|
Post by boB on May 4, 2002 6:29:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 4, 2002 7:51:59 GMT -5
There is no mistake in the TR. Some have said that because our dunking is special the word was transliterated rather than translated to differentiate the ordinance from taking a bath where the body is also immersed. Others say, it was because they were afraid of offending King James since the practice of the "church" was to pour or sprinkle. They may have lost their heads. Maybe the fear was real and maybe not. If that supposition is true then all we have is a translater bowing to culture and we have that all the time and far worse in the modern polluted translations. It could have been their version of dynamic equivalence in that they used it identify the principle of the practice rather than the literal meaning. I would fault them for that as much as I would the lads and lassies today. Should we all change our names to Immersionists?
Again, my fight is for the TR and the KJV is the best translation of the TR we have in English and since I have my doubts that there will ever be an honest and accurate translation of TR in these last days I will stick to the KJV. The failure to translate baptism is a far cry from the destruction of the text accomplished by the Westcott-Hort boys by including obvious "Jeffersonian" texts.
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 5, 2002 0:56:45 GMT -5
Na Na Na Here we go again. The Priests at Antioch who copied the manuscripts from which we received the Textus Receptus taught baptism as immersion, but even they on occasion were given to sprinkling or pouring water upon. The confusion arises over baptism as it was used to describe both an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus and the ceremonial, cleansing and purification rites which Christ participated in at the River Jordan by John. We do not purify in the rite of Baptism, but rather we identify with Christ. But we miss the point when we put so much emphasis on the mode of baptism, rather than the obedience and testimony of baptism. If the participant doesn't have the proper relationship with the Christ, it doesn't matter what the mode is, he/she just got wet!
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 5, 2002 17:26:05 GMT -5
Textus Receptus. Actually, it is much easier. If it is not translated from the TR, but uses the obviously corrputed texts foisted on us by Westcott-Hort they are bad translations because they based upon heretical texts and pseudo-scholarship and downright bad theology. The NKJV could have done a better job, but I would consider using it except it gives credence to that mess by including the stupid footnotes. I am not sure that the NKJV is totally free of error, but it is at least guilty by association with the W-H mess that leads astray many believers. All these myriads of translations have done is make some money for some folks and cause confusion and dissension. And where does confusion come from? It also makes the Lost bolder in claiming that men wrote it as there are so many versions. How many easier to understand version can you get. re we pressing towards the one syllable words only version? Why could one version last for 350 years and be used all over the world and is still the best seller when there are so many version available. Even Africans use it and they certainly do not speak Elizabethian English. It is all a smokescreen leading to the one world Bible for the one world church and we encourage it rather than denounce it. I wonder if that makes us accessories to the final crime. Thank God for salavation by grace or we might be in VERY big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by enoch7 on May 26, 2002 23:53:58 GMT -5
Gentlemen, Gentlemen. Our problem here with regards to versions is not scolarship and education or which version we feel most comfortable in using but, are the people of God reading it and growing from reading are they forming a relationship with the God of the Bible. Since the invasion of various version and revisions we have more people in our pews that have not one idea what the Word is about. Thus we now are on the brink of having what the early Catholic church had, a laity that have no idea of the use or need of God's word and a Clergy that have the "training." So, these people sit by and wait for the "Pastors" and other seminary trained men "teach it to them" or "feed them" when they should be getting it for themselves. We as preachers should teach our members and friends that they can, by the teaching of the Scriptures, know more than we!! There is no shame in having a memebership that understand Scripture more than we do. For them to do so is the hiighest compliment to be given a preacher or teacher! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 28, 2002 13:05:00 GMT -5
How can they grow if they do not have the full Word of God, but rather one sliced and diced and watered down by men bent on destroying the foundations?
