Search results

The main mss having "to the Ephesians" is p46, which I admit is an important one, but as mentioned I'm Byzantine priority.

I dislike the term "corrupted" as used by textual criticism scholars. While I know it's a technical term, not meant to insult the Word of God, it still rubs me the wrong way. But I do believe the Alexandrian mss are not completely accurate. At any rate, my position is Byzantine Priority...

Not necessarily. Could just be an evangelical who pays too much attention to liberal thinking. As for Paul writing Hebrews. I have no real opinion about that. As far as I know there is no historical or mss evidence either way on that. I've never taught the book (yet), so until I do I'll reserve...

Not necessarily. Could just be an evangelical who pays too much attention to liberal thinking. As for Paul writing Hebrews. I have no real opinion about that. As far as I know there is no historical or mss evidence either way on that. I've never taught the book (yet), so until I do I'll reserve...

Please don't spread doubt that Moses wrote his books. That's old hat. Brilliant conservative scholar O. T. Allis completely proved that Moses wrote the "Five Books of Moses" with his landmark 1943 treatise The Five Books of Moses. Only liberals doubt it nowadays. Again, the idea that Paul did...

There are at least a couple of ways the title is written: "According to Matthew" (UBS, Byz., etc), "The Gospel According to Matthew" (TR), etc. But I'm sure you are right, they all have some title about Matthew. I have a bunch of various Greek NTs, and they all include a title with attribution...

Who put what important words in italics? Is that tongue in cheek??

As long as I giving definitions, just to show I'm not out in left field about "reader response," here is Nida's own definition of DE: “dynamic equivalence: quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of...

I should note here that the term "thought for thought" has been around for over 2000 years. Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, in defining word-for-word, note: "A method of translating which entails precise fidelity to the wording of ST (source text--JoJ). Like its opposite, SENSE-FOR-SENSE...

I mentioned Steve Combs as a KJVO writer I respect. Here is his correct definition of dynamic equivalence: "The theory of Dynamic Equivalence says that the new translation should cause the r3eaders to react the same way that the original readers reacted" (A Practical Theology of Bible...

You are correct. In fact, that is what made Nida change his terminology. His chronicler wrote: “Nida later felt that the term 'dynamic equivalence' had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term 'dynamic' to refer to...

About the conjunctions, in Matthew 2 of the KJV, there are three verses that do not translate the Greek conjunction δε (de), meaning and or but or not. v. 9—When they had heard the king, Οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως v. 10— When they saw the star, Ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα v. 14— When he arose, Ὁ...

I never use the term "dynamic" for the KJV. To do so is to misunderstand the methodology of DE, which aims to produce a response from the reader that is equal to the response of the original readers: "reader response theory." So the rendering is sometimes similar, but the method of the KJV...

References?

Of the definitions of word-for-word that Logos 1560 kindly laid out for us, the best is that of H. D. Williams, which is odd since he knows neither Greek nor Hebrew, and is fluent in no foreign language. (He and I have clashed.) He at least considers the syntax (sentence structure), which the...

I find it quite ironic that Williams and Steward use the terminology of dynamic equivalence (DE, also called functional equivalence), which is the invention of the neo-orthodox scholar Eugene Nida: "receptor." In DE theory, what is important is not authorial intent (God's intent!) but how the...

I meant to write that the KJV translators did not know about the Granville Sharp rule, and tried to correct this, but apparently my correction did not make it past the AI editor (or who or whatever!).

I don't know about some of those guys, but Williams, Sorensen, Oullette, Bynam, Grady, Riplinger, DeVreis, and Hyles were not or are not linguists or Bible translators. So their opinions are worthless to me. We just had a chapel speaker who is helping on ten (I think it was) missionary Bible...

You are correct about the Granville Sharp rule and the deity of Christ. Good point! My son and I are team teaching a class in Pastoral Epistles (we both teach Greek also), and he mentioned the rule in class just today. However, Granville Sharp actually lived 1735-1813, so it's not a recent rule...

The KJV is definitely a word-for-word translation by my definition, though some have a more radical definition wherein it is called "an extreme form of literal translation in which a TL ("target language"). I have compared the entire NT to the Greek. But the usual definition of "word-for-word"...