 » Site Navigation | | | |  | | 
03-29-2007, 08:15 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 1,315
Thanks: 80
Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts
| | | You know this argument can go in the opposite direction.
Take for example [sarcasm] the deliberate attempts to obscure the Deity of Christ in the AV:
Romans 9:5
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. - AV
5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.- NIV
To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - ESV
Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; - AV
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, - NIV
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, - ESV
I conclude from this and dozens of other verses, that the translators were obviously Christ-haters and corrupted the translation - after all, groups like the JW's, Mormons and others were founded using AV bibles, whereas no other cult has been founded using a modern translation[/sarcasm]
Just a speedbump in the road of an already moving thread. |
03-29-2007, 08:34 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 278
Thanks: 5
Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts
| | Joel,
You completely miss the real point. The texts you quoted are in the KJV. What more do you need to know? What's good for the goose is only good for the goose...throw the gander out!  Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist  You know this argument can go in the opposite direction.
Take for example [sarcasm] the deliberate attempts to obscure the Deity of Christ in the AV:
Romans 9:5
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. - AV
5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.- NIV
To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - ESV
Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; - AV
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, - NIV
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, - ESV
I conclude from this and dozens of other verses, that the translators were obviously Christ-haters and corrupted the translation - after all, groups like the JW's, Mormons and others were founded using AV bibles, whereas no other cult has been founded using a modern translation[/sarcasm]
Just a speedbump in the road of an already moving thread. | |
03-29-2007, 11:59 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 107
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum Are the differences in translations affecting the theological teaching or not? | I think it is the theology that effects the translation to begin with.
For instance, I think it can demonstrated that the theology of a person will reflect upon:
1) What texts are chosen in order to base the theology upon.
2) Whether or not divine providence is a factor in deciding what text will be chosen.
3) When translating what theology are the translators being influenced by.
4) What demographic is the translation is being aim at, and what is the purpose of reaching that particular group.
5) Who is translating.
And I can think of many other points that will determine the outcome of a translation and how this reflects a theology behind it. So yes, different translations effect the theology of the translation, because different theologies determine the translation to begin with.
__________________
Ted Clore
Cascades Fellowship (CRC)
Jackson, MI Contra Mundum
In memory of my friend Dr. Ted Letis. Died June 24, 2005
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deu 6:4 KJV |
03-29-2007, 04:58 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,095
Thanks: 1,361
Thanked 314 Times in 183 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Galatians 1:6.
The middle verb "metatithesthe" may be taken in an active or passive sense, so there is no grammatical necessity to understand it one way or the other. The translator must make a theological decision. The AV understands the verb to be speaking passively, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." The emphasis is not on the Galatians departing, but on the fact that they are being removed by following the teachings of others. Perkins comments (commentary in loc.), "he frames his reproof with great wariness and circumspection; for he saith not, Ye of yourselves do remove to another gospel, but ye are removed: and thus he blames them but in part, and lays the principal blame on others." Poole's commentary observes, "The term removed, also, mollifies the reproof, the apostle thereby rather charging their apostasy upon their seducers, than upon them who were seduced."
The passive rendering provides a unique insight into the nature of the letter being written to the Galatians: it does not condemn the Galatians as ones who have already apostatised, but as ones who are still in a process of deception as a result of heeding false teachers. This insight is confirmed in chap. 5:10, where the apostle says, "I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." It is the false teachers who are being exposed in the epistle to the Galatians, whilst the Galatians themselves are being warned from following the false teachers in order to preserve them from final apostasy. One should not miss the connection with the earlier statement in 1:6, which laid the emphasis upon the removal as being "from him that called you." This thought is reiterated in 5:8, "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." It is because of Who has called the Galatians into the grace of Christ that the apostle has confidence "through the Lord" that they will not finally depart from the gospel which he has preached to them.
Now it should be noticed that the modern versions translate the middle as an active verb, not because it is grammatically required, but because of their theological understanding which perceives the apostle to be laying the blame squarely upon the Galatians themselves rather than upon the false teachers. The NKJV and NASB commit the error once, only indicating that the Galatians are turning away from the effectual call of the grace of Christ. NKJV, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel." NASB, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel." The NIV and ESV commit the error twice, adding the words "turning to" in the last clause of the verse. NIV, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel." ESV, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel."