I agree that we have created a new priesthood of Thd's and so called scholars. We even have some popes. Power to the people and return to the version that made this country and the world strong, the KJV.
|
|
|
Post by enoch7 on May 28, 2002 23:50:11 GMT -5
Maverick, I would agree with all of your statement if you would qualify them with "The Bible for the English Language." The [glow=red,2,300]Authorised Version[/glow]. is the best God God us and is the standard for Greek to English translation. You remember the so called "modern" versions and perversions have their roots the change from the [glow=red,2,300]Authorised Version[/glow] to some text no one really knows where it came from. It is rumored to have come from the Romanist mind of Wescott and Hort Oh well, the new versions to contain the Word of God albeit watered down a bit (maybe alot if looked at closer). God said that His Word would not return void. Even when some one uses a less than the 8)best version for preaching 8). The is the best English Translation to date. Though, there is a new translation of the T. R. being worked on by Zane Hodges formerly of the Dallas Theological New Testament staff. Only the New Testament has been done so far. Only time will tell if God blesses it as He has blessed the . 8) 8)
|
|
|
Post by Uth_Guy on Jun 12, 2002 16:31:38 GMT -5
I have never claimed to be an expert on which is which and what is what. I can't take myself that seriously! ;D I have always followed the principle taught to me by the Holy Spirit: Use what you can understand and I (God) will use that understanding for my glory.
Working with uth and college age believers, many became so bogged down in the "poetics" of the KJV that they were reading and studying less and less. Now, personally, I have no problems with the KJV. My preference, however, has been the NASB.
While working with the IMB in Japan, I noticed the same problems with the Japanese church-goers. The only Bible many of them had was the old,old Japanese. Very few understood or knew where they were at any time. This caused a huge vacuum in their lives. Preaching helped a bit but the personal times with God were non-existant. If you can't understand it, it will be easy to reject or just drop it and depend on others for your faith.
We also worked with uth gangs there and had contacts with fringe members of the Yakuza. The old language killed discussion before it started. I had to find another way. That came through newer, properly grounded, translations in Japanese.
Uth are the same way. The church I work in is an Asian church. My family are the only anglos in the bunch. In the English department, the church uses the NIV. There we fight not only the understand-ability of the Bible but with duel cultures as well.
Anyway, just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
Post by plgrmsprgrs on Jul 31, 2002 12:17:35 GMT -5
If I might chime in - I grew up with the KJV. The Bible I use for personal, devotional reading is my thirty year old, rebound KJV. It is the translation that I commit to memory. That being said, I make use of other translations as well in a variety of applications. For instance, if I wish to cover a large portion of Scripture quickly in order to gain a general understanding of context or progression of thought, I might look at the NIV because it reads smoothly, allowing me to cover more area quickly. However, if I wish to do close, grammatical exegesis of a text, I typically reference my NASB (95), KJV and Young's Literal Translation while working through the Greek or Hebrew texts myself. I can, and do, preach from what ever translation the congregation is accustomed to, though I will qualify that statement by saying that I have yet to preach at a church that used the Living Bible. I draw the line at the Living Bible, and probably at the latest revision of the NIV judging from what I hear of it. If I were ever to take a church that was used to the NIV, I would in time address the fact that while I use it myself on occasion, I do not consider it the best choice for a primary translation. When I meet someone that uses the NIV for their main Bible, I generally find that the issue of translation preferences comes up very naturally.
If someone wishes to limit themselves to the KJV, I do not fault them for it. God will bless their use of it if they are truly His. What I do find fault with is the almost superstitious preoccupation some KJV users manifest toward young Christians who use something else. Not only can such a display sidetrack a new Believer from the one thing needful, but it typically confirms a pattern showing that most who militantly wear their translation preference on their sleeve do not actually have any personal experience with the work of translation or textual criticism themselves. They, therefore, lack any appreciation of their own of the issues related to the controversy, and are, thereby, necessarily limited to only repeating what others have said about it.
Most are not aware, either, that the edition of the KJV most familiar today is actually a revision from 1769 that differs from the actual 1611 edition in literally thousands of places - many of them the result of updated language. There were even variations within the 1611 first edition because half of the 20,000 copies required for that run were printed by one printer, and the other half by another, neither printer being able to handle such a large edition by themselves. It is noteworthy, as well, that the KJV for 80 years after its publication in 1611 was itself subject to slander as being unsound theologically and untrue to the Hebrew text. The translators accused of "blasphemy," "most dad burnable corruptions," and "intolerable deceit." (sound familiar?) Of equal interest is the fact that these same translators recognized in the Epistle Dedicatory that their work had produced "ONE MORE EXACT TRANSLATION of the Holy Scriptures in the English Tongue."
