Is Darby a Good Translation?

[Ed Edwards]

Robycop3: //The whole "church age" thingie is a crock.
Not parts of it, but ALL of it. It was spread in the USA by a charlatan,
William Marrion Branham.//

That is a new name for me. I thought that John Nelson Darby
spent many of the years 1840-1870 speading such things
as 'church age' through the USofA. 1870 is 36 before
the Birth of William Marrion Branham in 1906???

Here is my 'take' on 'church age':
--------------------------------------------------------------------

These are what i'm calling "the church age"
or Gentile Age:

Mt 12:32 (nKJV):
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man,
it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks
against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven
him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mt 13:39 (nKJV):
The enemy who sowed them is the devil,
the harvest is the end of the age,
and the reapers are the angels.

Mt 13:40 (nKJV):
Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned
in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.

Mt 13:49 (nKJV):
So it will be at the end of the age.
The angels will come forth, separate the
wicked from among the just,

Mt 24:3 (nKJV):
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives,
the disciples came to Him privately, saying,
"Tell us, when will these things be?
And what will be the sign of Your coming,
and of the end of the age?"

Mt 28:20 (nKJV):
teaching them to observe all things that I have
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
even to the end of the age." Amen.

Mr 10:30 (nKJV):
who shall not receive a hundredfold now
in this time--houses and brothers and sisters
and mothers and children and lands,
with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life.

Lu 18:30 (nKJV):
who shall not receive many times more in this present time,
and in the age to come eternal life."

Lu 20:34-35 (nKJV):
And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age
marry and are given in marriage.
But those who are counted worthy to attain that age,
and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry
nor are given in marriage;

1Co 1:20 (nKJV):
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the
disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish
the wisdom of this world?

1Co 2:6 (nKJV):
However, we speak wisdom among those who
are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age,
nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

1Co 2:8 (nKJV):
which none of the rulers ofthis age knew;
for had they known, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory.


1Co 3:18 (nKJV):
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems
to be wise in this age, let him become a fool
that he may become wise.

2Co 4:4 (nKJV):
whose minds the god of this age has blinded,
who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel
of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine on them.

Ga 1:4 (nKJV):
who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver
us from this present evil age,
according to the will of our God and Father,

Eph 1:21 (nKJV):
far above all principality and power and might
and dominion, and every name that is named,
not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

Eph 6:12 (nKJV):
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this age,
against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

1Ti 6:17 (nKJV):
Command those who are rich in this present age
not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain
riches but in the living God, who gives us
richly all things to enjoy.

Tit 2:12 (nKJV):
teaching us that, denying ungodliness and
worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
righteously, and godly in the present age,


Gentile Age:

Luke 21:24 (nKJV):
24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword,
and be led away captive into all nations.
And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles
until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This excerpt from the Mount Olivet Discourse
parallels Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21.
All are the MOD speaking of Jesus, when
He predicted what would happen in the future.

 

[robycop3]

Darby did indeed preach it in the USA, but it then gained only a small following. It didn't take off until Branham used the power of modern media to spread it much more massively than Darby ever imagined. However, it was a crock when Darby invented it, a crock when he, then Branham, spread it, still a crock today, and will continue to be a crock long as it exists.

There is but ONE "Church Age", the "Age of Grace", the one begun by Jesus which still continues.

However, I won't reject Darby's Bible because he invented a false doctrine; that doctrine isn't contrary to the Gospel in any way. But it IS false, and therefore I reject it in toto.

I believe Darby's Bible is a valid version.

 

[Mel Miller]

Darby's Translation

Eliyahu

Quote:
_____________________________________________________________
As for grammatical accuracy, Darby exerted the utmost effort to follow the Word-To-Word principle.
____________________________________________________________

I agree because Darby, along with The New Jerusalem Bible and the first Living Bible, correctly render Rev.14:10 by translating that God's "fury (thumos) will mix in the Cup of His wrath (orgay)"!


All other Bibles, including my favorite KJV, mis-translates Rev.14:10 by translating that God's "wrath (thumos) will mix in the Cup of His indignation" or "His anger" or "His wrath".

It is doctrinally vital that the Day of God's Wrath be recognized as the result of the exhaustion of His long-suffering (long-thumos) patience before the 7th Trumpet announces that "His wrath has come"! The last martyr who must be killed comes out from under the Altar only when the Plagues have "completed (exhausted) God's anger". New Jerusalem Bible.

My main argument for these three translations' correctness is that "no one enters the Temple until the last Plague empties in the air". Rev.15:8. Then the Tribunal of Seal Seven renders its Verdict and the 7th Trumpet proclaims that "God's wrath has come and the appointed (kairos) time" for the three R's, i.e., Resurrection of the dead, Rewards to the Saints and Retribution on those destroying the earth. Rev.15:8; Rev.11:18.

Mel Miller

 

[EdSutton]

I believe he over-used the name "Jehovah".

The "Johannine Comma" thingie is not at all settled. We can still only GUESS whether it belongs or not.

In Darby's day, it was not correct English to use Easter for Passover.

The whole "church age" thingie is a crock. Not parts of it, but ALL of it. It was spread in the USA by a charlatan, William Marrion Branham.

I have a home church which is Baptist, but if I had to leave it for any reason, I would completely refuse to even attend, let alone join, any church that would try to tell my wife and me how to wear our hair, how to dress, etc. The Plymouth brethren are far-too-legalistic for me.

Overall, I believe Darby's Bible to be valid, despite its composer's being saddled with a false doctrine he made.

William Marrion Branham? I'd never heard of him, until now. And after finding out a bit about him, "Man- You gots to be kiddin' me!" I am pushing or supporting no one here, per se, but any of the group of C.I. Scofield, Arno C. Gaebelin, William L. Pettingill, Clarence Larkin, Harry A. Ironside and/or Lewis Sperry Chafer had to have had more influence by accident that William Marrion Branham had by design.

As to popularizing some particular terminology, that might be another story. As might Mr. Branham being "a charlatan". for I will not argue against either of these two suggestions. But let's not give William Branham (or anyone else, for that matter), credit he or she does not really merit! And I'd suggest you are giving far too much credit as to influence, here.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Eliyahu

Quote:
_____________________________________________________________
As for grammatical accuracy, Darby exerted the utmost effort to follow the Word-To-Word principle.
____________________________________________________________

I agree because Darby, along with The New Jerusalem Bible and the first Living Bible, correctly render Rev.14:10 by translating that God's "fury (thumos) will mix in the Cup of His wrath (orgay)"!


All other Bibles, including my favorite KJV, mis-translates Rev.14:10 by translating that God's "wrath (thumos) will mix in the Cup of His indignation" or "His anger" or "His wrath".

It is doctrinally vital that the Day of God's Wrath be recognized as the result of the exhaustion of His long-suffering (long-thumos) patience before the 7th Trumpet announces that "His wrath has come"! The last martyr who must be killed comes out from under the Altar only when the Plagues have "completed (exhausted) God's anger". New Jerusalem Bible.

My main argument for these three translations' correctness is that "no one enters the Temple until the last Plague empties in the air". Rev.15:8. Then the Tribunal of Seal Seven renders its Verdict and the 7th Trumpet proclaims that "God's wrath has come and the appointed (kairos) time" for the three R's, i.e., Resurrection of the dead, Rewards to the Saints and Retribution on those destroying the earth. Rev.15:8; Rev.11:18.

Mel Miller

With all due respect, Mel, I'd suggest that deciding on "grammatical accuracy" on the basis of how a handful of prophetic words are rendered [out of 800, 000, give or take (+) 50,000] is an extremely shaky foundation, indeed. And surely you can't be serious about comparing a "translation" such as Darby and/or The New Jerusalem Bible, whether or not one agrees with the motivation for the version, to the paraphrase/commentary/interpretation of the late Kenneth Taylor that is the Living Bible, regardless of how easy to read, overall that it is.

This is somewhat akin to comparing, not apples and oranges, but apples and hamburgers. There is simply no way to compare the two, adequately or accurately.

Ed

P.S. I apologize for calling you 'Shirley!' :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Mel Miller]

Darby's Translation

With all due respect, Mel, I'd suggest that deciding on "grammatical accuracy" on the basis of how a handful of prophetic words are rendered [out of 800, 000, give or take (+) 50,000] is an extremely shaky foundation, indeed. And surely you can't be serious about comparing a "translation" such as Darby and/or The New Jerusalem Bible, whether or not one agrees with the motivation for the version, to the paraphrase/commentary/interpretation of the late Kenneth Taylor that is the Living Bible, regardless of how easy to read, overall that it is.

This is somewhat akin to comparing, not apples and oranges, but apples and hamburgers. There is simply no way to compare the two, adequately or accurately.

Ed
_____________________________________________________________
Thanks for your correct observation about the inadequacy of comparing versions and translations. My point has not yet been acknowledged as to why the KJV (my favorite despite the comparisons) never translated the
word *thumos* as "anger"!!! The mold was set by the "tradition of men" that God cannot be made subject to the "perturbations (agitations) of human anger". See "anger" in The Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.

