Posted on 04/30/2020 5:02:56 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
I'm looking for recommendations from those of you who are seasoned in studying the Bible. If you use a specific study Bible, which do you like?
I've used Homan and Life Application. Both are good. I also have e Sword which is a good study tool.
The issue is not whether the texts employed by Tischendorf, Griesbach, Westcott, Hort, and the like affected the view of discipling educators, it is whether or not they affirmed or diminished the divinity of the Son of Man, Jesus; and whether or not their copyists were in the business of preserving the Word of God by the absence of whole phrases and even sentences from the texts held superior to them by the majority of contemporary churches.
But regarding the doctrines preached from various English versions we now have, let me ask you:
(1) To whom were the letters in Chapters 2 and 3 of The Revelation written?
(2) To whom was 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 addressed?
(3) If you have taught or preached these passages expositionally, what source gave you the answers for questions (1) and (2) above?
Well.....It is written....”Just as rain and snow fall from heaven and do not return without watering the earth, making it bud and sprout, and providing seed to sow and food to eat, so ‘My word that proceeds from My mouth’ will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish what I please, and it will ‘prosper’ where I send it”....Isaiah 55:10,11
Newer translations from trained teams of linguists better capture the original meaning of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in light of the ever-changing dynamics of modern language...for He carries his teaching beyond the immediate occasion, for the benefit of the people of God ‘in all ages’....
It’s purely a matter of language....Why would you use a translation that is so dated you need to offer a translation of the translation?....If its language is so cumbersome to modern ears that it becomes an impediment because we know what happens when Scripture is made ‘clear’....as is written.......“For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires” (Hebrews 4:12)
So for non-Greek-and-Hebrew students of God’s Word, a good rule of thumb is the more translations the better.
It is rather doubtful to say that the Greek was thus translated improperly. Those words fit the Greek quite well. Your argument is with interpretation, not translation. And that is why the Word must be subjected to exegesis, not the eisegesis that you accuse the translators of, that when the text is treated to bring out the exact sense of it, the exposition of it will bring unity, not strife, among Spirit-filled brethren. A bishop is indeed an overseer, and usually one who has exercised discernment long and well enough to be an authority in the instruction of fellow bondslaves of Christ.
As far as kings are concerned, in the culture of the Redeemer there is only one King and one Kingdom. A local church is not a democracy, it is an example of a representative republic, where the leaders' tasks are to be prophets carrying God's marching orders to the still-developing seekers of holiness, while at the same time engaging in intercessory activity presenting fellow-believers' needs to The Father and His Son, in both cases as a servant of both God and the assembly of believers, all under The Spirit's guidance..
Give me Book, Chapter, and Verse for that opinion. Apparently the import of my Post No. 90 to ealgeone has escaped you. More translations muddy the waters when they cloud the minds of their readers. And they most certainly do.
“Those words fit the Greek quite well.”
Not really. The word translated “church” simply means gathering. It is used in the NT for a riot. No connotation of a top-down church.
Same for “bishop”. It means elder or overseer, which is why modern translations use those words - except the NKJV. They want to echo the KJV.
There is no basis for believing Paul envisioned a medieval “bishop”. King James wanted to translate things “High Church” because, without a hierarchical church, his divine right to rule would come into question.
I disagree .....several translations often bring clarity and or enlarges ones understanding, also to search further in the scripture...... Additionally the Holy Spirit work is not limited by book, chapter or verse or translation.
Give me Book, Chapter, and Verse for that opinion. Apparently the import of my Post No. 90 to ealgeone has escaped you. More translations muddy the waters when they cloud the minds of their readers. And they most certainly do.
You do realize you are reading a version of the KJV...a translation into modern English....right?
Or perhaps you'd like this one better?
After thys maner therefore praye ye,
O oure father which arte in heven, hallowed be thy name.
Let thy kyngdome come, as it ys in heven.
Geve us this daye oure dayly breede.
And forgeve vs oure treaspases, even as we forgeve oure
trespacers. And leade vs not into temptacion, but delyver vs from evell.
For thyne is the kyngedome and the power, and the glorye for ever. Amen.
You tell me.
19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?20For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Any decisions yet? LOL Bible Translation are a controversial topic.
I can tell you what NOT to buy: a NIV Zondervan Study Bible. Bought one at Ollie’s today (great place to buy Bibles, BTW). It is big, which is not unusual for a LARGE PRINT study Bible, but the print is so small in this one that I cannot read it very well.
The word ekklesia does NOT refer to a riot, to an irregular one-time lawless mob adventitiously gathering. In Acts 19 the local Ephesian silversmiths had been summoned (called out) by one of their prominent artisans, albeit unauthorixed to do so, but it was for a purpose: to consider an imminent threat to their means of living. However, without a ruling elder, it degenerated into a riotous uncontrolled mob scene. Upon the arrival of the second-highest government official the crowd became stilled and came to order, whence the official took control. He referred personal issues to the courts, and that discussion of guild issues to an assembly of lawfully summoned parties.
The wod ekklesia translated "church" in 1611 was entirely appropriate, where ekklesia is an adjectivial use of the participle of the verb "to call out by summons" to describe the group identified as "The Called-Out (Ones)" or "Summoned Ones" who in the Christian culture represent the local constituents of the group that is by mutual agreement summoned to congregate for worship iin the breaking of bread, prayer, instruction in the doctrine of the Apostles, and/or dealing with practical communal affairs. The regularly established meetings/gatherings of the church members are usually moderated by mature reliable spiritual elders, one of whom may be the ruling episcopos/bishop/bearer of the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, rightfully asseverated for the application of doctrine, for reproval ofimmature behavior, for correction of errors arising from misapplication of or disobedience to the Word, and for practical training of congregants in progressive holiness.
According to Marvin Vinent in his "Word Studies":
The office of a bishop (ἐπισκοπῆς)I believe your treatment is colored by your desire to set aside the difference between the task of translation versus the burden of finding meaning to the translation, which is the interpretation of it, succeeded by the practical exercise of applying it. Whatever uninspired and fallible humans have done bu creating a supra-church episcopacy, and wedding that external demonic structure to the state thus contaminating the terms "church" and "bishop"--that is noy a translational error, it is a method o using the terms in a sort of double-speak undermining of the New Testament use of thm.
Ἑπίσκοπος superintendent, overseer, by Paul only in Phi_1:1. The fundamental idea of the sword is overseeing. The term ἐπίσκοπος was not furnished by the gospel tradition: it did not come from the Jewish synagogue, and it does not appear in Paul's lists of those whom God has set in the church (1Co_12:28; Eph_4:11). Its adoption came about in a natural way. Just as senatus, γερουσία and πρεσβύτερος passed into official designations through the natural association of authority with age, so ἐπίσκοπος would be, almost inevitably, the designation of a superintendent. This process of natural selection was probably aided by the familiar use of the title In the clubs and guilds to designate functions analogous to those of the ecclesiastical administrator. The title can hardly be traced to the O.T. There are but two passages in lxx where the word has any connection with religious worship, Num_4:16; 2Ki_11:18. It is applied to God (Job_20:29), and in N.T. to Christ (1Pe_2:25). It is used of officers in the army and of overseers of workmen. The prevailing O.T. sense of ἐπισκοπὴ is visitation for punishment, inquisition, or numbering.
No, I am asking for you to give your perception of the addressee, because it is my desire to engage in a moment of applying the Socratic method of teaching. For me to impinge on you my view will cause your response to be colored by mine. So I beg you to give me your interpretation of these verses as you see it now. This is not a chore, is it?
My take on what modern interpretive translators wish to achieve by choosing synonyms and phrasing styles to replace the KJV is mainly just to profit from clamping a copyright on novel re-presentations of the same lexical contents. Plus riding on the novelty that the redoing of it achieves.
You are ducking the outstanding conclusion that the Byzantine/Majority Text and the eclectic “critical” text cannot both be the preserved, verbally inspired, infallible Word of God. Not to choose one of these approaches just makes you an undiscerning unteachable shilly-shallying fence rider as to which is authoritative throughout, and which is not. I know where I stand, and contend for its truth.
I am still looking at a lot of the options. I like nkjv as it seems most complete. NIV is missing some scriptures.
If The Foundations Be Destroyed" (click here) by Chick Salliby. Compares KJV and NIV verse by verse, doctrinal topic by topic. This as been around for 30 years or more, still in print, still selling.
“I believe your treatment is colored by your desire to set aside the difference between the task of translation versus the burden of finding meaning to the translation...”
Actually, KING JAMES ordered the translators to take that approach, and based it, as he said, on “No Bishop. No King.” That is a matter of historical record. If they were going to translate, they would do so in a way that supported the divine right of kings. Per King James.
In Acts 19, “It began with Demetrius, a silversmith who had a large business manufacturing silver shrines of the Greek goddess Artemis. He kept many craftsmen busy. 25 He called them together...” It turned into a riot, but it started as simply a MEETING. An assembly of people. Which is all the word means.
But King James needed it to be a hierarchical structure, which is what “church” meant in the 1600s. So he rejected using “congregation” as Tyndale had because it would fit his political purposes.
NOTHING to do with translating. Pure politics.
Actually, no. Here is what one of the NASV's sorrowfully repentant contributors has to say about its value (a long excerpt from the non-copyrighted page of "The Sole Authority of the King James Bible and the Corruptions in the Modern Versions"):
===========
lf you doubt the truth of this statement, consider the following quote from Dr. Frank Logsdon, the theologian and Bible scholar who assisted in the development of the New American Standard Version (NASV):
"l must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I wrote the preface. I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; its wrong, frighteningly wrong, and what am I going to do about it.The critical difference between the Authorized King James Bible (KJB) and the modern perversions is in the Greek text from which the New Testament was translated.
“When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended... I used to laugh with others. However; in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right with the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...the deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
"Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times... I don’t want anything to do with it. The finest leaders we have today... haven't gone into it [(corrupted Greek text)] just as I hadn’t gone into it... that's how easily one can be deceived". ...“[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJB] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!... I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version. If you must stand against everyone else, stand."
=============
Bkmk
Oh, that was but on example.
Have there been NO changes in the KJV from words originally used to words used today? The impact on the meaning of the texts?
There are many more.
You do know that there was at that time no dictionary to illustrate accepted and universally applied spelling, right?
Are you sure about that?
The burden is upon you to show the perceived error.
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.