunate to defend a Reformation Text that the KJV uses.

    The accuracy of the NASB for the conservative, and the NRSV for the liberal is true based only on the Critical Greek Text. And it is not arrogant to say that God has used English as the lingua franca of today. Hebrew and Greek are dead languages, as far a conveying God's word today. Sorry, I mean historical Israel is past, and the Hellenistic era is over—so it stands to reason God will use English now!

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Also the Majority Text that the NKJV uses is a selected majority text.
    The NKJV uses what has been termed the Textus Receptus. While the Textus Receptus may in many instances be very close to the majority text, this is not always the case, especially in the case of the book of Revelation. Modern critical editions actually follow the Byzantine text more closely than the Textus Receptus does in the book of Revelation. Erasmus did not have access to complete texts of Revelation and in some cases translated from the Latin vulgate back into Greek producing readings found in no existing Greek manuscript.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Due largely to my recent translation work, my thoughts on the KJV have changed quite a bit. I no longer regard it up as the most accurate translation. Some of the reason for the change in my position has to do with the translation of various words and phrases, but even more has to do with style. The new testament was written in the common language of the day. It was not some high form of Greek written to sound more reverent than everyday Greek. A translation ought to reflect this. I have become a much greater supporter of the NKJV than I once was. There is also some discussion going on in the PRC over the issue of whether the translation we use ought to be in the vernacular. I have begun to take part in this discussion and will continue to do so. My letter to the Stanard Bearer can be found here: http://prca.org/standard_bearer/volu...01.htm#Letters
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  14. #54
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    I use the NKJV and find it to be an excellent translation I also like the NAS.
    This is my signature.

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Due largely to my recent translation work, my thoughts on the KJV have changed quite a bit. I no longer regard it up as the most accurate translation. Some of the reason for the change in my position has to do with the translation of various words and phrases, but even more has to do with style. The new testament was written in the common language of the day. It was not some high form of Greek written to sound more reverent than everyday Greek. A translation ought to reflect this. I have become a much greater supporter of the NKJV than I once was. There is also some discussion going on in the PRC over the issue of whether the translation we use ought to be in the vernacular. I have begun to take part in this discussion and will continue to do so. My letter to the Stanard Bearer can be found here: http://prca.org/standard_bearer/volu...01.htm#Letters
    charles, i would have to say that, of the several letters that were written in response to the article, yours was the most cogent and more aptly demonstrated that you understand the issues than the others. i'm sorry to say that the other two demonstrated that they did not understand the actual issues and just simply parroted arguments of the gail riplinger flavor.

    i don't think that the person who wrote after you understands what vernacular means in the context of the actual discussion and the next guy just sidestepped the whole issue with a negative argument of why the PRCA is not "romish". i think it is dangerous when people or groups are anti-semper reformanda. i'm not suggesting that the PRCA is, but it seems that the two individuals who wrote after you may be of that ilk.

    after reading PRCA website, i wondered why they believed what they did about the KJV. it was my understanding that it was common knowledge among able and honest scholars, translators, liguists, missionaries, etc. that the KJV was outdated and nearly unusable for our current form of english (personally, i have trouble reading it with any level of comprehension whether to myself or hearing it read out loud. and i don't consider myself illiterate or uneducated.). why anyone would want to enshrine and venerate a particular version/translation of the Scriptures is beyond me. to me that alone seems a little superstitutious, cultic, and demonstrates that one may be given to conspiracy theories (and please don't think i'm accusing the PRCA of being any of the above; see http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/conspire.htm, http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/kjv.htm, http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/versions.htm). most of all, it demonstrates that one does not grasp the real issues at hand and therefore does not understand the discussion.

    anyway, all that to say that i enjoyed your letter and thank you for sharing on this. it is interesting to know what is going on in the circles that others travel in. i hope and pray that your discussions are fruitful and that you grow because of your involvement in them.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    I have become a much greater supporter of the NKJV than I once was.
    i would also say, that if you are majority text advocate, then your pool of english versions/translations from which to choose is severly limited. as far as i know, the only up-to-date english translation you have to choose from is the NKJV (and perhaps the modern KJV and the majority text english translation which i don't know enough about to determine readability, etc.). are there any others that you know of?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  17. #57
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Most 'KJV only' proponents that I have interacted with frankly admit that the 1611 translation is out-of-date in its use of language. But they doggedly hold to the position that the Received Text of Erasmus is THE original Bible handed down from the apostolic age (Westcott & Hort). To them that is the real issue: God must have preserved the ORIGINAL Greek text and we have to find in history where he has done this. They are proposing that the Textus Recepticus is God's Word preserved against the corruptions of men.