The Catholic Bible called "The New Jerusalem Bible", was published a century after that of Darby; yet both broke out of the "mold" set by philosophies of human origin! The Living Bible paraphrase was not bound by those philosophies!! So, until you or anyone offers a better explanation (than that of human philosophy) to explain why all major translations "mix wrath with anger" instead of mixing God's "exhuasted anger" (Rev.14:10; Rev.15:1) with His irreversible wrath ON THE DAY OF WRATH, then I take it you are still stuck in the mold of "men's traditions"!!! Compare Col.2:8 and the inverted translation for "anger and wrath" in the KJV of Col.3:8.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net :thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

William Marrion Branham? I'd never heard of him, until now. And after finding out a bit about him, "Man- You gots to be kiddin' me!" I am pushing or supporting no one here, per se, but any of the group of C.I. Scofield, Arno C. Gaebelin, William L. Pettingill, Clarence Larkin, Harry A. Ironside and/or Lewis Sperry Chafer had to have had more influence by accident that William Marrion Branham had by design. As to popularizing some particular terminology, that might be another story. As might Mr. Branham being "a charlatan". for I will not argue against either of these two suggestions. But let's not give William Branham (or anyone else, for that matter), credit he or she does not really merit! And I'd suggest you are giving far too much credit as to influence, here. Ed

Branham was just about the first phony televangelist. Among other things, he preached salvation by works. He claimed Divine protection, but musta neglected to pay his dues one month because he was killed in 1965 by a drunk driver. While a teenager, I heard him more than once on TV. Today, he's represented on TV by Arnold Murray & the "Shepherd's Chapel".


Wanna see what a quack he was? http://people.delphiforums.com/JohnK63/home.htm

He has quite a fan club still left. You can Google his name & find all kinda sites about him.

I think we've gotten off-track from the darby Bible in discussing a false doctrine of Darby's. And I've found no link between that doctrine and Darby's Bible.

 

[EdSutton]

With all due respect, Mel, I'd suggest that deciding on "grammatical accuracy" on the basis of how a handful of prophetic words are rendered [out of 800, 000, give or take (+) 50,000] is an extremely shaky foundation, indeed. And surely you can't be serious about comparing a "translation" such as Darby and/or The New Jerusalem Bible, whether or not one agrees with the motivation for the version, to the paraphrase/commentary/interpretation of the late Kenneth Taylor that is the Living Bible, regardless of how easy to read, overall that it is.

This is somewhat akin to comparing, not apples and oranges, but apples and hamburgers. There is simply no way to compare the two, adequately or accurately.

Ed
_____________________________________________________________
Thanks for your correct observation about the inadequacy of comparing versions and translations. My point has not yet been acknowledged as to why the KJV (my favorite despite the comparisons) never translated the
word *thumos* as "anger"!!! The mold was set by the "tradition of men" that God cannot be made subject to the "perturbations (agitations) of human anger". See "anger" in The Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.

The Catholic Bible called "The New Jerusalem Bible", was published a century after that of Darby; yet both broke out of the "mold" set by philosophies of human origin! The Living Bible paraphrase was not bound by those philosophies!! So, until you or anyone offers a better explanation (than that of human philosophy) to explain why all major translations "mix wrath with anger" instead of mixing God's "exhuasted anger" (Rev.14:10; Rev.15:1) with His irreversible wrath ON THE DAY OF WRATH, then I take it you are still stuck in the mold of "men's traditions"!!! Compare Col.2:8 and the inverted translation for "anger and wrath" in the KJV of Col.3:8.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net :thumbs:

With all respect, Mel, I don't believe I'm stuck in the mold of anything. Frankly i believe "the mold was broken" after God formed each of us. and we are all individuals. However, I cannot agree with oine thing you seem to be saying her. Namely, that you seem to be reading Theology back nto the Bible, hence eisegesis. Whether that is Eschatology, Fcclesiology, Anthropology or any of the other 'ologies', presented by Scripture, that is not how you go about it. How 'thumos' or 'metanoeo' (which happens to lead into my own pet peeve) or the other word you have mentioned in the vein, or any I have touched on are supported by the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic Language, is one thing. But to translate on the basis of building a theological argument, as in perhaps the most egregious example I know, the NWT and the rendering of John 1:1, is deplorable, regardless of who does it.

Ed

P.S. I'd offer that if only 3 versions render something one way, and 50 render it another, I'm at least going to consider the 50, whether or not I wind up agreeing. Especially if I might assume there was no ax to grind, to start with.

And I have no clue why most translated most things, in a particular and given way, per se.

 

[EdSutton]

Branham was just about the first phony televangelist. Among other things, he preached salvation by works. He claimed Divine protection, but musta neglected to pay his dues one month because he was killed in 1965 by a drunk driver. While a teenager, I heard him more than once on TV. Today, he's represented on TV by Arnold Murray & the "Shepherd's Chapel".


