Best 5 Translations ?

[JonC]

1) God created Adam in His own likeness, thus like a son. Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 5:1.
2) The Greek does not have a word for son, but son is implied, thus nearly all translators read "son of God or son of God."
3) The statement I want a word for word translation when it suits [me] is inaccurate. I say word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation methodology is the best way to translate our Bibles.
4) I am consistent, and your charge I am inconsistent is slanderous nonsense. It is also fallacious argumentation, i.e.. against the man.
5) The translation of monogenes (i.e. one kind) as "only" is a mistranslation. Now the Greek word "mono" (G3441) is often translated as "only" but to leave "genes" out of the inspired text is a mistranslation. The word means "unique or "one of a kind"

No. You are talking about apples and oranges.

Scripture said that God sent His only υἱός. The Greek word means child (of either gender, but Jesus came as a male....so son). If God had other children the verse would be incorrect.

Scripture, as you note, does not call Adam God's son (you point out the word wouldn't indicate "son", BUT in regards to Christ ....not Adam....Jesus is called God's only child).

You are interpreting words based on your preference rather than what is written.

Are there ANY verses that actually call Adam (or anybody prior to God sending Jesus) God's child (υἱός) OR was Jesus the ONLY ONE at the time?

 

[JonC]

Although I responded to this insightful question in post #28, I did not mention the OT Saints ensconced in Abraham's bosom when Christ was incarnated. No, they were not yet "children or sons of God" but they had been set apart (saints) to be made perfect, thus becoming the children of God.

I agree that, because of Christ's work, we (and they) are children of God.
My point is that when God sent Jesus He sent His ONLY SON (no other had yet the right to be called a child of God).

The only objection you can reasonably offer to translating the verse as God sending His only Son is that the word υἱός is not gender specific (that God not only sent His only Son He sent His only child.....no daughters before Christ either).

I simply find that argument lacking because Jesus, while God's "only child" was male......a male child is called one's son while a female child is called one's daughter.

 

[Van]

No. You are talking about apples and oranges.

Scripture said that God sent His only υἱός. The Greek word means child (of either gender, but Jesus came as a make....so son). If God had other children the verse would be incorrect.

Scripture, as you note, does not call Adam God's son (you point out the word wouldn't indicate "son", BUT in regards to Christ ....not Adam....Jesus is called God's only child).

You are interpreting words based on your preference rather than what is written.

Are there ANY verses that actually call Adam (or anybody prior to God sending Jesus) God's child (υἱός) OR was Jesus the ONLY ONE at the time?

1) Save you non sequitur, I know an apple from an orange.
2) Scripture does not say God sent His only Son. It says God sent His unique or one of a kind Son.
3) The Greek of Luke 3:38 does not have a word for son, but son is implied, thus nearly all translators read "son of God or son of God."
4) You are interpreting words based on your misunderstanding rather that the contextual meaning.

 

[Van]

I agree that, because of Christ's work, we (and they) are children of God.
My point is that when God sent Jesus He sent His ONLY SON (no other had yet the right to be called a child of God).

The only objection you can reasonably offer to translating the verse as God sending His only Son is that the word υἱός is not gender specific (that God not only sent His only Son He sent His only child.....no daughters before Christ either).

I simply find that argument lacking because Jesus, while God's "only child" was male......a male child is called one's son while a female child is called one's daughter.

1) Adam was called the son of God. I could list more than 50 English translations.
2) Please do not invent absurd objections and place them in my mouth.
3) The claim that Adam is the son of God obviously not mine alone.

The reference to the son of God here is not to a divine being, but to one directly formed by the hand of God. He is made in God’s image, so this phrase could be read as appositional (“Adam, that is, the son of God”). See Acts 17:28-29. (NET footnote0​

For humanity to be descendants of God, Adam must in some sense be the son descendant of God.

 

[Alan Gross]

According to Jason Soroski

The best 5 translations

My top 5 translations;

1. The King James Version,
2. The Geneva Bible (1557-60,
3. The Great Bible (1539-41),
4. The Matthew’s Bible (1537),
5. Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535).

I Thessalonians 2:13 "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

Jason Soroski says the following and I don't know of any evidence for the portions I marked in red and I do not believe any evidence exists to support them as accurate.

"When coming across words that rhyme in the original languages, do translators strive to find similar rhymes in English to keep the poetry, or do they ignore the rhyme to keep the meaning? These decisions are difficult enough when dealing with Shakespeare, but they take on eternal significance when handling the Word of God, theological accuracy, and a clear picture of what it means to be saved.

