Sigh...
We'll STILL end up being like...
Posted on 06/10/2015 7:16:05 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Most of the oldest copies of the new testament found are from the early church and first father’s and they were written in Koine Greek from which I’m talking about. Why do you guys break down a thread into fighting and endless debating as though you guys are looking to pick a fight? All I did was to help those with references of the Greek to guide along studying of the SCRIPTURES, not to say this is the only way to study or this the correct way to study but as a complement
Do you believe in God? Do you think God is able to have the Bible He wants for this age? Or is your notion of God so small as to be at the mercy of ‘transcription errors’ and ‘additions’, etc. when He has millions of us studying the Scriptures finding these ‘transcription errors’ and ‘additions’ and, well, perhaps you get the picture?
I don’t know where tbp is coming from, but the one-two punch of boosting Aramaic and trying to discredit the Greek is typical of the Hebrew Roots apologetic. First comes the doubt in the word of God, then comes the substitute. Buyer beware.
Peace,
SR
Excellent! Thank you for posting this.
For the few phrases that are recorded in Scripture in that language?
The NT is written in Greek. Better to spend the time studying the language that the NT was actually written in than the one that some people think it may have been written in but the manuscripts were lost.
Did God really say....?
Questioning the word of God and trying to cast doubt into people’s minds about its veracity is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.
You think so? On the flimsy evidence here?
But only the Authorized Version is a literal translation from the true Byzantine/Majority Greek. The others are from the synthetic corrupted Critical (Westcott & Hort type) text, and some are even dynamic equivalency in their hermeneutic, not literal equivalency in their translation, as the AV is.
(1) Al these modern versions left out the word "elders," presbuteroi, which is determinative in which form the Sanhedrin took (as assembled at Annas' domicile, versus as later at Caiaphas' quarters) and so just excising this one word alone (and there are many such similar instances when comparing the Greek sources), thus eventually forcing one to choose as to whether the Received Text continuously preserved and in the possession of the churches (for almost two thousand years in thousands of copies); or whether the Westcott & Hort/Nestle-Aland/Bruce Metzger/United Bible Society synthetic text cobbled together from principally three corrupted traditions not even agreeing with one another--and coming to light only in the 1870s--is the real Greek New Testament not only in canonicity, but also in actual word content.
(2) The verb dzaytehoh, "to seek", is not translated anywhere by the AV nor by Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon as having the sense "to look for." The translators of this verb gave the meaning of "be (go) about, desire, endeavour, enquire (for), require, (X will) seek (after, for, means)" which excludes the sense of "look". Thayers gives it the lexical value of:
(1) to seek in order to find
..1a) to seek a thing
..1b) to seek [in order to find out] by thinking, meditating, reasoning, to enquire into
..1c) to seek after, seek for, aim at, strive after
(2) to seek, i.e. require, demand
..2a) to crave, demand something from someone
(3) Furthermore, the verb is in the imperfect tense, active voice, indicative mode, third person plural. This is expressed as the simple past continuous activity, so that the correct meaning is best expressed as "sought," as in the AV. All the other versions employ the participle, which means that their renderers are not merely translating, but also interpreting and indoctrinating as they go, without apprising the reader that they are doing so. In contrast, when the translators of the AV add extra words for clarity, they italicize such words so the reader is warned. Yes, the reader may find that the English rendering has ambiguity when literally translated, requiring study of the Greek for a deeper sense of the nuances, but they limit their work to translating, a far more legitimate effort.
(4) Furthermore, the verb thanatawoh, "to make dead" or "to put-to-death" is in the aorist tense, active voice, subjunctive mode, third person plural; while it is legitimate to render this with "might" (perform an activity, as a future probability)), but using "could" gives the sense of justifying a capability, which is stretching the translation to include a meaning not linguistically correct. In fact, the "might" can also be left out, since here the intent was not probablistic at all, for they killed Him, finding a false testimony, pseudomarterian, to do so--not that "maybe they could," but that they did.
A proper look at this verse yields to me the conclusion that neither in the Greek nor in the English can I rely on these modern versions. Therefore, I am firmly settled on the King James Authorized Version alone for personal overview and study; and recognizing the AV's limitations, the exegesis of the underlying Koine or Hebrew/Aramaic to search out the deep things of the Holy Spirit in the language He used, with recognized authoritative commentators to alert one for the meaning of the verse in the greater context.
I really don't trust any seminarian who uses the critical eclectic text and modern versions of which he can select one that agrees with his interpretations. I won't go to their churches nor read much of their study guides, for you don't know when they will deceive you to forward their own interests above those of the Lord's.
But only in addressing his fellow rustic home-boys, not in communicating with the upper-crust Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, Roman soldiers, and other Hellenized components of the hoi polloi. In fact, God , Jesus, and the Holy Spirit obviously agreed to have the canon of the New Testament written in the commonly accepted Greek dialect for its beauty, precise linguistics, and logical concepts for the Gentiles, to whom the Godhead desired to communicate the Gospel of Jesus The Christ.
So it would be wiser to study Koine Greek, rather than Aramaic. That language was basically only used in the Old Testament; and there was limited to Daniel chapters 2 thru 9, which were written for the Gentiles of that era in Babylon.
Thanks for your common sense and useful effort! Hope others on FR Religion forum will do the same --
Agree with you, Bro —
I included the King James version among the sample translations of Matthew 26:59. That translation, as well as any you might attempt on your own, will arrive at the same general sense. There are occasions where serious controversy arises over the translation of the text, but these are relatively small in number. As far as I can tell, the NASB is one of the better, literal translations. To make a mountain out of minor differences in translation is like making a mountain out of whether Fords and Chevys are both vehicles or not. I would add that “meat in due season” today does not mean what it meant in the 15th Century unless one cares further to explore the text.
FWIW, we generally use the Orthodox Study Bible,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Study_Bible#Translation, for daily use. We use Byzantine Greek in our Liturgies.
Koine Greek is not an easy language to learn Byzantine Greek isn’t too hard at all. A working understanding of those languages gives “cultural context” to the words of Scripture.
Out of a hundred translations, which is utterly reliable? In Engllsh, the King James is still the top. The rest diminish the divinity of Jesus, and degrade the standards of their proponents, as well as those of their users.
As you can see.
Yes, to become expert in it requires a lot of study. But actually, the very basic footing of it is quite easily to pick up, as it was for the many cultures Alexander brought under Hellenistic control. At one time it was taught to most British youths in the "public" schools, and to our children. It is especially simple to acquire if one has already learned about grammar in any well-structured language, and more so if one has learned the Greek alphabet.
http://www.bibletruths.net/Greek%20Course.htm
is an online course in Biblical Greek, consisting of about eight simple lessons which will greatly improve the serious disciple's spiritual maturity.
I recommend it, especially for the attitude and helpfulness of its instructor.
The Holy Spirit inspired His words to be recorded and preserved in the Koine Greek for a reason.
That's a warning all should heed.
I agree. Any serious student of scripture should avail themselves.
I think I read that somewhere...
Genesis 11:7
Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Heck; I can't understand what my WIFE is saying half the time!
Dang it!
I'm beginning to think the Mormons are right:
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
So I'm gonna get me a book and study some 'cause I just KNOW I'm SO much smarter than teams of Greek and/or Hebrew experts who have labored YEARS to give me the best they could in bringing the truth of the Scriptures to me in MY language!
Sigh...
We'll STILL end up being like...
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.