A new Bible Version: Fulfilled Covenant Bible

[asterisktom]

I had posted this in the Bible Version forum, but perhaps it is more appropriate to place this new thread here, since it has much to do with Bible study.

For those interested, there is a new version that is due to be released at the end of this year. It is the Fulfilled Covenant Bible.

It is a Preterist Bible that is available already online. Various authors were asked to write prefaces for each of the various books. I was asked to tackle the preface for Ezra-Nehemiah. You can see mine here:
http://www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.co...ntary_ezra.pdf

Overall I am pretty impressed with this Bible. It fills a niche that has been long been unaddressed. In summation, the key difference between this version and many others is the more consistent rendering of words like "mello" (about to"). IMO It is the editorial and translational bias of the "Authorized" and (now) culturally-accepted nuancing of these key eschatological terms that makes versions like this current one necessary.
__________________

 

[thomas15]

...there is a new version that is due to be released at the end of this year. It is the Fulfilled Covenant Bible.

..... I was asked to tackle the preface for Ezra-Nehemiah. You can see mine here (hint hint):
http://www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.co...ntary_ezra.pdf

Overall I am pretty impressed with this Bible..... .

Thank you so much for this news. Now I know what to put in that
space next to my JCSB (Jimmy Carter Study Bible).

Question? Does this edition come complete with a cover and dedication page?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am holding out for the "preterism is wrong" version. have you seen it?

 

[Grasshopper]

I am holding out for the "preterism is wrong" version. have you seen it?

https://timlahaye.com/shopexd.asp?id=126

 

[thomas15]

I am holding out for the "preterism is wrong" version. have you seen it?

Yes, the working title is "preterism is just plain silly": My lack of Study Bible. I'm told that the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Zechariah and a number of Psalms are printed upside down and left to right.

 

[Bronconagurski]

I had posted this in the Bible Version forum, but perhaps it is more appropriate to place this new thread here, since it has much to do with Bible study.

For those interested, there is a new version that is due to be released at the end of this year. It is the Fulfilled Covenant Bible.

It is a Preterist Bible that is available already online. Various authors were asked to write prefaces for each of the various books. I was asked to tackle the preface for Ezra-Nehemiah. You can see mine here:
http://www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.co...ntary_ezra.pdf

Overall I am pretty impressed with this Bible. It fills a niche that has been long been unaddressed. In summation, the key difference between this version and many others is the more consistent rendering of words like "mello" (about to"). IMO It is the editorial and translational bias of the "Authorized" and (now) culturally-accepted nuancing of these key eschatological terms that makes versions like this current one necessary.
__________________

The link did not work for me for your preface on Ezra-Nehemiah. Do you know who is doing the preface for Revelation and Daniel?

 

[John of Japan]

Overall I am pretty impressed with this Bible. It fills a niche that has been long been unaddressed. In summation, the key difference between this version and many others is the more consistent rendering of words like "mello" (about to"). IMO It is the editorial and translational bias of the "Authorized" and (now) culturally-accepted nuancing of these key eschatological terms that makes versions like this current one necessary.

Tom fled the translations forum since I dealt with some of the linguistic issues of this Fulfilled Covenant Bible (not really a new translation) there and he didn't want to deal with that, rightly saying that I had a point in that lingustics is necessary Bible translation. Yet here I find him raising a linguistic issue with the Greek word mello (mellw), on a thread which I didn't notice until today, thinking he would actually avoid linguistic issues when he started this particular thread. But he brought it up, so I will comment.

First of all, it is simplistic and just plain wrong to say as the editors (not translators) of the FCB say, mello should always mean "about to." It does not. What mello means is clearly determined by the context, in particular depending on what infinitive follows it. The word is what is called a "helper verb" in Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p. 598), so obviously the infinitive it helps is the determiner of meaning. (It occasionally occurs without the infinitive, but I'll not get into that right now.)

And saying as they do, "Some examples of futurist translation bias being addressed include: The blatant omission of the Greek word mello (about to), which is an imminent time indicator, from the KJV 106 times. The NIV and NASB “only” omit mello about 85 times. Mello has now been re-inserted back into the Word of God, where it has always belonged" is ridiculous [http://bibleprophecyfulfilled.com/preteristbible.html]. Do they really think the word was omitted rather than simply translated differently? And that this Greek word should be transliterated into our English translations?