    Naturally, I believe that all of this is hogwash but it is important to at least understand their position.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    The NKJV and the MKJV are actually both based on the TR.

    The only true majority text Bibles out there that I am aware of are the World English Bible(WEB) http://www.ebible.org/ and the Analytical Literal Translation(ALT) http://www.dtl.org/alt/. Both are only translations of the NT (the Old Testament text of the WEB isThe Analytical Literal translation has a strong Baptist bias and the translator seems to have only a basic knowledge of Greek with a desire to translate passages the same way someone might who is in their second year of Greek. I find the WEB more interesting. It is a revision of the ASV, but uses the majority text as its basis. I recently picked up a paper copy of it and was pretty happy with it overall. Unfortunately, their are errors in which the majority text reading was missed. As I understand it, the Old Testament is still being worked on and the NT is still being revised. Maurice Robinson is also working on his own translation of the Majority text called "The Modern American Standard Version" or something like that, but it is slow in coming. I do look forward to seeing how that turns out. I am pretty happy with my own work on 1 Peter and Revelation, but have become occupied with other issues now that I am out of school and hope to return to translating soon. I have been pretty happy with a majority text translation that somebody did for the Bibleworks program. I can't remember who did it though and I have not used it extensively.
    One of the advantages of the NKJV and the WEB is that they do list variant readings. The NKJV is based on the TR but it lists the variant readings for the Majority and Critical texts. The WEB is based on the MT but lists at least some of the variant readings found in the Critical text and the TR. The variant lists are not exhaustive and not adequate for the scholar, but help in giving the lay-person an understanding of why different Bibles read passages the way that they do.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    The only true majority text Bibles out there that I am aware of are the World English Bible(WEB) http://www.ebible.org/ and the Analytical Literal Translation(ALT) http://www.dtl.org/alt/ .
    as far as i can tell, the one called "english majority text version" that i referenced above is based on the majority text (unless they're equating the TR with the majority text which is just not true...though TR is from that family of texts). here is the link:

    http://www.emtvonline.com/
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Translation Discussion

    as far as i can tell, the one called "english majority text version" that i referenced above is based on the majority text (unless they're equating the TR with the majority text which is just not true...though TR is from that family of texts). here is the link:

    http://www.emtvonline.com/
    Okay, this looks like the same translation I have on Bibleworks.

    i'm sorry to say that the other two demonstrated that they did not understand the actual issues and just simply parroted arguments of the gail riplinger flavor.
    Out of fairness to the others who wrote the letters, I just want to clarify that neither of them hold to the extreme position of Riplinger nor do they fall under the true category of KJV-onlyist. However, I have often seen such a position lead one to not a strict but practical KJV-onlyist position.

    after reading PRCA website, i wondered why they believed what they did about the KJV. it was my understanding that it was common knowledge among able and honest scholars, translators, liguists, missionaries, etc. that the KJV was outdated and nearly unusable for our current form of english (personally, i have trouble reading it with any level of comprehension whether to myself or hearing it read out loud. and i don't consider myself illiterate or uneducated.).
    The KJV has served the denomination very well in many respects. Those who grow up in the denomination generally have an excellent understanding of the Scriptures. Elizabethan English is something which can be learned and if a person hears it throughout their life and the pastors are diligent in explaining difficult words and phrases, reading it with understanding is generally not difficult.

    The problem occurs when new churches form composed largely of those who did not grow up in a church which uses the KJV. The church may desire to use a modern version but fears being looked down upon by other churches in the denomination and all kinds of problems develop on either side where those who prefer the KJV think of not using the KJV as sin and those who want to use a different version respond by purposefuly offending the others in various situations.

    The PRCA made a synodical decision awhile back for various good reasons not to adopt the NIV and I think that in the minds of many all modern versions have been lumped together with the NIV.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 3

Similar Threads

  1. Predestinarian Network Conference Videos
    By Brandan in forum News & Announcements Archive
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-30-06, 02:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •