More on translation, Eugene Peterson, and the KJVO people

Inspired by recent comments in the Eugene Peterson thread, I feel compelled to ask the following.

I wonder spedifically how one can make the claim that the KJV is the inspired word, but other English versions, based on older manuscripts are not. If one really wants to be precise, can any translation be an exact word for word reperesentation, knowing what we lose in the process of translation with regard to meaning and tense? This KJVO argument baffles me, if you're going to say it is the PRECISE word of God, which many of them will say, how can one escape the key that it is a translation, and is based on manuscripts that are about a millennia newer that what we know of now?

You are precisely correct. There is an old maxim that goes, "The translator is a traitor" which simply indicates that no translation is a 1 : 1 conversion of any document. In the process nuances are changed and, in some cases, even the meaning can become distorted. That is why inspiration cannot lie in the words but must reside in the message.

Inspired by recent comments in the Eugene Peterson thread, I feel compelled to ask the following.

I wonder spedifically how one can make the claim that the KJV is the inspired word, but other English versions, based on older manuscripts are not. If one really wants to be precise, can any translation be an exact word for word reperesentation, knowing what we lose in the process of translation with regard to meaning and tense? This KJVO argument baffles me, if you're going to say it is the PRECISE word of God, which many of them will say, how can one escape the key that it is a translation, and is based on manuscripts that are about a millennia newer that what we know of now?

Hope you're not mistakenly referring to my posts.
I said "KJV is my preference" Geneva Bible second,
I also implied translating the KJV into another language will not result in a Bible that is superior to direct translations. But don't go tossing the Septuagint just yet. It was a prototype for the first Reverse Interlinear.[:D]

It has been well noted by many that even with all the differences between the Alexandrian MS and the Byzantine MS there is no significant difference doctrinally that would cost a man his soul because he trusted the "wrong side." All important doctrines are present in both. We are not redeemed by the Bible version we read any more than the denomination we join.

ALL the manuscripts say Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins and rose from the dead. ALL the manuscripts say there is only one name under heaven that saves. You can't dodge judgement because your translation didn't tell you. And I don't think using a paraphrase gets you off the hook either.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

It is all about believing God enough to diligently seek Him. God has gone to extraordinary measures to reach out to mankind.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1865#Comment_1865

Inspired by recent comments in the Eugene Peterson thread, I feel compelled to ask the following.

I wonder spedifically how one can make the claim that the KJV is the inspired word, but other English versions, based on older manuscripts are not. If one really wants to be precise, can any translation be an exact word for word reperesentation, knowing what we lose in the process of translation with regard to meaning and tense? This KJVO argument baffles me, if you're going to say it is the PRECISE word of God, which many of them will say, how can one escape the key that it is a translation, and is based on manuscripts that are about a millennia newer that what we know of now?

Hope you're not mistakenly referring to my posts.
I said "KJV is my preference" Geneva Bible second,
I also implied translating the KJV into another language will not result in a Bible that is superior to direct translations. But don't go tossing the Septuagint just yet. It was a prototype for the first Reverse Interlinear.

It has been well noted by many that even with all the differences between the Alexandrian MS and the Byzantine MS there is no significant difference doctrinally that would cost a man his soul because he trusted the "wrong side." All important doctrines are present in both. We are not redeemed by the Bible version we read any more than the denomination we join.

ALL the manuscripts say Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins and rose from the dead. ALL the manuscripts say there is only one name under heaven that saves. You can't dodge judgement because your translation didn't tell you. And I don't think using a paraphrase gets you off the hook either.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

It is all about believing God enough to diligently seek Him. God has gone to extraordinary measures to reach out to mankind.

Perhaps the fact that the LXX was used for the first reverse interlinear is a good reason of itself to toss it. Guilt by association. [:)] (Apparently you are not aware of my opposition to interlinears).

