1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

1 John 5:7-8

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by DesiderioDomini, Dec 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 5 of 6
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The point was that nate says the TR could not possibly be representative of the Byzantine textform because Erasmus only had 5 manuscripts in his possession and only used 4 of them.

    The same is true of Westcott and Hort, they only used 2 manuscripts, yet nate insists that their text is representative of its broader textform.

    He can't have it both ways. If the TR is not representative of its broader textform then neither is the WH text. [​IMG]
    This has been dealt with ad infinitum, ad nauseum! There is no textual difference in Amos 4:4. The difference is a translational choice. One group insists on the slavishly literal meaning of "yom" and the others recognize the word is being used metaphorically, as it so often is in the OT.
     
    #81 TCassidy, Jan 2, 2006
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why not just deal with the substance of his post? Let's try to avoid the name-calling and personal attacks.
     
    #82 TCassidy, Jan 2, 2006
  3. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    Idid not see a response to the last post I made whiuch stated,

    "Two different translations cannot be right. It is possible all are wrong but not all can be right when they differ.

    If I go with what you write then it may agree with the MT but it still does not agree with the LXX. The word for "three days" in the LXX is only found in Amos 4:4. If one takes your position then the KJV and NIV agree with only the MT and not the LXX. If I take my position then the NAS agrees with both the MT and LXX and disagrees with the KJV and NIV."

    Are you saying the KJV and NIV choice is better than the LXX and those who translated the LXX were wrong. The translation "three days" is very clear in the LXX.

    I don't want to insult you but rather get to the heart of the point. Don't you think to shrug it off as a translation choice does not give much value to study and the importance of accurate translation? How is your proof any different than an arbitrary choice like drawing straws or casting lots?
     
    #83 gb93433, Jan 2, 2006
  4. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    Why not just deal with the substance of his post? Let's try to avoid the name-calling and personal attacks. </font>[/QUOTE]I wrote what I did because I felt he was attacking the writer and had zero subtsance in his post. When Jesus debated he used what the other person valued or considered credible and used that to deal with him. For example when Jesus dealt with the Sadducees he used the Torah but with the Pharisees he used the OT.
     
    #84 gb93433, Jan 2, 2006
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV and NIV word choices better reflect the metaphorical use of the word "yom" and better fit the context of the special tithe offered every three years.

    The Hebrew word is "yom" which, if taken only in the literal sense, means "day" so the Septuagint translation is not wrong, but merely passed the work along into Greek and expected the reader to understand the metaphorical nature of the expression and realize it was referring to the special tithe received every three years.
    Because both translations are accurate. One accurately translates the metaphorical meaning of the word and the other accurately translates the literal meaning of the word.
     
    #85 TCassidy, Jan 2, 2006
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He's not Jesus. And neither are you. [​IMG]
     
    #86 TCassidy, Jan 2, 2006
  7. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think some fundamental difference in the arguments came up from the view on the credibility of LXX. Some often say that NT quoted the LXX word by word, the others say that LXX was translated after NT was written, retrospectively.
    One thing that I often notice in translating OT is that there are so many differences between Masoretic and LXX, not because of the whole story but because LXX is not the word-to-word translation from any Hebrew text either from Babylonian Hebrew text or Egyptian Hebrew text.

    Anyway IMO, TCassidy's explanation on Amos 4:4 is sufficient. If there is no case at all where Yom was used for Year, then KJV would have a problem.

    If NASV translated D'Var into more than 100 meanings, why don't you appeal them?
    Word can be translated into several meanings, i.e.
    Sabbath can be translated into either Sabbath or Week. Read 1 Cor 16:2 and Acts 20:7.
    Jesus had to find out the proof of Resurrection only in Torah, because Saducees disbelieved the rest of Tanak. This was the big dilema for Pharisees. If Saducees accepted the rest of Tanak, Pharisees could refer to Daniel and Isaiah quickly but Saducees never accepted them.
    If you don't have any specific comments on 1 John 5:7, we can move the discussion to Amos.
     
    #87 Eliyahu, Jan 2, 2006
  8. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    Eliyahu said:

    'Jesus had to find out the proof of Resurrection only in Torah'

    Sorry, Elihayu, don't know where ya got that from. My Bible tells me Jesus is the Resurrection (John 11). He told the Pharisees once, 'Before Abraham was, I AM' In that He was proclaiming His Deity.

    He did not have to find out proof of Resurrection.
     
    #88 standingfirminChrist, Jan 2, 2006
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    English is not Eliyahu's primary language. You have to read what he meant instead of what you think he said. [​IMG]
     
    #89 TCassidy, Jan 2, 2006
  10. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    He's not Jesus. And neither are you. [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't it help to learn from the master?
     
    #90 gb93433, Jan 2, 2006
  11. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    Words only have meaning in their historical context. I do not see how Amos 4:4 can be a sensus plenior and possess two entirely different meanings. So I have to disagree with you in saying that two entirely different translations can be right in light of one given historical context.

    I just don't believe that when one loks at the entire message of Amos it would agree with what you claim. But you are entitled to your opinion. I just happen to think you are waffling around in your hermeneutics.
     
    #91 gb93433, Jan 2, 2006
  12. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    [non-Baptist]

    [ January 03, 2006, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #92 Steven Avery, Jan 2, 2006
  13. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    [non-Baptist]

    [ January 03, 2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #93 Steven Avery, Jan 2, 2006
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Although I have great respect for David Qimhi's comments concerning ketiv-qere pairs, I don't think his position on "yom" was discussed in this thread.
     
    #94 TCassidy, Jan 2, 2006
  15. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    [non-Baptist]

    [ January 03, 2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #95 Steven Avery, Jan 2, 2006
  16. nate

    nate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    1
    NO the TR doesn't represent the Byzantine text that well for instance Luke 17:36 as noted in by the KJV translators is in very few of the byzantine texts. Also the Comma is only in 4 mss. That means there are a whole lot of Byzantine texts that don't include it. The TR by no means represents the Byzantine text. B and Aleph carry a lot more weight than the Comma 15th Century texts.
     
    #96 nate, Jan 2, 2006
  17. nate

    nate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    1
    You seem to make the same mistake the KJVO's make. Which is they assume that the Critical texts today are the same thing that W&H had in the 1880's this is false. I read somewhere online that they changed nearly 1200+ changes between the NA&UBS and the W&H text.
     
    #97 nate, Jan 2, 2006
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wrong again. [​IMG]
    I have not made that assumption. [​IMG]
    The changes of the Critical Text have been gradual starting with the original NA published in 1898, which was virtually identical to the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, to the present incarnation, the 27th edition, which has moved back toward the Byzantine textform in many instances.
     
    #98 TCassidy, Jan 3, 2006
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Come on, nate. You can't ignore proven historic fact and expect to be taken seriously. The various editions of the TR (roughly 30 of them) are representitive of the Byzantine textform just as the various editions of NA (27 of them) are representitive of the Alexandrian textform.
     
    #99 TCassidy, Jan 3, 2006
  20. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    I seriously doubt that anyone who undertakes a serious study of the text and its variants will always come up with the TR or NA27. When I was a student we spent some time evaluating textual variants and questioned the NA committees decisions. When we presented them with our evaluation there was time when they changed their decision. The TR was often seen as a text with a conglomerate of additions.
     
    #100 gb93433, Jan 3, 2006
Page 5 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...