"This is the motivation behind so many Bible translations: they are all essentially seeking a way to present the truth of God’s Word in a way that is the most accurate and yet the most understandable by the most people."

I do not believe those words are true for a second that "they are all essentially seeking a way to present the truth of God’s Word in a way that is the most accurate."

I view their scheme and "the motivation behind so many Bible translations" very differently.

This question and answer are from:
NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS
by Jeffrey Khoo.

Question:

"Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in order to call it “the word of God”?

"If so, how do we know “it” is perfect?

"If not, why do some limit “the word of God” to only one 17th Century English translation?

"Where was “the word of God” prior to 1611?

Answer:

"We believe that “the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations.

"The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorised Version and say ‘This is the Word of God!’ while at the same time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.” (The Dean Burgon Society, “Articles of Faith,” section II.A.)

"Every Bible translation can be legitimately called “the Word of God” if it is true and faithful to the original and traditional text.

"We refuse to consider heretical Bibles like the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as “the Word of God.”

"We also reject as unreliable all Bible versions (eg NIV, TEV, TLB, CEV …) that are a result of the dynamic equivalence method of translation, and those (eg RSV, NASB, ESV …) that cast doubt and/or omit verses based on corrupted readings of the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort Text, and consider them unsafe for use.

"Where was the Word of God prior to 1611?

"Well, the Word of God is found in * the divinely inspired and perfectly preserved Traditional Text of OT and NT Scriptures used and recognized by the Church down through the ages, and in all the faithful and reliable translations that were based on those Texts, viz,

Martin Luther’s German Bible (1522),
William Tyndale’s Bible (1525),
Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535),
The Matthew’s Bible (1537),
The Great Bible (1539-41),
and The Geneva Bible (1557-60).

"It is significant to note that prior to the KJV, the English translations were largely individual efforts.

"The KJV on the other hand is a corporate work.

"In the words of the translators,
the KJV was not produced “to make a bad one a good one;
but to make a good one better,
or out of many good ones one principal good one.”

"For this purpose and with such devotion the KJV translation committee was formed..."

* I will qualify, "the divinely inspired and perfectly preserved Traditional Text of OT and NT Scriptures", as "divinely inspired and perfectly preserved", by the Transcendent Superindendance of the Spirit of God to result in the "Traditional Text of OT and NT Scriptures", being not having Plenary Inspiration but being Suffeciantly Inspired as the result of their origin and preserved more perfectly than humanly possible.

Same with the KJV.

Produced overall more perfectly than humanly possible.

 

[37818]

That I would understand - so the orginial NIV would be ok?

The 1984 NIV is their better revision. It still has problems, compare, 1 Corinthians 7:1.

 

[Van]

John 3:16 in some early versions:
KJV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Geneva Bible
For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Great Bible
For God so loue the worlde, that, he gaue is only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.
Matthew Bible
For God so loueth the worlde, that he hath geuen his only sonne, that none that beleue in him, should perishe: but should haue euerlastinge lyfe.
Cloverdale
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his onely sonne, that who so euer beleueth in hi, shulde not perishe, but haue euerlastinge life

As you may be able to decipher, all of these versions mistranslated how God demonstrated His love, mistranslated monogenes either as begotten or only, and use archaic language.

Question:

"Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in order to call it “the word of God”?

"If so, how do we know “it” is perfect?

"If not, why do some limit “the word of God” to only one 17th Century English translation?

"Where was “the word of God” prior to 1611?

Answers.

No, we should call the Bibles we use the Word of God.

No version should be thought to be perfect, but we should strive to understand God's word as perfectly as we can.

I have no idea why anyone would claim any version other than the KJV is not the word of God.

The word of God, including the NT has been available, as copies of the originals since the 1st Century AD.

 

[John of Japan]

.

The NIV is now even less a literal translation of God's word.

1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” . . ."

Versus, KJV, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. . . ."


NASB, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. . . ."

See Proverhs 6:29, "So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent."

The change from "touch a woman" to "have sexual relations" is a recent one based on the faulty premise that "touch a woman" is a euphemism. There are fads in Bible translation, and this is one. Not hard to prove this one wrong. If that verse were talking about adultery, Paul would not have used a euphemism, as witness his word "fornication" in the next verse. So we should understand the fact that illicit relationships begin with touching. That's a no brainer.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"Touch a woman; a euphemism for sexual intercourse." [The New Bible Commentary Revised : Guthrie, Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman editors, published in 1970]

"Some of the Corinthians were convinced that their lives would be more pleasing to God if they abstained from sexual relations (1 Cor7:1)" [Paul : apostle Of God's Glory In Christ : A Pauline Theology by Thomas R. Schreiner, page 427. Published in 2001]

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Proverbs 6:29 as rendered in the NET Bible :
"So it is with the one who has sex with his neighbor's wife; no one who touches her will escape punishment."

The footnote for the word touches follows :
"The verb 'touches' is intended here to be a euphemism for illegal sexual contact (e.g., Gen 20:6)."

 

[Silverhair]

The change from "touch a woman" to "have sexual relations" is a recent one based on the faulty premise that "touch a woman" is a euphemism. There are fads in Bible translation, and this is one. Not hard to prove this one wrong. If that verse were talking about adultery, Paul would not have used a euphemism, as witness his word "fornication" in the next verse. So we should understand the fact that illicit relationships begin with touching. That's a no brainer.

Another special use connotes cohabitation. So, Abimelech states he had not touched Rebekah (Gen20:6). Proverbs says that whoever touches (goes to and has relations with) an adulteress shall be punished (Proverbs 6:29). Boaz instructs his workers not to "touch" (RSV, molest) Ruth (Ruth 2:9). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

From what the TWOT says it would seem that this is not that new of a concept.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"It is good for a man to have no sexual contact with a woman." [The Kingdom New Testament N.T. Wright, 2011]

"It is a good thing for a man not to have intercourse with a woman." (The Revised English Bible 1989]

Of course the latter didn't say sexual intercourse. But it is implied. It certainly didn't mean not to have conversations with women.

The above are renderings of the important part of 1 Corinthians 7:1.

 

[John of Japan]

Another special use connotes cohabitation. So, Abimelech states he had not touched Rebekah (Gen20:6).

Not proof. If I accuse someone of being improper with a woman, it is quite natural for them to say, "I didn't touch her," with an ambiguous meaning denying the improper action. In Abimilech's case, he was denying everything with this ambiguous statement. Not a problem for my semantic statement.

Proverbs says that whoever touches (goes to and has relations with) an adulteress shall be punished (Proverbs 6:29).

The Hebrew word there is נגע (nâga‛). One BDB lexicon meaning is "approach." A man is a fool to even approach a prostitute. It will mess up his life. But I admit, this reference is better for your position than the others.

Boaz instructs his workers not to "touch" (RSV, molest) Ruth (Ruth 2:9). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

Right. "Don't molest," not "don't commit fornication. Someone threatens my wife and I will say, "You touch her and you will regret it." I mean literally "touch" in that case.

From what the TWOT says it would seem that this is not that new of a concept.

TWOT is copyright 2003, so this supports my narrative that this interpretation of "touch" as a euphemism is recent.

 

[rsr]

How new is new? Touching as meaning sexual relations was the interpretation that John Gill took from the text in the 18th century. Pardon for quoting at length:

it is good for a man not to touch a woman; which is to be understood, not of merely touching a woman, which can neither be criminal, nor in all cases inexpedient, or be attended with any ill, or dangerous consequences; nor of the matrimonial contract, which is lawful and honourable; but of the act of carnal copulation with a woman: in this sense the Jews use the phrase,

"there are three (they say r) that fled from transgression, and the blessed God joined his name with them; and they are these, Joseph, and Joel, and Phalti. Joseph, as appears from what is said, Psalms 81:5 (NAS)
5 He established it for a testimony in Joseph When he went throughout the land of Egypt. I heard a language that I did not know:
Click link to access powerful study resources in a new window.
Powered by StudyTagger™ from StudyLight.org
" tooltipenable="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(200, 83, 53); margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px; cursor: pointer;">Psalms 81:5 "a testimony in Joseph is his name"; what is the meaning of the phrase "in Joseph?" this testifies concerning him,

שלא נגע באשת פוטיפר, "that he did not touch Potiphar's wife" (i.e. he did not lie with her); Jael, as is clear from what is said, Judges 4:18 (NAS)
18 Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, "Turn aside, my master, turn aside to me! Do not be afraid." And he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug.
Click link to access powerful study resources in a new window.
Powered by StudyTagger™ from StudyLight.org
" tooltipenable="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(200, 83, 53); margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px; cursor: pointer;">Judges 4:18 "and Jael went forth to meet Sisera, and she covered him with a mantle"; what is the meaning of the phrase, בשמיכה? (which is rendered, "with a mantle" our Rabbins here (in Babylon) say with a linen cloth; but our Rabbins there (in the land of Israel) say with bed clothes; says Resh Lekish, if we run over the whole Scripture, we shall not find any household goods so called; wherefore what is it? it is all one as שמי כה, "my name is thus": and the meaning is, my name witnesses concerning her, שלא נגע בה אותו רשע, "that that wicked one (Sisera) did not touch her" s; (i.e. had not carnal knowledge of her Phalti, as is evident from hence, one Scripture says, "and Saul gave Michal his daughter to Phalti", 1 Samuel 25:44 (NAS)
44 Now Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim.
Click link to access powerful study resources in a new window.
Powered by StudyTagger™ from StudyLight.org
" tooltipenable="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(200, 83, 53); margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px; cursor: pointer;">1 Samuel 25:44 and another Scripture says Phaltiel; sometimes he is called Phalti, and sometimes he is called Phaltiel; who takes Phalti? and who gives Phaltiel? but I testify concerning him; שלא נגע באשת דוד, "that he did not touch David's wife"; (i.e. did not lie with her''

see Genesis 20:6 (NAS)
6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
Click link to access powerful study resources in a new window.
Powered by StudyTagger™ from StudyLight.org
" tooltipenable="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(200, 83, 53); margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px; cursor: pointer;">Genesis 20:6. And in this sense also is the word "touch" used, both by Greek and Latin authors. The apostle's meaning is not that it is unlawful to marry, or that it is sinful to lie with a woman in lawful wedlock; but that it is much better, and more expedient on several accounts, to abstain from the use of women, when persons have the gift of continency.

John Gill Commentary

I'm not arguing whether Gill is correct or not, but that the interpretation is not at all new.

 

[JonC]

1) Save you non sequitur, I know an apple from an orange.
2) Scripture does not say God sent His only Son. It says God sent His unique or one of a kind Son.

I didn't mean you literally don't know the difference between an apple and an orange. It's a figure of speech that describes your posting here.

Scripture does say God sent His only Son. Scripture does not offer any children of God prior to God sending His only Son. You proved that (you rightly acknowledged that Scripture does not call Adam God's son but says Adam originated with God; that al other instances of children of God are after God sending His only Son).

Nothing else needs to be discussed. You were wrong, acknowledged your error (by mistake, I'm sure), and started trying to drive through the mess you made hoping we'd just let it go.

 

[John of Japan]

How new is new? Touching as meaning sexual relations was the interpretation that John Gill took from the text in the 18th century. Pardon for quoting at length:



John Gill Commentary

I'm not arguing whether Gill is correct or not, but that the interpretation is not at all new.

Thank you. Point made.

However, my point was about Bible translation, not commentaries. In order to translate as "have illicit relations" or something similar, the translator must be sure that there is an idiom or euphemism there. Otherwise the rendering becomes simple paraphrasing.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I listened to a sermon of John MacArthur from Nov. 30th of 1975 entitled To Marry, Or Not To Marry.
He cited several passages. One was Gen. 20:6. Pastor John said "To touch her means to have a physical relationship."

Ruth 2:9 : "To touch doesn't mean a tap on the shoulder" LOL.

Proverb 6:29 :
"So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished."

John MacArthur said "A physical, sexual relationship."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Footnotes from four translations dealing with 1 Cor. 7:1. The one from the NET is a significant snip.

CSB : Or "It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex."

EHV : The Greek word translated touch was a euphemism for sexual relations.

LEB : i.e.' in a sexual sense

NET : A euphemism for sexual relations. This idiom occurs ten times in Greek literature, and all of the references except one appear to refer to sexual relations.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

the translator must be sure that there is an idiom or euphemism there.

A euphemism falls under an idiom category.

 

[Van]

I didn't mean you literally don't know the difference between an apple and an orange. It's a figure of speech that describes your posting here.

Scripture does say God sent His only Son. Scripture does not offer any children of God prior to God sending His only Son. You proved that (you rightly acknowledged that Scripture does not call Adam God's son but says Adam originated with God; that al other instances of children of God are after God sending His only Son).

Nothing else needs to be discussed. You were wrong, acknowledged your error (by mistake, I'm sure), and started trying to drive through the mess you made hoping we'd just let it go.

I really do not know what your point is. Monogenes does not mean "only" it means unique.
I see you did not address how we are descendants of God, if Adam is not God's son.