Posted on 09/01/2009 7:23:57 PM PDT by Ron C.
Yes...well, my “cart” at Amazon has this instead:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226039323/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance
Used for under $30. I’d have to sell a horse to buy the $700 one, and then my wife would kill me and I wouldn’t need it anymore...
You wouldn’t need it anymore, but she could sell it to help pay for your funeral!:)
I’m signing off for now...pretty late here. Thanks everyone, another educational and entertaining evening at Free Republic!
FWIW, My first Bible (Given to me before I was a believer) was a Scofield and my last bible (this may be it) is going to be a Scofield. :-)
They sure do - old versions of the same languages are just as diverse as English 300 years ago is so different from that of today! LOL
First, lets tackle, 'how someone goes about reading and understanding ancient languages.' That is a very good and legitimate question, but one that you may quickly see as self evident as you think about our own English language, and how we determine the intent of English writings only 250-300 years old.
You aptly said, 'English isn't even spoken the same way today as it was barely 200 years ago.' That written and spoken during the Founding period, 250 years ago, is vastly different than that of today! (I have a ton of American writing between 1750 and 1820 at my disposal, and the difference between said examples and that of today are like night and day!) Mostly they were light-years ahead of us in the use of the English language... today, we write as juveniles of very minor age comparatively.
Along with scripture passed on to us, we have a host of secular writings of the same period, and a host of religious writings as well - and most interestingly, we have the near equivalent of dictionaries and language reference material that acts as a kind of concordance for terms in use, writing styles as well as slang and euphemisms of various periods of time. In fact, if it were not for these educational materials of prior time periods, we would have an exceedingly difficult time understanding many parts of the Bible.
Also, I want to second the value of an Oxford ESV Scofield Study Bible - but, I'm still very much tied to the Scofield King James Study Bible, simply because mine has a much better concordance.
Bottom line though - you are both looking to the intent of what was written - wanting the literal meaning, intended by the author (who we believe was God himself, through his oversight of those doing the actual writing.)
The answer lies in the consensus of writers of the various time periods in question. Often even general consensus between writers is noted and expounded on as to why there is agreement - conversely, disagreement brings the typical avalanche of long dissertations... similar to those typically found in written submissions for a doctorate today - which leave little doubt as to the intent or evidence for support or non-support of a given premise.
Lastly, almost no major premise or tenant (particularly any dealing with salvation) within the Bible is mentioned but once, or is worded in an unclear, passing way. None need long explanations and none are without ultimate clarity... for which we can all be thankful.
I still have mine, from back when I took Koine 30 years ago. Not leather bound, and it’s the older edition, without Danker’s name.
are today's Biblical scholars more conversant as to the language and intent of the author, than yesterday's???
are today's Biblical scholars smarter than yesterday's???
You make a good point. There are those who still believe the Bible is infallable and inerrant in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Absolutely. It is amazing what they have learned over the last few centuries. More especially the several decades.
More especially the last several decades.
That maks as much sense as rejecting Romeo & Juliet because right on the cover it says "Oxford Classics Series."
Absolutely. It is amazing what they have learned over the last few centuries. More especially the (last) several decades.
From the Translator to the Reader. Preface to the 1611 KJV.
• 10 Therefore as S.Augustine saith, [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.
They are merely trading one word for a modernized updated word. For instance..If I said the following, removing the original crudeness,
“The trained farmer went to the pig pen and the hogs ate him.”
And someone later writes
“The agricultural expert departed to the porcine enclosure and the swine devoured him.”
Is there any difference? Both say exactly the same, no change in meaning, just in diferent words.
So it is with newer REAL bible translations.
I would say definitely not. In fact I would say that the average college graduate of today is quite a bit less informed than college graduates of 50 years ago.
That is certainly part of it. However, modern textual criticism of the Old and New Testament is what I was referring to. It has a different goal, i.e. attempting to determine the original text. At least, as close as can be determined with the available manuscripts. As more manuscripts become available, and textual criticism techniques improve, so does the version of the Bible we have.
***As more manuscripts become available, and textual criticism techniques improve, so does the version of the Bible we have.***
The language of the versions may have changed but the doctrines don’t.
Refined, but not changed. Of course, the bottom line message does not change at all!
If the Oxford Classics picked and chose certain acts for political reasons (or ripped off older stories and just changed the character’s names) and called it Romeo and Juliet, then yes it would be.
First, you said that because King James’ group of scholars compiled & translated the greek texts, then it couldn’t be the word of God.
Now, because Oxford’s group of scholars compiled, among other things, works of Shakespeare, to include R&Juliet, that that’s just dandy.
And that because you think someone picked acts, ripped off stories, and changed names...
All the scholars did was translate the greek texts. You can get those same texts and translate them yourself and see how good they were at their task.
I suspect you really don’t mean to take after King James’ group of scholars. I think you really were trying to make a different point.
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.