-
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!
How To scripturally Determine the Mind of God on the Modern Practice of Paraphrasing His Words
- Thread starter JD731
- Start date
- Status
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
What version do you not consider to be a paraphrase?
Sometimes word for word doesn't work (like with "logos"), but while paraphrasing can lend clarity it is not necessarily lending accuracy (it is explaining what somebody thinks the passage means).
That said, our understanding of Scripture would be a paraphrase if written down. So paraphrasing as a type of personal meditation on God's Word may not necessarily be a bad thing (if we don't lean on that understanding).
That said, our understanding of Scripture would be a paraphrase if written down. So paraphrasing as a type of personal meditation on God's Word may not necessarily be a bad thing (if we don't lean on that understanding).
The makers of the KJV used this practice of paraphrasing some of God's words. According to their marginal notes in the 1611 edition, they also used the practice of providing no English rendering for many original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts. Is the paraphrasing in the KJV a good thing?
The KJV does not give word-for-word literal renderings for every original-language word in its underlying original-language texts.
Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001), who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admitted his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version Controversy, p. 230). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.).
Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.; Bible Version Controversy, p. 231).
The KJV does not give word-for-word literal renderings for every original-language word in its underlying original-language texts.
Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001), who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admitted his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version Controversy, p. 230). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.).
Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.; Bible Version Controversy, p. 231).
While your comments in no way addresses the question, I think you are saying that all translations are paraphrases of something?
We have works that identify themselves as paraphrases and are sold at the Bible counter in Christian book stores. Are you talking about these, and if not, how do we determine the mind of God on the practice of paraphrasing his words?
I am not really looking for a debate about it. I am asking how can we know the mind of God on the practice. Obviously if someone has an opinion on it, whether it is good or bad, it is because they have considered it from the word of God and reached a conclusion.
So you teach that all translations are paraphrases but some paraphrases are better than others and God does not really have anything to offer on the subject?
Think about this for a minute. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, begins his ministry with quotes from Isaiah. He inspired the Scriptures of the OT. He quoted many of those OT scriptures in his sermons as he ministered to Israel for 3.5 years.
Get this now, there are people who wants us to think that God chose an error laden Greek language paraphrase, if a translation is nothing more than a paraphrase by men, the LXX, over his own inspired words in Hebrew as he preached to Hebrews of his coming being the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy.
This seems like an over the top theology to me.
John 12:44-48
44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
Can anybody really say that God quoted men in a paraphrase to give us the words of life?
Get this now, there are people who wants us to think that God chose an error laden Greek language paraphrase, if a translation is nothing more than a paraphrase by men, the LXX, over his own inspired words in Hebrew as he preached to Hebrews of his coming being the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy.
This seems like an over the top theology to me.
John 12:44-48
44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
Can anybody really say that God quoted men in a paraphrase to give us the words of life?
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about those books.
How do we determine the mind of God on the practice of paraphrasing His words? Good question. I suppose we don't (can't).
Commentaries are, in essence, Scripture paraphrased. But they present themselves as such (people don't always use them that way, unfortunately, but that isn't the fault of the commentaries).
The problem with paraphrase Bibles is that they present themselves as translations when they are not always faithful to the words being translated.
I still find value in these paraphrases, but not for study.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Actually it was a serious question for you. Since you seem to think the KJV is a good translation I was curious as to what bibles you considered a paraphrase.
How To scripturally Determine the Mind of God on the Modern Practice of Paraphrasing His Words
From the title it would indicate that you think all modern bibles are a paraphrase so yes I was dealing with your question. But I notice that you did not answer to the question I put to you so I will rephrase it.
Are there any modern translations that you do not consider a paraphrase?
Well again, the Scriptures do not contain any instructions about how to translate from one language to another.
We must learn by example.
Fortunately, the Bible provides quite a few examples of translation… and quite a few examples of their use of paraphrase by both Jesus and his disciples.
Without some input from you, those that post are left without structure about what you desire to focus your attention upon.
Rob
Last edited:
Yes, God chose to use the LXX mightily. Alexander conquered much of the known world and spread the Greek language and culture around the world. The New Testament often quotes the Old Testament in Greek. Look at the Old Testament quotations. They will a lot of times agree with the Greek more than the Hebrew. The LXX is in the KJV.
In some respects, Sermons are a paraphrase of the Word
When you ask for opinions concerning which they would likely be differences of opinion and even disagreement, you are in effect looking for debate about it.
You do not define what you mean by paraphrasing.
You suggested that it is only present English Bibles that engage in paraphrasing while you in effect try to ignore the same thing in the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the 1611 KJV.
You do not demonstrate that you take any consistent or scriptural position on this matter of paraphrasing.
Last edited:
You try to put words in my mouth that I did not say while you do not deal with what I accurately stated.
I did not claim that all Bible translations are completely paraphrases. It would involve use of a fallacy to assert or suggest that because an English Bible translation has some paraphrasing that its complete text should be called or considered a paraphrase.
Focus. You are answering questions that have not been asked and ignoring those that have. Are you capable of understanding the op?
Some Baptists agree it is a good thing. Others not so much. How can we know?
It is hard for me to believe that a man like you does not know what a paraphrase is. It is not hard to believe you will plead ignorance to avoid answering the question that was asked.
An example of a paraphrase is Taylor’s “Living Bible.” How can we know ithe mind of God on that and what was the process of your own conclusions about it? Was it because of something God said or was it just a matter of personal choice.
- Status