My 900 page BAGD lexicon says mello means an event "will certainly take place" with the future infinitive following, and with the aorist infinitive following can mean "be on the point of, about to", "be destined, inevitable", "denoting an intended action", "denoting an action that necessarily follows a divine decree" etc. (pp. 500-501). There is more to it, but much more than this would be too complicated and not serve the purpose here.

Let's look at several of the places this Bible translates mello. First of all note Matt. 11:14--"This is Elijah, who was about to come." This is plainly wrong. It makes no sense that Elijah was "about to come" from the time that John the Baptist was prophesied until John actually came.

Note in Matt. 16:27--"For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father." But by preterist interpretation, this would be fulfilled almost 40 years later in 70 AD. So, 40 years later is "about to come"? No, "certainly come" is the meaning.

Let's try Acts 11:28, "There was about to be a great famine throughout the Roman world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." This Caesar ruled from 41-44 AD, years later. How can years later be "about to be"?

How about an epistle? In 1 Tim. 4:8 they have, "For bodily exercise profits a little: but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is about to come." Really? Timothy was about to die? That doesn't make sense.

I could give several more examples, but surely this is enough. These people are not qualified or competent to comment on the Greek of the NT, much less to edit a Bible. Nor do they wish to become competent, since Mike's bio on the website says, "He has credited the absence of imposed and enforced indoctrination from seminaries and Bible Colleges, for allowing for independence in his studies, with a dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s ability to teach."

 

[Yeshua1]

Tom fled the translations forum since I dealt with some of the linguistic issues of this Fulfilled Covenant Bible (not really a new translation) there and he didn't want to deal with that, rightly saying that I had a point in that lingustics is necessary Bible translation. Yet here I find him raising a linguistic issue with the Greek word mello (mellw), on a thread which I didn't notice until today, thinking he would actually avoid linguistic issues when he started this particular thread. But he brought it up, so I will comment.

First of all, it is simplistic and just plain wrong to say as the editors (not translators) of the FCB say, mello should always mean "about to." It does not. What mello means is clearly determined by the context, in particular depending on what infinitive follows it. The word is what is called a "helper verb" in Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p. 598), so obviously the infinitive it helps is the determiner of meaning. (It occasionally occurs without the infinitive, but I'll not get into that right now.)

And saying as they do, "Some examples of futurist translation bias being addressed include: The blatant omission of the Greek word mello (about to), which is an imminent time indicator, from the KJV 106 times. The NIV and NASB “only” omit mello about 85 times. Mello has now been re-inserted back into the Word of God, where it has always belonged" is ridiculous [http://bibleprophecyfulfilled.com/preteristbible.html]. Do they really think the word was omitted rather than simply translated differently? And that this Greek word should be transliterated into our English translations?

My 900 page BAGD lexicon says mello means an event "will certainly take place" with the future infinitive following, and with the aorist infinitive following can mean "be on the point of, about to", "be destined, inevitable", "denoting an intended action", "denoting an action that necessarily follows a divine decree" etc. (pp. 500-501). There is more to it, but much more than this would be too complicated and not serve the purpose here.

Let's look at several of the places this Bible translates mello. First of all note Matt. 11:14--"This is Elijah, who was about to come." This is plainly wrong. It makes no sense that Elijah was "about to come" from the time that John the Baptist was prophesied until John actually came.

Note in Matt. 16:27--"For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father." But by preterist interpretation, this would be fulfilled almost 40 years later in 70 AD. So, 40 years later is "about to come"? No, "certainly come" is the meaning.

Let's try Acts 11:28, "There was about to be a great famine throughout the Roman world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." This Caesar ruled from 41-44 AD, years later. How can years later be "about to be"?

How about an epistle? In 1 Tim. 4:8 they have, "For bodily exercise profits a little: but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is about to come." Really? Timothy was about to die? That doesn't make sense.

I could give several more examples, but surely this is enough. These people are not qualified or competent to comment on the Greek of the NT, much less to edit a Bible. Nor do they wish to become competent, since Mike's bio on the website says, "He has credited the absence of imposed and enforced indoctrination from seminaries and Bible Colleges, for allowing for independence in his studies, with a dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s ability to teach."

he must have received the Gift of being able to translate as an Apostle, to have the Spirit reveal to him hidden meanings other Apostles missed!

 

[John of Japan]

he must have received the Gift of being able to translate as an Apostle, to have the Spirit reveal to him hidden meanings other Apostles missed!

