Posted on 05/16/2008 3:43:21 AM PDT by Gamecock
Dynamic Equivalence
The theory of translation that seeks to represent the original text by translating in a thought-for-thought paradigm, rather than a word-for-word paradigm. Dynamic Equivalence translations would include, among others, the NIV, NLT, NJB, and GNB.
And from May 15, 2008
Eisegesis
[ahy’-suh-jee‘-sis]
(Greek eis-, “into” + Greek hegeisthai, “to guide”)
The interpretive fallacy of reading into (eis-) the text of Scripture a preconceived theology in order to make it fit with what those presumptions require. Eisegesis is to be contrasted with exegesis which involves the arrival of meaning from or out of (ex-) the biblical text, without the presumption of meaning dictating the results.
TWOTD Ping
I can hear heads exploding now: “What? the NIV isn’t word-for-word?!!!!”
Happens weekly in SBC churches everywhere anyone truly cares about the Word of God.
“What? the NIV isn’t word-for-word?!!!!”
No, the original Greek text didn't put "sinner" in quotes like the NIV tends to. (One of those things that makes you scratch you head....)
The ORIGINAL Greek text.
Nobody has seen that in 1900 years.
THE original Greek Text.
It implies that there is one and only one Greek text of the New Testament.
There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts and fragments of New Testament text, including two major root sources, each with its own standard compilations:
(1) The Alexandrian type text - the one that came through Rome (Roman Catholic Church). Represented in the Westcott & Hort (like the Watchtower's New World Translation) and Nestles editions. Used as the basis of all modern English versions since 1901 (actually since 1884), including the NIV;
(2) The Antiochan or Byzantine type text, whether later compiled by either Erasmus or Stephanus, the earliest copies of these which were more prolifically used as the source for copying and translating Scriptures by the Christians of the earliest centuries and thus were more worn, and the earliest copies more quickly depleted. Compiled, it is known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It is the underlying Greek text for the King James New Testament and some in other languages. The very last English New Testament to come from the TR is the KJB, the claims of the committee of the NKJB notwithstanding (The NKJB is riddled with readings from the Alexandrian type text). George Ricker Berry's edition may be the best reference we can recommend.
Whenever I see “THE GREEK TEXT” (singular)or “THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT” mentioned, I must bring these points up.
The differences between the KJB and the NIV (for example) are (in large part) the result of the two being taken from two very much different text types. Of course, there is also the issue of the motivations of the translation or revision committees (not always being pure).
MONEY in the pockets of Bible publishers has been a big motivation for the continuous flow of “easier to read” English Bibles . . . including the NIV with its sealed list of committee members.
But then, I must return to the question, “WHERE HAS GOD HIMSELF BEEN IN ALL OF THIS?” Did he keep his promise to PRESERVE His words, or did He not? Where can you put your hands on a copy of the PRESERVED words of God today?
KJVO? Not going there.
Where do you get an authority for there being an end of time?
If the prophesied Davidic Kingdom which was promised to last forever (2 Samuel 7; etc.) is not going to be established, then maybe there is no end of time either.
Dad, like an orphan, was raised by French Roman Catholic nuns in Ottawa, Ontario, and never had a problem with the expression “Roman Catholic.” I learned it from him. And he didn’t learn it from Protestants, I guarantee. At least one Catholic church in the Florida town where we lived for seven years in the 1980s had “Roman Catholic” on its sign.
The Body of Christ which is the Church that exists today, since Pentecost is the subject of NT revelation (Matthew is still Old Testament and teaches adherence to the Mosaic Law until the Cross) and most of its members are already with the Lord, awaiting the rest of us. The Church of which Christ is the Head has one and only one headquarters, and that is where Christ sits at the Right Hand of the Father.
It IS the work of the Holy Spirit, and so is the one Baptism necessary for salvation, which is not water, but one performed by the Holy Spirit Himself, immersing us into Christ and sealing us there. No baptistery ot action of any priest or minister could ever accomplish that.
Now you don’t like being misquoted. But you don’t mind misquoting me. For I never said that the Church doesn’t exist, nor that it doesn’t exist today. I said that the four Gospels and the first 13 chapters of Acts don’t speak of anything VISIBLE on earth today in the form of any visible authority structure — No Catholic Church, no Protestant church, no Baptist church — no visible church. Nothing with a headquarters on earth.
You believe in a visible Catholic (universal) church under one EARTHLY SINNING bishop. The Gospels, nor Acts, nor, actually, the Epistles speak of any such thing in the current dispensation. You have to read it in to those Scriptures from your church dogma and tradition.
I don’t look for the word “Trinity” in the Bible, because it is unnecessary to do so. The Godhead can be aptly proved to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without ever using the word, “Trinity.” Scripture’s own words are enough. I never use the word, “Trinity” when I am teaching, and since the Scriptures don’t use the word, I am not required to use it. I use it only when I’m teaching Christians that many people use the word to mean, “Godhead.”
By the same token, I’m not required to find the word “Catholic” in the Gospels, or EVER use it, because it is not even used there in sense, let alone by the word itself. I know that “Catholic” means universal, but Christ didn’t even say, Upon this rock I will build my universal church. It is just not there in any language. The word church, nor ekklesia include the sense “universal.” Ekklesia means out-called or called-out. The word itself cannot tell from what the assembly is called out.
The Church which is Christ’s Body is the Church which is Christ’s Body. (Ephesians 1:17-23)
The church prophesied in Matthew 16 is the church prophesied there, and it in no way must be referring to the church of Ephesians chapters 1-4.
A local church is a local church, and is not THE Church which is the Body of Christ (although it should typify it and witness to it in some way).
The Church in the Wilderness (Acts 7) was a Church. But it was not the Body of Christ, nor is it a local church, neither is it a Christian Church. It was the assembly of Irael that had been called out of Egypt.
There is a church in Acts 19 which is a secular public assembly. It is not the Church which is Christ’s Body.
The context itself must determine which church is being treated.
“The Church is the Church” is much too vague for definition. The church in WHICH passage is WHAT church?
The tabernacle of DAVID will again be raised up (Acts 15). Christ will Personally come to this earth again and rule Personally for 1,000 years. Now THAT will be a universal (in the sense of world-wide) Kingdom, at which time Peter and the Eleven will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19; Luke 22), and that is when Matthew 16 will find its fulfillmet.
Attributing motives and/or reading minds is "making it personal."
I gave up on the NIV when I realized all the “Verily, Verily’s” (truly, truly in modern texts) had been taken out and replaced with “I tell you the truth”. The jewish literary technique of repitition to stress importance has been removed. The willingess to eliminate literary style in favor of being easier to understand is misguided in my opinion. Although I generally read a variety of translations as part of my personal exegesis, I think the ESV has really hit the sweet spot and it is my favorite translation now.
Where do you get an authority for there being an end of time?
What?!
Now you don’t like being misquoted. But you don’t mind misquoting me.
What?!
Have multiple reply windows open, and mix up which was which? 'Cause this has nothing whatsoever to do with what little I've said in this thread.
If you can stomach the old English without falling asleep (sorry chaps) you will find that the translators themselves do severe damage to the case for KJVO.
PS: I got an A+ on that paper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.