Given the influential nature of Gal. 1:6, 7, for the theological understanding of the epistle, the decision by modern versions to render "metatithesthe" actively, and to interpret Paul as laying the weight of blame upon the Galatians themselves, must be regarded as irresponsible at the least. | I am putting this post into a special notebook. I am going to begin work on Rev Winzer's Unauthorized Commentary of the Whole Bible. Keep 'em coming! 
__________________  |
03-29-2007, 06:52 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,188
Thanks: 469
Thanked 1,572 Times in 625 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist You know this argument can go in the opposite direction.
Take for example [sarcasm] the deliberate attempts to obscure the Deity of Christ in the AV:
Romans 9:5
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. - AV
5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.- NIV
To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - ESV | First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. Second, the Deity of Christ is brought out equally by saying He is "God over all" or "over all God." Observe the sagacious comment of John Murray (commentary in loc.): "The next two clauses are to be taken as referring to Christ and defining what he is in his divine identity as Lord of all and God blessed for ever." Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; - AV
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, - NIV
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, - ESV | Again, the AV has followed the syntax of the original and contains two distinct ideas concerning Christ. Anyone with a proper understanding of both Greek and English grammar knows that a possessive pronoun attached to the second of two nouns does not indicate two persons. A British citizen might say, we eagerly await the arrival of the great queen and our Majesty, Elizabeth II.
__________________
Yours sincerely, 
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
|
03-29-2007, 06:59 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 278
Thanks: 5
Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts
| | Anyone else hear a stretching sound?
Seriously, BlackCalvinist is correct, the diety of Christ is clearer in the NIV and the ESV in the passages cited. It is just silly to argue with that but I guess since the arguement aids the KJV one has to run with it.
I'm not arguing what the best translation here is, but when the same sorts of arguements are used as Armourbearer used here in defense of a rendering in a modern translation that differs from the KJV, the translators are vilified as liberals.
I come back to the problem of consistency. Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. Second, the Deity of Christ is brought out equally by saying He is "God over all" or "over all God." Observe the sagacious comment of John Murray (commentary in loc.): "The next two clauses are to be taken as referring to Christ and defining what he is in his divine identity as Lord of all and God blessed for ever."
Again, the AV has followed the syntax of the original and contains two distinct ideas concerning Christ. Anyone with a proper understanding of both Greek and English grammar knows that a possessive pronoun attached to the second of two nouns does not indicate two persons. A British citizen might say, we eagerly await the arrival of the great queen and our Majesty, Elizabeth II. | |
03-29-2007, 07:13 PM
| | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,188
Thanks: 469
Thanked 1,572 Times in 625 Posts
| | | What should we call those who insist that their modern versions are fine yet refuse to engage in a scholarly discussion of their merits -- MVOs. I do believe it is a cult. |
03-29-2007, 11:20 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 1,315
Thanks: 80
Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. | Uhmmm.... you're wrong. This is what we call a Granville Sharp's construction.
There are THREE GS constructions in the NT - two of them are identical and call Christ God - Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both 'God' and 'Savior' refer to Jesus Christ in both passages.
The third is Eph. 4:11 - pastor and teacher (same office) which is one of my favorite arguments against charismatic folk who said 'God told them' to start up a 5-fold ministry.....
Anyway, long story short, you're wrong.  |
03-29-2007, 11:22 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 1,315
Thanks: 80
Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts
| | In fact, to really push the argument to silliness, the KJV teaches heresy at these passages, since it's looking for the appearing of our great God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say the Father will be appearing.
Maybe in Mormonism (which is probably part of how Joseph Smith got his ideas....  ).