Blessings,
plgrmsprgrs Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY
|
|
|
Post by plgrmsprgrs on Jul 31, 2002 12:23:37 GMT -5
Furthermore, the notion that there was ever a single, perfect edition of the Textus Receptus is a fiction. The Received Text designates not a single, ancient, handwritten manuscript, as many imagine, but an entire group or family of editions that differ among themselves. Erasmus hastily published the first edition of the TR in 1516, editing the few, incomplete Greek manuscripts available to him in Basle into an eclectic text, the entire project taking only a year to complete. He later published four more editions of the TR, each time correcting and improving the former versions. It was not until his third edition that he included 1 John 5. 7-8. In several places where portions of Revelation were missing from the few manuscripts at his disposal, he filled the voids himself by translating those passages from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. His last two editions incorporated a considerable number of revisions in an attempt to conform certain passages to the Complutensian Polyglot, an eclectic Greek NT text that predated Erasmus’ first edition.
Other editions of the TR followed. Between the Stephanus edition (1550) and the Elzevir edition (1633) there are some 287 variances. The Beza editions (nine in all, 1565-1604), were compiled from a pool of manuscripts, guided mainly by the Stephanus edition. Beza’s 1598 edition provides the foundation for the TR published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The translators of the KJV worked from two of Beza’s editions and two from Stephanus, referencing other translations in various languages as the went. Those who assert, therefore, that the TR should not be tampered with find themselves in the untenable position of having to explain exactly which of the widely differing editions they are protecting.
Besides all this, I have yet to find one KJV only advocate who could point to any substantive difference between the KJV and the NIV or NASB. The Gospel message remains unchanged in each. All the elements remain intact for the sinner to see himself under the wrath of a Holy God, and without any hope apart from repentance and faith in the righteousness of God in Christ crucified buried, and risen. And, in spite of its overall inferior translation, its stunningly forthright rendering of Romans 9.5 removes any chance of implicating the NIV in a conspiracy to undermine the doctrines of Christ’s divinity and the Trinity – “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of CHRIST, WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, forever praised! Amen.” In this instance, the dynamic equivalence of the NIV allowed the translators to express more clearly what the Greek grammar of that passage indicates, and what the formal equivalence of the KJV leaves unclear. This also categorically distinguishes the NIV from anything like Jefferson’s blasphemy.
The story of God's Word is a story, among many other things obviously, of revisions and updates. To deny this is to deny history. But none of these revisions (among the major translations that are under consideration, and not some cultic aberration or free paraphrase) has ever threatened one foundational truth of Christian doctrine. To argue otherwise is to expose one's inadequate biblical foundation for their Faith, and provides ammunition to unbelieving critics who love nothing more than to ask Christians, “And what Bible do you believe is God’s word?” God is still God, and man is still man. If God could preserve His Word from corruption by men in 1611, He is no less able or willing to do the same today. There have been, and will be, bad translations of the Bible. There have been, and will be, good translations as well. Each translation should, therefore, be evaluated according to its own merits or faults, and not summarily condemned out of the blinding fear that, like a stockade, inevitably surrounds conspiracy theorists. Let us choose for ourselves what God has been pleased to use most effectively in our lives, and rejoice that He makes His Word known to others as well, His providential choice of translation notwithstanding, ever watchful for His return.
Blessings
plgrmsprgrs
|
|
|
Post by ABC_Ron on Jul 31, 2002 18:21:08 GMT -5
Wow, Professor, I would have loved to sit in your class discussions. ABC Ron
|
|
|
Post by enoch7 on Jul 31, 2002 21:34:06 GMT -5
This is so cool. Thank you for replying to my note. I use the A.V. and believe as I wrote in my statement that it is THE BEST English version. I stand with my friend who said that the T.R. is the platform to stand on. The T.R. is a compilation of the Majority Text. That these texts are correct have been proven. The oldest known version is the Penutsa. A version used by believers in the Middle-east around 300 - 400 AD. The "renderings" or readings agree with the A.V. Then there is a version used by the church in Northen Italy and Yugoslavia. This text agrees with the A.V. When dealing with translations we have a serious problem of language. We cannot bring wording in to another language without losing something in the process. That is why today we find what may look like an error but is not. Never in the history of the church has Biblical language been as available as it is today. There fore we find more so called problems. Let us call them translationn problems and not errors in Gods Word Thanks Looking forward to a reply.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on Feb 26, 2003 15:19:04 GMT -5
Hard to believe this message is still on here. Anyway, I have just posted my personal final word on this issue on SermonCentral. It should appear in a day or so. Y'all have fun with it. But like one of my heroes, I stand here as a stone wall and I care not about the volleys.
|
|