Are you implying that our relationship with God is dependent upon our thinking the right thoughts? I thought it was dependent on faith, i.e., trust in God and his Son. I do not doubt that the Byz Maj text or Stephanus or NA27 or even the New World Translation is adequate to convey God's message to us. That does not, however, make them correct. Again, the inspiration is in the message, not in the words. I note that you highlighted Heb 11.6 above. This is a prime example of what I mean. Of course we must believe that God is; otherwise how would it be possible to have faith in something which is non-extant? Note, however, the rest of it: We must have trust that God rewards those who seek him. It does not reference those who intellectually accept the Nicene Creed or who assent to the Five Points of Calvinism or some other standard. It is a trust in the beneficence of God toward us.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1867#Comment_1867

Again, the inspiration is in the message, not in the words. I note that you highlighted Heb 11.6 above. This is a prime example of what I mean. Of course we must believe that God is; otherwise how would it be possible to have faith in something which is non-extant? Note, however, the rest of it: We must have trust that God rewards those who seek him. It does not reference those who intellectually accept the Nicene Creed or who assent to the Five Points of Calvinism or some other standard. It is a trust in the beneficence of God toward us.

I agree, just am afraid that approach can lead to the too individualistic understanding of the message. There is an objective Truth. We need a measuring rod for our faith and understanding of the message of God. I know you did not say it, I just am afraid some people going this direction get off the ground revealed in the Bible. I know we would have to start discussion if the BIble is the Word of God or we have the Word of God in the Bible. I believe the first but I don't want to start that discussion. I know it touches also the subject of "killing letter" and "the Spirit gives life". Just few loose thoughts. God bless you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1870#Comment_1870

Just one more things. IMHO we can have a strong believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible and still understand we do not have authographs in our hands. I believe it is our task to get as close as possible to them however. That is why I like the approach of modern NA27 and so on, because it is best possible effort to reconstruct the original text. Understanding it is not perfect is not IMHO in conflict with believeing the originals were verbally and plenary inspired. It would start to be really interesting if those scholers who claim Matthew had been written in Hebrew originally and we would find the text. What would be our approach to this fact. It is just hypothetical thing however (at least so far.)

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1867#Comment_1867

Are you implying that our relationship with God is dependent upon our thinking the right thoughts? I thought it was dependent on faith, i.e., trust in God and his Son.

I'd say our relationship grows from informed faith. The more you know about God, the more you have right thinking and right thoughts, the closer your relationship will be. Faith has an object, and if we know very little about that object how deep will our faith really be?

Again, the inspiration is in the message, not in the words.

But the words are often very important. This is why Greek and Hebrew study can be very helpful. I am often amazed at the help I find by intense study of the original languages, the things that come out that don't in English. And the farther a translation moves from the words of Scripture, the more meaning is lost. The message is tied to the words. This is my problem with a paraphrase Bible and, to some degree, some dynamic equivalent versions (though generally the NIV is good), they sacrifice the words of Scripture for what they see as the message of Scripture but often what comes through is the interpretation of the person doing the translation. This is a risk for every translation. But the less you feel tied to the words of the text, the greater the risk.

As for Hebrews 11:6, consider the context. The book of Hebrews is deeply theological. Full of thoughts and ideas and knowledge and teaching about God and his dealing with man. If the author of Hebrews did not want people to have an informed faith, most of the letter would not exist. Consider also the examples of faith that precede and procede. All of the examples require things we must know about God and his dealings with humanity and how humans have responded to him. There is a lot of theological necessity behind strong faith, as demonstrated by Hebrews 11.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1894#Comment_1894

And the farther a translation moves from the words of Scripture, the more meaning is lost.

Of course ! Everyone should read the OT in Hebrew and Aramaic and the NT in Greek. That is the only way to stay close to the words of scripture. To cite the old maxim, "The translator is a traitor." The moment you translate it you have changed it. Sometimes I find that the "less literal" translations truly capture more of the meaning of the text than the formal equivalent translations. Meaning is the important item.

²⁹Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” ³⁰So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” ³¹He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Ac 8:29-31). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

BTW: Peterson is not a paraphrase but a translation.

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1897#Comment_1897

BTW: Peterson is not a paraphrase but a translation.

Peterson translated into a paraphrase. He worked with the Greek but his method of bringing the language into English was to paraphrase it. He did not try to form a literal or a dynamic equivalent translation, he tried to form a paraphrase translation. The fact that he worked from the Greek does not make the final result any less of a paraphrase.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1897#Comment_1897

It all makes one wonder how Martin Luther reformed Christianity in
German and Latin...

Brian Whalen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1865#Comment_1865

MatthewCJones,

I was not referring to you specifically, but your post reminded me of others out there that have this KJVO belief. You are indeed so correct that a specific translation or denomination isn't the ticket for Heaven. Differences occur in the nonessentials, Bart Ehrman ignores that point.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1899#Comment_1899

BTW: Peterson is not a paraphrase but a translation.

Peterson translated into a paraphrase. He worked with the Greek but his method of bringing the language into English was to paraphrase it. He did not try to form a literal or a dynamic equivalent translation, he tried to form a paraphrase translation. The fact that he worked from the Greek does not make the final result any less of a paraphrase.

Au contraire, Pierre. Whether one works from the original or from a previously translated text is precisely the distinction between a translation and a paraphrase. "Paraphrase" has become a pejorative term among Fundamentalists which they apply to any translation which doesn't suit them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1901#Comment_1901

It all makes one wonder how Martin Luther reformed Christianity in German and Latin...

That was possible because the inspiration is in the message and not in the words -- not even in German ! [:D] [I'll take Czech under advisement, however.]

Wes Saad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1903#Comment_1903

Whether one works from the original or from a previously translated text is precisely the distinction between a translation and a paraphrase.

The writers of my Hermeneutics book apparently agree with you, putting all translations under either formal or dynamic equivalent and calling a paraphrase those that have no basis in the original language. But I will still disagree. When a translation moves as far from the original text as Peterson's and others do, what you have is neither formal equivalence nor dynamic equivalence. It is a paraphrase. It might be a better paraphrase than The Living Bible since it at least came from the original languages, but the idea remains the same: taking the words of Scripture and putting them into the translator's own words and expression. When the translator feels free to add his own words, expressions, and idioms while changing or removing the words, expressions, and idioms of the original, you have a paraphrase.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1904#Comment_1904

That was possible because the inspiration is in the message and not in the words -- not even in German ! [I'll take Czech under advisement, however.]

Thanks George [:)]

By the way, I think Unitas Fratrum Czech Brethren did an excellent job with, not only translating the Bible of Kralitz (Bible Kralicka) in 1579, but in publishing so called Six-Volume-Bible, Bible with many translation notes to help understand the text and the message. It was very unique work for its time. Similar thing is published right now under the name of Czech Study Translation, which is, on one hand as literal as possible, but on the other hand having tens of thousands of translation notes explaining to people who do not understand the original languages all the issues translators had to deal with. Similar to NET Bible. I like that approach since it gives to people, who do not speak the original language, the assurance that if there are some idiomatic expressions or variations of the text, they will learn about that in the footnotes. I think that is a good help to get as close as possible to the message, not just to the words of the Bible.

When I read the Message, I read it as a paraphrase, without taking it as a real Bible text. If it gives me any good idea, I go and study the real Bible text further. Very often I leave the "Message idea" disappointed, few times I foud it interesting and fresh to get better feeling of the original message, that I got from the original text, literal translations and commentaries. I don't know if that is a typical attitude of pastors, but that is how I approach the paraphrase Bibles, as an unique, interesting commentary, full of good, but also many not so good ideas. That is just my understanding.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1907#Comment_1907

Chris,

I agree with your conclusion but wonder if even some of the dynamic equivalence based translations stray into paraphrase on occasion. When we study antiquities to determine what the colloquialisms were at a certain point in time & culture, we are making an assumption we have all the evidence at hand to make that judgement. Some languages evolve very rapidly. The first Japanese Bible translation is not 150 years old yet and is much less understood by the modern Japanese reader than the KJV is by English readers. (Many Buddhist scripts in Japanese are so obsolete even the monks who memorize them have no clue what they mean.)

So being so sure of ourselves we may be headed for a derailment. I say this not to destroy anyone's desire to dig deeper and chase after a better understanding of God's Word but to reiterate Hebrews 11:6. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Especially the part about diligently seeking.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1905#Comment_1905

Whether one works from the original or from a previously translated text is precisely the distinction between a translation and a paraphrase.

The writers of my Hermeneutics book apparently agree with you, putting all translations under either formal or dynamic equivalent and calling a paraphrase those that have no basis in the original language. But I will still disagree. When a translation moves as far from the original text as Peterson's and others do, what you have is neither formal equivalence nor dynamic equivalence. It is a paraphrase. It might be a better paraphrase than The Living Bible since it at least came from the original languages, but the idea remains the same: taking the words of Scripture and putting them into the translator's own words and expression. When the translator feels free to add his own words, expressions, and idioms while changing or removing the words, expressions, and idioms of the original, you have a paraphrase.

That's all right. You have a right to be wrong.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1909#Comment_1909

For example: When Erasmus worked so hard delivering his Greek text I truly believe he was diligently seeking to do right. We know now he did not achieve perfection. I would say the same about Luther. Another example of one who was diligently seeking. Both men served Christianity well and both men were flawed in some respects. The real problem I have is when any apparently self-promoting man plasters his name all over "his" ministry, "his" Bible College and his "translation"! This type of fellow has been derailed from the teaching of Christ, in Matthew 5:16

KJV "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

The Message reads much more horn-tootie. vv14-16 say

"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven. "

Kinda sounds like a Rainbow Bible in pride week. I believe I will learn a lot more sitting at the feet of Erasmus & Luther than reading this.

Jesus says our works should bring glory to God. The Message says WE are the center of attention. Quite a diversion from Jesus' message would't you say?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1907#Comment_1907

When I read the Message, I read it as a paraphrase, without taking it as a real Bible text. If it gives me any good idea, I go and study the real Bible text further. Very often I leave the "Message idea" disappointed, few times I foud it interesting and fresh to get better feeling of the original message, that I got from the original text, literal translations and commentaries. I don't know if that is a typical attitude of pastors, but that is how I approach the paraphrase Bibles, as an unique, interesting commentary, full of good, but also many not so good ideas. That is just my understanding.

I can't emphasize enough that The Message is not a paraphrase. It's time people stop using that term to pan any translation they don't happen to like. If they don't like it, that's fine -- don't use it. Personally, I don't like any translation. I think we should all be like the Muslims and learn the original languages. I take my Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti with me to church to follow along in the readings rather than use the pew bible. Even such a translation as the New Revised Standard Version which is actually a pretty good translation has things about it that drive me up the wall. While they are correct that ἀδελφός doesn't simply refer to males, it really irritates me to have "brothers and sisters" continually shoved in my face. It's political correctness run amok. Then there is Re 13.10 and 14.12 where they render "Here is a call for the endurance ..." when there is not a call for anything. What it says is ῟Ωδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ ... "Here is the ὑπομονὴ ..." The problem is that they don't realize that ὑπομονὴ can mean anything other than "endurance." In these passages it refers to what has preceded, viz., in Re 13.10 the certainty that God has a decree regarding one's destiny which will be brought to pass and in 14.12 referring back to the previous verse that the doom of those forces which oppose God. It is virtually equivalent to "confession" or even "creed." No translation is without fault -- not even if I were to make one.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1867#Comment_1867

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

It is all about believing God enough to diligently seek Him. God has gone to extraordinary measures to reach out to mankind.

George Somsel wrote the following post at Today 2:06 AM:

Perhaps the fact that the LXX was used for the first reverse interlinear is a good reason of itself to toss it. Guilt by association. Smile

(Apparently you are not aware of my opposition to interlinears).

I am quite aware of your disdain for reverse Interlinears. That is precisely why I keep bringing them up with a smile.[:D]

Am I implying that our relationship with God is dependent upon our thinking the right thoughts? Yep. Believing God is correct about us being sinners, hopelessly lost without His grace and trusting Him to be true to His promise. That is "right" thinking. It takes faith and humility to bridge that.

As for the rest of your statement, I thought that was what I said. Sorry if it sounded opposite.

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1899#Comment_1899

Peterson translated into a paraphrase. He worked with the Greek but his method of bringing the language into English was to paraphrase it. He did not try to form a literal or a dynamic equivalent translation, he tried to form a paraphrase translation. The fact that he worked from the Greek does not make the final result any less of a paraphrase.

The problem is that your thesis does not fit the facts. Peterson did more than simply paraphrase, he added entire passages based on theological assumption, not paraphrastic meaning.

I think a superior paraphrase available on Logos of course is...

"THE NEW TESTAMENT

An Expanded Translation"

by KENNETH S. WUEST

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1921#Comment_1921

Then there is Re 13.10 and 14.12 where they render "Here is a call for the endurance ..." when there is not a call for anything. What it says is ῟Ωδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ ... "Here is the ὑπομονὴ ..." The problem is that they don't realize that ὑπομονὴ can mean anything other than "endurance." In these passages it refers to what has preceded, viz., in Re 13.10 the certainty that God has a decree regarding one's destiny which will be brought to pass and in 14.12 referring back to the previous verse that the doom of those forces which oppose God. It is virtually equivalent to "confession" or even "creed." No translation is without fault -- not even if I were to make one.

George can you hurry up with your Revelation Commentary? I would love to see/dig into your take on Revelation. How far have you done into your writing?

Sir T

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1924#Comment_1924

George,

How does the Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti render "God-colors? (Oh, there I go again Reversing my readings!)

No, seriously, How can you say this is worthy of the classification as a translation when he creates meaning out of thin air and jettisons what was in the originals. This is paraphrase at best or trying to sell to itching ears a "new gospel." And you know what the Apostle Paul has to say about that!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1915#Comment_1915

Kinda sounds like a Rainbow Bible in pride week. I believe I will learn a lot more sitting at the feet of Erasmus & Luther than reading this.

Jesus says our works should bring glory to God. The Message says WE are the center of attention. Quite a diversion from Jesus' message would't you say?

I don't think The Message was written for the likes of either you or me. If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't knock it.

Where does The Message say that we are the center of attention? I haven't read all that much of it so I must have missed it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1921#Comment_1921

Even such a translation as the New Revised Standard Version which is actually a pretty good translation has things about it that drive me up the wall. While they are correct that ἀδελφός doesn't simply refer to males, it really irritates me to have "brothers and sisters" continually shoved in my face. It's political correctness run amok.

That is why I think, from the pastor's perspective, that it is better to have more literal translation of such word like "brother" and in the footnote having the explanation of the broader meaning than what we have in English/Czech etc. In preaching/teaching I can just mention the footnote to help people to cross the language barrier. NET Bible does it in just the opposite way, using brothers and sisters and in the footnote explaining the matter.

^1:13 I do not want you to be unaware,²⁸ brothers and sisters,²⁹ that I often intended to come to you

²⁸²⁸ sn The expression “I do not want you to be unaware [Grk ignorant]” also occurs in 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 1 Thess 4:13. Paul uses the phrase to signal that he is about to say something very important.

²⁹²⁹ tn Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [adelphoi] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Ro 1:13). Biblical Studies Press.

Either or, I am the big fan of the good footnotes. I appreciate George your explanation. Thank you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1922#Comment_1922

Am I implying that our relationship with God is dependent upon our thinking the right thoughts? Yep. Believing God is correct about us being sinners, hopelessly lost without His grace and trusting Him to be true to His promise. That is "right" thinking. It takes faith and humility to bridge that.

As for the rest of your statement, I thought that was what I said. Sorry if it sounded opposite

When you die and go to heaven and I follow you sometime later, be sure to give me the answers to the entrance exam so I can bone up ahead of time.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1924#Comment_1924

Then there is Re 13.10 and 14.12 where they render "Here is a call for the endurance ..." when there is not a call for anything. What it says is ῟Ωδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ ... "Here is the ὑπομονὴ ..." The problem is that they don't realize that ὑπομονὴ can mean anything other than "endurance." In these passages it refers to what has preceded, viz., in Re 13.10 the certainty that God has a decree regarding one's destiny which will be brought to pass and in 14.12 referring back to the previous verse that the doom of those forces which oppose God. It is virtually equivalent to "confession" or even "creed." No translation is without fault -- not even if I were to make one.

George can you hurry up with your Revelation Commentary? I would love to see/dig into your take on on Revelation. How far have you done into your writing?

Sir T

I'm still working on the introduction. Of course, I have notes on virtually every verse in the book, but I'm continually adding to them. Also, writing this is like pulling hen's teeth. I'm afraid I don't write all that well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1927#Comment_1927

If we are looking for the most inclusive tent to have camp meetig under we could all join the Baha'i faith. Their temple in Chicago has a stained glass window for each of the world's major religions. They welcome Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddist and so on.

The one true God (of the Bible) is a jealous God and is not willing to share His rightful throne with any other "god." I wonder just what audience The Messege was written for. I go to a medical doctor to get an accurate diagnosis, not a false clean bill of health. A sugar-coated placebo should not be labeled as a RX to heal our ills. And a flowery dramatic paraphrase shouldn't be passed off as an accurate translation.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1923#Comment_1923

Peterson translated into a paraphrase. He worked with the Greek but his method of bringing the language into English was to paraphrase it. He did not try to form a literal or a dynamic equivalent translation, he tried to form a paraphrase translation. The fact that he worked from the Greek does not make the final result any less of a paraphrase.
The problem is that your thesis does not fit the facts. Peterson did more than simply paraphrase, he added entire passages based on theological assumption, not paraphrastic meaning.

All right ! Prove it. List the passages where he has added entire passages. Don't refer me to your blog since I don't want to wade through that. Also, don't compare it to other translations. It needs to be compared to the original.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1926#Comment_1926

George,

How does the Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti render "God-colors?

Rather than simply give you a snippet, here is the verse

οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1937#Comment_1937

George,

How does the Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti render "God-colors?

Rather than simply give you a snippet, here is the verse

οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Just as I suspected.

No mention of God-COLORS.

As for wasting my time proving the Message is an inferior rendering, I also know better than to trust the New World Translation (based on Wescott & Hort's work.) I don't mind reading divergent works for the informational value but don't embrace the scholarship or motives quite so quickly

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1934#Comment_1934

If we are looking for the most inclusive tent to have camp meetig under we could all join the Baha'i faith. Their temple in Chicago has a stained glass window for each of the world's major religions. They welcome Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddist and so on.

The one true God (of the Bible) is a jealous God and is not willing to share His rightful throne with any other "god." I wonder just what audience The Messege was written for. I go to a medical doctor to get an accurate diagnosis, not a false clean bill of health. A sugar-coated placebo should not be labeled as a RX to heal our ills. And a flowery dramatic paraphrase shouldn't be passed off as an accurate translation.

How many verses have you compared to the original to come to that conclusion. While we're at it, what is your level of ability in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1942#Comment_1942

Show me ANY manuscript in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek that says God-COLORS. I will even settle for a Papal bull. It just isn't there.

As for my abilities in the original languages, I will forever be a lowly student. I began my Greek studies in Bible college 30+ years ago. My mother has a better handle on Hebrew than I ever will. But I will keep on digging, for there is much gold buried in those precious words.

My trust is in God's Holy Spirit that indwells all believers and His promise to those who diligently seek Him.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1940#Comment_1940

George,

How does the Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti render "God-colors?

Rather than simply give you a snippet, here is the verse

οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Just as I suspected.

No mention of God-COLORS.

As for wasting my time proving the Message is an inferior rendering, I also know better than to trust the New World Translation (based on Wescott & Hort's work.) I don't mind reading divergent works for the informational value but don't embrace the scholarship or motives quite so quickly

I would suppose that the term "God-colors" refers to gang colors by which members of the group recognize who belongs to their group and who does not. If they are not the identifying mark of those who belong to God, then what are τὰ καλὰ ἔργα?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1950#Comment_1950

Show me ANY manuscript in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek that says God-COLORS. I will even settle for a Papal bull. It just isn't there.

As for my abilities in the original languages, I will forever be a lowly student. I began my Greek studies in Bible college 30+ years ago. My mother has a better handle on Hebrew than I ever will. But I will keep on digging, for there is much gold buried in those precious words.

My trust is in God's Holy Spirit that indwells all believers and His promise to those who diligently seek Him.

I thought as much. You are criticising the work of a brother without the requisite knowledge to speak with any authority. It reminds of when the RSV came out with its translation of Is 7.14 referring to the mother as a "young woman" rather than a "virgin." The publisher received copies of the RSV with bullet holes. I'll bet they were not shipped by those who actually knew Hebrew.

I can't show you a papal bull. He only keeps cows and has them artificially inseminated.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1956#Comment_1956

I can't show you a papal bull. He only keeps cows and has them artificially inseminated.

Hey, I worked back in the times of the communist regime here as a veterinarian, doing the artificial insemination. Don't you dare to touch that profession...[H]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1959#Comment_1959

I can't show you a papal bull. He only keeps cows and has them artificially inseminated.

Hey, I worked back in the times of the communist regime here as a veterinarian, doing the artificial insemination. Don't you dare to touch that profession...

I assume that what you say is true, but it's still a "howler."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1965#Comment_1965

[quote]

Hey, I worked back in the times of the communist regime here as a veterinarian, doing the artificial insemination. Don't you dare to touch that profession...

I assume that what you say is true, but it's still a "howler."

Well, it was just a comment on your "artificial insemination" joke. It is difficult to understand for you on the other side of the ocean, but in our movement all the ministers had to have a secular job, since our denomination had not been recognized by the communists untill the year of 1989. The church I pastor however is going to have the 100 year anniversary next year. Our movement had been persecuted by both, the Nazis and the communists. All of the theological education in those times had been done in the underground. Paradoxically sometimes we had more freedom than so called recognized denominations, where all the affairs had been decided by the communist commissars. Well, enough, I am glad those times are just gone, hopefully forever. Amen.

P.S. I don't know why, but where I wrote the IIWW regime, it put stars. I suppose it is because it is considered a bad word. I agree it is. Not the word, but the regime. From the pit of Hell.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1956#Comment_1956

Show me ANY manuscript in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek that says God-COLORS. I will even settle for a Papal bull. It just isn't there.

As for my abilities in the original languages, I will forever be a lowly student. I began my Greek studies in Bible college 30+ years ago. My mother has a better handle on Hebrew than I ever will. But I will keep on digging, for there is much gold buried in those precious words.

My trust is in God's Holy Spirit that indwells all believers and His promise to those who diligently seek Him.

I thought as much. You are criticising the work of a brother without the requisite knowledge to speak with any authority. It reminds of when the RSV came out with its translation of Is 7.14 referring to the mother as a "young woman" rather than a "virgin." The publisher received copies of the RSV with bullet holes. I'll bet they were not shipped by those who actually knew Hebrew.

I can't show you a papal bull. He only keeps cows and has them artificially inseminated.

The authority rests not in titles or degrees conferred by men one upon another. The authority rests intrinsically in the Word of God itself. Incredible how one can embrace any "holy script" some person invents out of thin air.It is the duty of one propagating a new teaching to back it up. Even Jesus did miracles to confirm His authority. I know guys with multiple (earned) doctorates that believe creation rests on the back of an elephant standing on a ...... you get the drift.

I'll match your "dollar & a stack of donut holes" and raise you 4 ThDs that I can get by with just walking with Jesus, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and diligently seeking to glorify the Father. It's written in the Word.

BTW: I also know enough to reject "23 Minutes in Hell" and "Half Hour in Heaven" I guess I am about as silly as the Bereans thinking I could check doctrines against the scriptures!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1940#Comment_1940

George,

How does the Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti render "God-colors?

Rather than simply give you a snippet, here is the verse

οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Just as I suspected.

No mention of God-COLORS.

As for wasting my time proving the Message is an inferior rendering, I also know better than to trust the New World Translation (based on Wescott & Hort's work.) I don't mind reading divergent works for the informational value but don't embrace the scholarship or motives quite so quickly

But if you don't know the language, what makes you think you have the right to judge what is a correct translation and what is not? It's always those who are ignorant of the facts who scream the loudest.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1969#Comment_1969

I'll match your "dollar & a stack of donut holes" and raise you 4 ThDs that I can get by with just walking with Jesus, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and diligently seeking to glorify the Father. It's written in the Word.

BTW: I also know enough to reject "23 Minutes in Hell" and "Half Hour in Heaven" I guess I am about as silly as the Bereans thinking I could check doctrines against the scriptures!

Oh, pul-leeze ! What language do you suppose they read those scriptures in? I'll bet it wasn't English. It probably wasn't even Czech though they might have liked to. So, go "have [your] little talk with Jesus." In what language does he speak to you? BTW: The early Church tended to use the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew. Did you realize that in some places there is quite a difference between the two?

BTW: If you have such an intimate relationship, why do you even need the scriptures? Why don't you donate your resources to someone not thus privileged?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1977#Comment_1977

George,

How does the Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti render "God-colors?

Rather than simply give you a snippet, here is the verse

οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Just as I suspected.

No mention of God-COLORS.

As for wasting my time proving the Message is an inferior rendering, I also know better than to trust the New World Translation (based on Wescott & Hort's work.) I don't mind reading divergent works for the informational value but don't embrace the scholarship or motives quite so quickly

But if you don't know the language, what makes you think you have the right to judge what is a correct translation and what is not? It's always those who are ignorant of the facts who scream the loudest.

Amazing George. Now you are arguing FOR the LXX! That's where circular reasoning gets you. Read my posts a little closer. I said "WALKING" with Jesus.
Everybody else has gone quiet so now we know who the two most ignorant ranters are on the forum. Think I better hush now.[;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1982#Comment_1982

ote]

Amazing George. Now you are arguing FOR the LXX!

No, I'm not arguing for the LXX though it does have value. I'm simply reminding you that this is what the early Church used and that it differed considerably in some places from the Hebrew. And you complain about "God-colors"? Amazing.

David Buckham

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1990#Comment_1990

I thought KJVO was a dead issue after Bible college (2000). I have been an ordained minister for 9 years now. About a year ago I moved to the southwest corner of Virginia. I am surprised by the passion some have here for the KJ (they don't call it the KJV...just the KJ). One person even made the arguement that with all the different translations out there only one can be right. There are even stories of a church here in town that burned Bibles just one year ago that were not KJ.

I wish convictions about living out God's Word, whatever translation people read, were as strong as the arguments for preferance of translation/paraphrase.

all about Christ,

David Buckham

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2024#Comment_2024

I agree with your sentiments David. I have found there are rabid dogmatics in every sector of the version debate. In my case I PREFER the KJV just like I prefer traditional hymns, pulpits, suit & tie. It probably has a lot to do with the fact I was raised with it (there wasn't an NIV or NASB back in the '60s.) Certainly not a belief all other versions were penned by the devil. I have read a lot of KJVO books that do make one pause and wonder at the motivation of some of the modern translators...
I have frequently been accused of being too passionate on issues. As I have grown older I can look back and see I have changed my dogmatic stances. I've also learned not to particularly care what other people think. There is only one Judge who matters.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2041#Comment_2041

Just a few interesting factors in the mix I call my life:

My KJV preaching father now uses NIV. My brother preaches from NASB & more recent versions. My son preaches only from KJV. Several of my household including my wife have no use for anything but KJV.

My first few years of memorizing scripture was from the NASB. Imagine the looks of my KJVO friends when I now "mis-quote" a passage to them in conversation! I just can't afford to lay awake a night worrying about it.

All that said, I find the NASB the most literal translation. Maybe it has to do with the study aids i learned from like Gingrich, Metzger and the like. I have fundamental problems with using dynamic equivalence alone applied to translation of Holy Scripture. I have no problem with the United Nations using it to mis-translate. That would result in nothing more serious than a war.[:-*]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/2041#Comment_2041

I agree with your sentiments David. I have found there are rabid dogmatics in every sector of the version debate. In my case I PREFER the KJV just like I prefer traditional hymns, pulpits, suit & tie. It probably has a lot to do with the fact I was raised with it (there wasn't an NIV or NASB back in the '60s.) Certainly not a belief all other versions were penned by the devil. I have read a lot of KJVO books that do make one pause and wonder at the motivation of some of the modern translators...
I have frequently been accused of being too passionate on issues. As I have grown older I can look back and see I have changed my dogmatic stances. I've also learned not to particularly care what other people think. There is only one Judge who matters.

I was raised on the AV [AKA: KJV] -- more specifically, the Schofield Reference Bible. I am comfortable with the language though I note that most who try to speak or write in that style generally muck things up. More than the language I don't like the text on which the AV is based. Since I generally use original language texts, I don't need to be concerned with its text base or its language. When I quote a passage in English, more likely than not it will come out sounding a lot like the AV since I memorized large portions when I was younger [Note that I didn't say "young" as though I no longer am young] [H]

When it comes to clothes for church I prefer going to the sunbathers church [NOT !] [6] I too prefer suit and tie, but if someone comes in wearing shorts, I'm just happy they managed to make it.