Oh, I hope not! :laugh:

 

[Van]

When the actual meaning of a word depends upon the syntax in which it appears, you would think that same construction would be translated in the same way, i.e. concordantly. If you look at Acts 11:28, 24:15 and 27:10 you see many differing translations of the same Greek phrase. However, the NASB succeeds in translating the phrase consistently in all three cases, "certainly be" which is in agreement with the idea that the auxiliary verb mello means certainty in this construction, rather than immanence.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom fled the translations forum since I dealt with some of the linguistic issues of this Fulfilled Covenant Bible (not really a new translation) there and he didn't want to deal with that

Pretty unchristian of you, John of Japan. "Fled", indeed!

I did no such thing. Up until just this moment this site has been blocked for me here in China. For a while I was able to read the opening words of responses here, but unable to respond. Frustrating.

I don't know why I m able to answer now - nor how long it will last. But I will look over all the posts on this board that I missed and do my best to answer the backlog.

Starting with the ones who were not asinine and uncharitable in their assumptions.

 

[John of Japan]

Starting with the ones who were not asinine and uncharitable in their assumptions.

Pretty un-Christian of you, asteriktom.

So you refuse to deal with the linguistic issues in a thread you started in the Bible translations forum, then you start another one here with linguistic issues. I thought the word "fled" was on target. :type:

 

[MB]

Pretty un-Christian of you, asteriktom.

So you refuse to deal with the linguistic issues in a thread you started in the Bible translations forum, then you start another one here with linguistic issues. I thought the word "fled" was on target. :type:

Seems all false cults want there own version that will make them feel better about what they believe.
MB

 

[asterisktom]

Pretty un-Christian of you, asteriktom.

So you refuse to deal with the linguistic issues in a thread you started in the Bible translations forum, then you start another one here with linguistic issues. I thought the word "fled" was on target. :type:

Oh, quit beating your chest, John. I told you there already why I left (not "fled") that discussion. Now I am done with that silly aspersion.

And the reason for my seeming silence on Baptist Board altogether is the fact that the government here had now been blocking access to this site - at least as far as participation was concerned.

SO, if in the future I quit answering, please be charitable and assume that maybe, just maybe I have constrains here that you do not have.

 

[John of Japan]

And the reason for my seeming silence on Baptist Board altogether is the fact that the government here had now been blocking access to this site - at least as far as participation was concerned.

SO, if in the future I quit answering, please be charitable and assume that maybe, just maybe I have constrains here that you do not have.

I understand. Carry on.

 

[John of Japan]

Seems all false cults want there own version that will make them feel better about what they believe.
MB

Ooooh. I think asteriktom might possibily object to this, since he objects so strongly to my using the word "fled". :smilewinkgrin:

 

[asterisktom]

Let's look at several of the places this Bible translates mello. First of all note Matt. 11:14--"This is Elijah, who was about to come." This is plainly wrong. It makes no sense that Elijah was "about to come" from the time that John the Baptist was prophesied until John actually came.

Note in Matt. 16:27--"For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father." But by preterist interpretation, this would be fulfilled almost 40 years later in 70 AD. So, 40 years later is "about to come"? No, "certainly come" is the meaning.

Let's try Acts 11:28, "There was about to be a great famine throughout the Roman world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." This Caesar ruled from 41-44 AD, years later. How can years later be "about to be"?

How about an epistle? In 1 Tim. 4:8 they have, "For bodily exercise profits a little: but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is about to come." Really? Timothy was about to die? That doesn't make sense.

I could give several more examples, but surely this is enough.

It will certainly be enough for those in your own gallery. But you really haven't thought it through. Neither do you understand what preterists are saying about "mello". An event can be several years off and still be, in God's eyes, "about to" happen.

I looked at your "proofs" here and honestly don't understand what the problem is.

 

[asterisktom]

Ooooh. I think asteriktom might possibily object to this, since he objects so strongly to my using the word "fled". :smilewinkgrin:

I want to give you respect, John, which Christ enjoins upon all of us who name the name of Christ. But when you act like this you make it hard for me to take you seriously.

 

[thomas15]

I want to give you respect, John, which Christ enjoins upon all of us who name the name of Christ. But when you act like this you make it hard for me to take you seriously.

Would it be accurate to say that the way for someone to earn your respect is to agree with everything you say? Are you above criticism?

 

[asterisktom]

Would it be accurate to say that the way for someone to earn your respect is to agree with everything you say? Are you above criticism?

On the contrary, I thrive on disagreement. But substantive disagreement. His disagreements are a shade or two more substantive than yours however. You are basically a one-line wise-cracker (though occasionally you rise above that). For the most part, Tom, you tend to rely on belittling the opponent, instead of contending with what is being said.