All jokes aside, please stop the AVolatry. |
03-30-2007, 12:39 AM
| | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,188
Thanks: 469
Thanked 1,572 Times in 625 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist Uhmmm.... you're wrong. This is what we call a Granville Sharp's construction. | I made the comment you are referring to in connection with Rom. 9:5, which contains two distinct clauses. So the error is all yours for not paying attention. Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist There are THREE GS constructions in the NT - two of them are identical and call Christ God - Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both 'God' and 'Savior' refer to Jesus Christ in both passages. | Who doubts that God and Saviour refer to Jesus Christ? Why don't you respond to the remarks I made in response to your first speculation on Tit. 2:13? Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist Anyway, long story short, you're wrong. | Long story short -- you're not paying attention. |
03-30-2007, 12:41 AM
| | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,188
Thanks: 469
Thanked 1,572 Times in 625 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist In fact, to really push the argument to silliness, the KJV teaches heresy at these passages, since it's looking for the appearing of our great God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say the Father will be appearing. | The silliness is in your insistence that the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun somehow indicates two persons being referred to. |
03-30-2007, 09:07 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Georgia
Posts: 250
Thanks: 22
Thanked 23 Times in 15 Posts
| | | This has been an interesting thread. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like to hear some thoughts on Philippians 2:5-6...
KJV 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
ESV 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
NASB 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped |
03-30-2007, 09:22 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,167
Thanks: 78
Thanked 78 Times in 56 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK I am putting this post into a special notebook. I am going to begin work on Rev Winzer's Unauthorized Commentary of the Whole Bible. Keep 'em coming! | Mark me down as the purchaser of the 1st copy. Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. Second, the Deity of Christ is brought out equally by saying He is "God over all" or "over all God." Observe the sagacious comment of John Murray (commentary in loc.): "The next two clauses are to be taken as referring to Christ and defining what he is in his divine identity as Lord of all and God blessed for ever."
Again, the AV has followed the syntax of the original and contains two distinct ideas concerning Christ. Anyone with a proper understanding of both Greek and English grammar knows that a possessive pronoun attached to the second of two nouns does not indicate two persons. A British citizen might say, we eagerly await the arrival of the great queen and our Majesty, Elizabeth II. |  Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer What should we call those who insist that their modern versions are fine yet refuse to engage in a scholarly discussion of their merits -- MVOs. I do believe it is a cult. |  Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist In fact, to really push the argument to silliness, the KJV teaches heresy at these passages, since it's looking for the appearing of our great God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say the Father will be appearing.
Maybe in Mormonism (which is probably part of how Joseph Smith got his ideas.... ).
All jokes aside, please stop the AVolatry. | Huh? Who, even the moste flaming heretic, could understand it that way? See above.
__________________
Chris Mangum  Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS .357 Mangum Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27
|
03-30-2007, 06:56 PM
| | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,188
Thanks: 469
Thanked 1,572 Times in 625 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezekiel16 This has been an interesting thread. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like to hear some thoughts on Philippians 2:5-6... | John Murray (Collected Writings, 3:236) captures the sense: "There is also the dignity of his station, 'equal with God.' He was on an equality with God. This equality is not an accession either by robbery or attainment. He did not consider his being on an equality with God something he had gained or was to gain. It was not something of precarious tenure; it was the consequence of his being and continuing to be in the form of God and, therefore, his natively, essentially, and immutably. The thought of the clauses may be paraphrased thus: being in the form of God and, therefore, not considering his being on an equality with God a prize or booty but an inalienable possession, he made himself of no reputation."
The emphasis falls upon the fact that equality is something in rightful possession, not something to be posessed. |
03-30-2007, 07:52 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 1,315
Thanks: 80
Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer The silliness is in your insistence that the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun somehow indicates two persons being referred to. | Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek.... look it up on Amazon.com.
shame people will ignore grammar for their hobby horse. |
03-30-2007, 08:06 PM
| | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,188
Thanks: 469
Thanked 1,572 Times in 625 Posts
| | | The Greek New Testament -- look it up in any number of places online. |
03-30-2007, 09:11 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,907
Thanks: 232
Thanked 225 Times in 138 Posts
| | I'm going to print this thread out. 
__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor "Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov
|
03-31-2007, 09:27 AM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ***
Posts: 2,784
Thanks: 191
Thanked 391 Times in 255 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P.C. If you base your theology soley on the english translation, then that theology is a very limited one indeed. You must understand the greek text. |  |
03-31-2007, 09:30 AM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ***
Posts: 2,784
Thanks: 191
Thanked 391 Times in 255 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun | 
I can remember a friend of mine talking about a verse and the original Greek construct interms of personal, possessive blah, blah, blah...well over my head  |
05-22-2007, 01:44 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,907
Thanks: 232
Thanked 225 Times in 138 Posts
| | | This was a very worth while thread, thanks again. | | |
|