Wanna see what a quack he was? http://people.delphiforums.com/JohnK63/home.htm

He has quite a fan club still left. You can Google his name & find all kinda sites about him.

I think we've gotten off-track from the darby Bible in discussing a false doctrine of Darby's. And I've found no link between that doctrine and Darby's Bible.

The last line is good, for Darby did more than one translation, I believe, including one in French. Regardless of whether can go along with some of his ideas, he was overall an outstanding Bible translator, especially if the work was all or mostly done by him. Compare one with the number that worked on some other translations, including the "A.V." and the "R'.V.".

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Apart from the Bible translation, the life of Darby is quite impressive and challenging to the believers.
He was a brilliant judge at the court, and many expected he could become the judge at the supreme court, but he gave up such occupation for the Lord.
He believed that the Holy Spirit who is the Author of the Bible doesn't work in the believers mind in contradiction to what He said in the Bible.
He believed that the New Testament is the summary of the commandments after the Cross and it has all the teachings sufficient for the NT churches today. Therefore he studied Bible and found the the Early Church followed Preaching Gospel, Baptism of the Born-again believers, Weekly Lord Supper ( Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 11:23-30), Women's head covering ( 1 Cor 11:1-16), No other calling than Brothers and Sisters ( Mt 23:8-11), Plural Elders in local churches ( Phil 1:1, Acts 20:17-28, Tit 1:5-9, 1 Tim 3:1-7), All born-again believers are the saints and priests ( 1 Pet 2:5-9), There is no ground for separating between Clergy or Priests and Laymen, Laywomen on the Bible, the Pulpit belongs to Holy Spirit and must be open to the Believers ( 1 Cor 14:29-31).
The Head of the local churches is Jesus Christ and all the believers are equally invited to His Assembly as honorable guests.
No human being can teach Holy Spirit or improve what He has shown as an example in the Bible. There should be disciplines in the church for any misconducts and for any wrong-doings.

The most impressive story was that he carried only the Bibles, some bread, and blankets on a horse when he travelled throughout Europe, to New Zealand and to USA, preaching the gospel, living the thrifty life as a lifetime bachelor
He was a man of God.

 

[Mel Miller]

Darby is a good translation

Ed Sutton,

Quote:
___________________________________________________________
"You seem to be reading Theology back nto the Bible, hence eisegesis".
___________________________________________________________

How is it eisegesis that God's long-suffering (makro-thumia; long anger)
will continue until the "Day of Wrath"? Rom.2:4-5.

Why does Darby stand alone in translating Rev.14:10 to show that God's thumos (anger) will be mixed full strength (not diluted) with His orgay (wrath) where it explains why Beast worshipers will end up in Hell?

In Rom.2:8 we find thumos as meaning "anger" and not "wrath" as so often translated by the KJV in Revelation. "Fury and wrath" will come upon unbelievers who treasure up wrath until the Day of Wrath. But the anger continues until the Day of Wrath. The TR of Rom.2:8 has thumos and orgay while MT manuscripts invert the order with "orgay and thumos".

The non-scriptural theology of anger and wrath being synonymous was introduced (eisegesis) by the KJV translating the Plagues as "completing God's thumos/WRATH" instead of "anger"! God's "longsuffering (long anger)must be finished, exhausted, before His wrath sets in on the Last Day. In Rev.14:10, where all manuscripts place thumos first, the KJV could have easily translated thumos as "anger" instead of "wrath". But in the rut of men's tradition, they were prevented from ever translating "thumos as anger". Had they translated thumos as anger in Rev.14:10; Rev.14:19; Rev.15:1,7 and Rev.16:1, the false doctrine of a Pre-Trib Rapture could not have been supported by claiming we are exempt from God's wrath.

We are exempt from God's wrath that sends men to Hell ... and that is
true exegesis! To deny that God's "long-anger" continues until the last Day, without mixing in the Cup of His wrath, is false doctrine!! To even suggest that His "anger mixes with His wrath" before the last Plague empties in the air contradicts that God can and will forgive anyone who calls on the Lord even if it means no more than to be "kept alive" on the Day Christ comes in glory with all the saints!!!

The doctrine that "God is not willing that any should perish" is put in question by implying God destines men to Hell before Christ comes to
allow "all Israel to be saved on that Day"! Calvinist doctrine that "no
one can be saved after Christ appears" has left a false understanding of God's forgiving heart until that last Hour!! In that Hour of Trial, and on that Day of Wrath, millions will bow and "beg to escape all the things happening" and they are the ones by whom He will begin to be "admired ON that Day". Luke 17:33; Luke 21:36; Joel 2:32; Rom.11:26; 2 Thess.1:10.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net :wavey: