-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
My Problems With MV's
- Thread starter Baptist4life
- Start date
The first Bible I was given was a KJV. The problem I have with the first MV I bought is that I was no longer in the fog anymore. The real problem I had was that I understood some of what I read and I needed to obey it and do what it said. I could no longer use the excuse that I did not understand anything and therefore there was no need to read it. I wrestled with God with many things for many years.
Point off!gb93433 said:All of the gospels were passed down by oral tradition and recorded in writing many years later. The second part of that verse is called direct discourse.
Point off again!franklinmonroe said:By your implication (that Mary's statement does not need to be accurate because it is "oral") we would be left with only two choices: that either Mary was mistaken, or she was lying. It impossible to believe that Mary herself could be confused about Joseph's role, so she wasn't factually ignorant; and it is doubtful she would lie since she knew that Jesus would not be deceived (it is ineffectual to misrepresent the truth to someone who is knowledgeable of the facts). While the Bible does record some 'true lies' (I think of Samson), this is NOT one of them. Clearly, Mary is neither in error nor bearing false witness here.
So, unless you you are suggesting that Mary was insane, we can logically conclude your distinction is meaningless; Mary's statement represents her genuine position on the matter.
You seem to be attempting to insert significance where it does not exist. If you insist on being hyper-literal about relationship terms then the KJV has illogically implied that Jesus was the "son of" multiple fathers (David & Abraham included).
Probably the best book on oral tradition is Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity : With Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Biblical Resource Series) by Birger Gerhardssonannsni said:can you enlighten us??
The Greek text shows which part of that verse is direct discourse by the wording. The English is in quotes.
gb93433 said:Probably the best book on oral tradition is Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity : With Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Biblical Resource Series) by Birger Gerhardsson
The Greek text shows which part of that verse is direct discourse by the wording. The English is in quotes.
But I don't understand how Mary saying "father" could mean anything different than if she wrote it. Joseph was Jesus' father to all around them. Legally, he was the father. As I said, no different than my father is my father legally but not physically.
paidagogos
Active Member
Problems with MV's
The debate over Bible versions for the most part has grown stagnant. The same old arguments and clichés are trotted out on both sides or there is delving into minutiae that are pretty much irrelevant in the broader sense of things. Both sides have propagated much nonsense and falsity. Both views have closed their minds to reason and rationality with loyalty to their opinion overriding their good sense. Having said that, one wonders what’s the purpose of continuing the debate? To steer us back to rationality and profitable discourse, I offer the following ideas for critique. These are not technical ideas or questions so that the informed layman can intelligently participate. I would ask that you address the issues, no more same old tired arguments and clichés, please.
There are, IMHO, many general problems with MVs as a class and specific problems with specific MVs. For this thread, I’ll only address the more general questions:
1. The basic premises of Westcott-Hort (I have their book) are fatally flawed. Although MV’s are not based on the original Westcott-Hort text, they are based on a modern critical text that follows the same underlying premises of modern textual criticism.
2. Basic modern textual criticism is flawed in thinking that it can restore the original text—a worthy ideal but an unattainable goal. By placing confidence in a flawed method, we are actually led away from accuracy and into greater uncertainty. It can produce only a statistical text with varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty.
3. There is no underlying scientific basis for textual criticism because the parameters are too many to control and to effectively analyze.
4. The plethora of MVs leads to a downgraded view of Scripture. How can all of them be the Word of God? Obviously, they differ or there would be no need for so many translations. One cannot convincingly argue that all say the same thing. So, how can we know which is the truth? People, thus, pick and choose according to their prejudices. This is preference exercising authority over Scripture.
5. The KJV exerted such an influence that it defined the language and culture. Its meaning is backed and validated by 400 years of the Believing Church. There is an enormous body of literature that expounds its language and meaning. No MV can come close to this.
6. All MVs are translated in a culture where postmodernist epistemology and control of the language reigns. Can a true translation be achieved in such a climate? The Anglican bias of the KJV has been mitigated and redefined by the use, exegesis and interpretation by the Believing Church over 400 years.
7. What does the essential agreement of the TR and the majority of the fairly recent available Eastern texts mean? Does not this bring into question the whole argument and premises of Westcott-Hort theory upon which the critical text is based?
8. Do we need to look at our concept of plenary verbal inspiration again if dynamic equivalence is correct and meaning is not inherent in individual words?
9. All MVs have a particularly modern theological slant influence by the current cultural mileu that has not be mitigated by use and time. Thus, they are influenced by secular humanism, political correctness, postmodernism, etc., which are not amendable to a Biblical worldview and Christian theism.
10. MVs are purchased indiscriminately by the public, perhaps based on advertising and promotion, without regard to their quality, accuracy or particular theological slant. After all, Bible publishers are in business and sell their books much like the their secular counterparts.
11. Multiple translations tend to produce a divergence of opinion and interpretation rather than consensus and convergence in theology.
12. Why do we need so many modern translations? Even if the argument holds, which I would contest, that we need a new version, why isn't the ASV or NASB sufficient? Both have been around for sometime and avoid the excesses of other MVs. Furthermore, both predate the current excesses of political correctness, postmodernism, and secular humanism. It would appear that version adoption is based more on fad than fact.
13. I hold that the canon of Scripture was validated by the Believing Church, not an organizational body, through acceptance and use. I do not believe that church councils, especially heretical Roman Catholicism, determined the canon although they may have agreed pretty much with the canon. Likewise, God preserved Hid Word through the churches collectively. In like manner, the specific translation of Scripture has been the one of choice in the language of the Believing Church. MVs are pretty much pushed by hype and Madison Ave. techniques. A hundred years will tell.
So, what do you think?
The debate over Bible versions for the most part has grown stagnant. The same old arguments and clichés are trotted out on both sides or there is delving into minutiae that are pretty much irrelevant in the broader sense of things. Both sides have propagated much nonsense and falsity. Both views have closed their minds to reason and rationality with loyalty to their opinion overriding their good sense. Having said that, one wonders what’s the purpose of continuing the debate? To steer us back to rationality and profitable discourse, I offer the following ideas for critique. These are not technical ideas or questions so that the informed layman can intelligently participate. I would ask that you address the issues, no more same old tired arguments and clichés, please.
There are, IMHO, many general problems with MVs as a class and specific problems with specific MVs. For this thread, I’ll only address the more general questions:
1. The basic premises of Westcott-Hort (I have their book) are fatally flawed. Although MV’s are not based on the original Westcott-Hort text, they are based on a modern critical text that follows the same underlying premises of modern textual criticism.
2. Basic modern textual criticism is flawed in thinking that it can restore the original text—a worthy ideal but an unattainable goal. By placing confidence in a flawed method, we are actually led away from accuracy and into greater uncertainty. It can produce only a statistical text with varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty.
3. There is no underlying scientific basis for textual criticism because the parameters are too many to control and to effectively analyze.
4. The plethora of MVs leads to a downgraded view of Scripture. How can all of them be the Word of God? Obviously, they differ or there would be no need for so many translations. One cannot convincingly argue that all say the same thing. So, how can we know which is the truth? People, thus, pick and choose according to their prejudices. This is preference exercising authority over Scripture.
5. The KJV exerted such an influence that it defined the language and culture. Its meaning is backed and validated by 400 years of the Believing Church. There is an enormous body of literature that expounds its language and meaning. No MV can come close to this.
6. All MVs are translated in a culture where postmodernist epistemology and control of the language reigns. Can a true translation be achieved in such a climate? The Anglican bias of the KJV has been mitigated and redefined by the use, exegesis and interpretation by the Believing Church over 400 years.
7. What does the essential agreement of the TR and the majority of the fairly recent available Eastern texts mean? Does not this bring into question the whole argument and premises of Westcott-Hort theory upon which the critical text is based?
8. Do we need to look at our concept of plenary verbal inspiration again if dynamic equivalence is correct and meaning is not inherent in individual words?
9. All MVs have a particularly modern theological slant influence by the current cultural mileu that has not be mitigated by use and time. Thus, they are influenced by secular humanism, political correctness, postmodernism, etc., which are not amendable to a Biblical worldview and Christian theism.
10. MVs are purchased indiscriminately by the public, perhaps based on advertising and promotion, without regard to their quality, accuracy or particular theological slant. After all, Bible publishers are in business and sell their books much like the their secular counterparts.
11. Multiple translations tend to produce a divergence of opinion and interpretation rather than consensus and convergence in theology.
12. Why do we need so many modern translations? Even if the argument holds, which I would contest, that we need a new version, why isn't the ASV or NASB sufficient? Both have been around for sometime and avoid the excesses of other MVs. Furthermore, both predate the current excesses of political correctness, postmodernism, and secular humanism. It would appear that version adoption is based more on fad than fact.
13. I hold that the canon of Scripture was validated by the Believing Church, not an organizational body, through acceptance and use. I do not believe that church councils, especially heretical Roman Catholicism, determined the canon although they may have agreed pretty much with the canon. Likewise, God preserved Hid Word through the churches collectively. In like manner, the specific translation of Scripture has been the one of choice in the language of the Believing Church. MVs are pretty much pushed by hype and Madison Ave. techniques. A hundred years will tell.
So, what do you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
paidagogos
Active Member
Speech and writing
Yes, one is perceived through hearing and the other is through vision. The deaf could not hear the oral and the blind could not read the written. So, what's the significance?Askjo said:Well, you forget one difference: Written comment VS oral comment.
paidagogos
Active Member
Heard you the first time
Yep, that's what you said the first time. Now, make the connection. Why is this important or different.Askjo said:You are confused between written comment and oral comment. Luke 2:48 is Mary's ORAL answer to Jesus.
paidagogos
Active Member
Intention?
So, what are you suggesting by your question? Jesus was not virgin-born? Scripture contains an error? This is scribal error in transmission?
Please explain.
How we phrase a question has prejudical effect on the answering. For example, how would you answer the question: "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" The question controls the debate. Personally, I think your question is too broad and ill-defined to have a knowable answer. Any answer would be highly biased of individual opinion and interpretation of the question.
Apply a simple hermenuetic: "Interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages." The Bible is unambiguous about Jesus's virgin birth. What more do you need?
What did Mary intend? Was she saying that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? Or, was she using a convention of speech? How do you know?Mexdeaf said:Luke 2:48- And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Mary even called Joseph Jesus' father- was she wrong??
So, what are you suggesting by your question? Jesus was not virgin-born? Scripture contains an error? This is scribal error in transmission?
Please explain.
How we phrase a question has prejudical effect on the answering. For example, how would you answer the question: "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" The question controls the debate. Personally, I think your question is too broad and ill-defined to have a knowable answer. Any answer would be highly biased of individual opinion and interpretation of the question.
Apply a simple hermenuetic: "Interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages." The Bible is unambiguous about Jesus's virgin birth. What more do you need?
paidagogos said:What did Mary intend? Was she saying that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? Or, was she using a convention of speech? How do you know?
So, what are you suggesting by your question? Jesus was not virgin-born? Scripture contains an error? This is scribal error in transmission?
Please explain.
How we phrase a question has prejudical effect on the answering. For example, how would you answer the question: "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" The question controls the debate. Personally, I think your question is too broad and ill-defined to have a knowable answer. Any answer would be highly biased of individual opinion and interpretation of the question.
Apply a simple hermenuetic: "Interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages." The Bible is unambiguous about Jesus's virgin birth. What more do you need?
Well, if you read from the OP's posts, he's saying that by MVs using the term "father" for Joseph, it denies the Deity of Jesus.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I can appreciate what seems to be mild frustration behind your introductory statements. However, we should recognize that new converts & young people are constantly just becoming aware of 'translation issues', and therefore the necessity of argumentation will continue for some generations to come.paidagogos said:The debate over Bible versions for the most part has grown stagnant. The same old arguments and clichés are trotted out on both sides or there is delving into minutiae that are pretty much irrelevant in the broader sense of things. Both sides have propagated much nonsense and falsity. Both views have closed their minds to reason and rationality with loyalty to their opinion overriding their good sense. Having said that, one wonders what’s the purpose of continuing the debate?...
(I hope to have time to respond to your 13 statements later.)
franklinmonroe
Active Member
You have have not hidden your opinion and the fingerprint of your bias is imbedded throughout your 13 "ideas for critique". For example, it is clearly evident in your Number 4. Let's look at your statement in three parts --paidagogos said:... To steer us back to rationality and profitable discourse, I offer the following ideas for critique. These are not technical ideas or questions so that the informed layman can intelligently participate. I would ask that you address the issues, no more same old tired arguments and clichés, please.
There are, IMHO, many general problems with MVs as a class and specific problems with specific MVs...
Until we see some objective data (ie. Barna-like) that multiple versions are directly the root problem or specifically the primary cause for any lower esteem of the Scriptures, this stands as merely an opinion.4. The plethora of MVs leads to a downgraded view of Scripture. ...
There were several translations and dozens of editions before 1611, and over a 100 versions before 1881 (I am assuming that the "modern" era approximately begins with the RV). How could ALL of the those be the Word of God? They do not read the same; I have found the early Bible texts to be at least as diverse as so-called "MVs". So just as the OP had done, this question is unfairly cast only at contemporary versions. Are there more "MVs" now than ever before? Certainly. But I believe that this is mostly a result of modern publishing technology, just as there are more books of every kind now (are new Bibles in disproportion to the expanding media market?). Well, just read the C.S. Lewis quote below all my posts.How can all of them be the Word of God? Obviously, they differ or there would be no need for so many translations. One cannot convincingly argue that all say the same thing. So, how can we know which is the truth?...
Again, this is an unsupported opinion. My personal experience was that I was gifted my first Bibles (that is, I didn't choose them myself). The next Bible that I did choose for myself was a decision made prior to my awareness of 'translation issues' (so "prejudice" really played no role). It is my opinion that the vast majority of 'Christians' are ignorant of the differences in versions and the theological implications. But if not their own, whose authority should determine an individual's Bible choice?People, thus, pick and choose according to their prejudices. This is preference exercising authority over Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not think there is any difference other than what was written and the part which is a quote. It is much like the idea that we could write about something and in the writing we could makes quotes of what a person said.annsni said:But I don't understand how Mary saying "father" could mean anything different than if she wrote it. Joseph was Jesus' father to all around them. Legally, he was the father. As I said, no different than my father is my father legally but not physically.
paidagogos said:4. The plethora of MVs leads to a downgraded view of Scripture.
How so?How about modern versions in other languages?If you are speaking of the English modern versions you have not a leg to stand on.
How can all of them be the Word of God?
Is the Word of God bound?Does it exist in only one form?
Obviously, they differ or there would be no need for so many translations. One cannot convincingly argue that all say the same thing. So, how can we know which is the truth? People, thus, pick and choose according to their prejudices. This is preference exercising authority over Scripture.
Well,your prejudices are certainly being manifested.
All English modern versions do not say the same thing -- because they are versions!The valid ones among them say the same thing in words which differ.
Yes,people select what they prefer.That's kind of a basic premise about many things in life.
6. All MVs are translated in a culture where postmodernist epistemology and control of the language reigns. Can a true translation be achieved in such a climate?
Okay,let's say you are referencing the 1880's and beyond.All of Christian History has had all sorts of sinful worldly influnces at the various times versions of Scripture were made.So what does your contention prove?Not much.
8. Do we need to look at our concept of plenary verbal inspiration again if dynamic equivalence is correct and meaning is not inherent in individual words?
Meaning is not inherent in individual words alone,but in phrases and sentences.That's why Jerome,Purvey and Luther spoke of the sense of Scripture,not isolated units.
9. All MVs have a particularly modern theological slant influence by the current cultural mileu that has not be mitigated by use and time. Thus, they are influenced by secular humanism, political correctness, postmodernism, etc., which are not amendable to a Biblical worldview and Christian theism.
The above words of yours applies to the KJV's also.So you're not making any headway.See my reply to your #6.
11. Multiple translations tend to produce a divergence of opinion and interpretation rather than consensus and convergence in theology.
Many versions are guided by different philosophies.But God in His providence overrides all of this.He can cause a person reading what you may consider to be an inferior version to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
12. Why do we need so many modern translations? Even if the argument holds, which I would contest, that we need a new version, why isn't the ASV or NASB sufficient? Both have been around for sometime and avoid the excesses of other MVs. Furthermore, both predate the current excesses of political correctness, postmodernism, and secular humanism.
ASV and NASB are sufficient?Perhaps in your narrow world.
For the rest of your post you repeated what you said in #6 and #9.
It would appear that version adoption is based more on fad than fact.
It would appear that you are highly prejudicial.Someone may buy a Bible version for all the wrong reasons.But then,the version is read,meditated upon -- and wonderful to report!God saves the person despite your protests to the contrary.
13. In like manner, the specific translation of Scripture has been the one of choice in the language of the Believing Church. MVs are pretty much pushed by hype and Madison Ave. techniques. A hundred years will tell.
You're pushing it."The specific translation of Scripture has been the one of choice".You're hiding your KJVO(or P) as well as you can -- but it's coming through loud and clear anyway.Besides you are ignoring the Bible versions in other languages in your vain pursuit.
So, what do you think?
I think you need to rethink your ideas.
paidagogos said:2. Basic modern textual criticism is flawed in thinking that it can restore the original text—a worthy ideal but an unattainable goal. By placing confidence in a flawed method, we are actually led away from accuracy and into greater uncertainty. It can produce only a statistical text with varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty.
Moises Silva illustrates your criticism in his classes to show how your kind of thinking is not correct. If you were to read him he describes how it is done.
There is no underlying scientific basis for textual criticism because the parameters are too many to control and to effectively analyze.
The Bible cannot be proven using scientific data either. It is a historical document.
The plethora of MVs leads to a downgraded view of Scripture. How can all of them be the Word of God? Obviously, they differ or there would be no need for so many translations. One cannot convincingly argue that all say the same thing. So, how can we know which is the truth? People, thus, pick and choose according to their prejudices. This is preference exercising authority over Scripture.
I tend to think that it is an effort for everyone to get their point in through the use of study Bibles, etc, and make money rather than the people who read them spend their time studying.
Anyone in business knows that Christians are the biggest market of book readers.
All MVs are translated in a culture where postmodernist epistemology and control of the language reigns. Can a true translation be achieved in such a climate? The Anglican bias of the KJV has been mitigated and redefined by the use, exegesis and interpretation by the Believing Church over 400 years.
When one considers the time of the first English Bible the same argument could be used about the translation then. I often find that people make the same mistakes today when simply reading any Bible translation. I illustrated that earlier in:
Is. 45:7, “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Amos 3:6, “If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?”
[FONT="]Lam. 3:38, “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?”
Few actually take the time to study the historical context of a passage before trying to argue, debate or comment. [/FONT]
The KJV has done a good job in the western market of perpetuation the theoogy of the Anglican Church and few Baptists ever consider that vantage point.
All MVs have a particularly modern theological slant influence by the current cultural mileu that has not be mitigated by use and time. Thus, they are influenced by secular humanism, political correctness, postmodernism, etc., which are not amendable to a Biblical worldview and Christian theism.
I agree that is true among some while others are quite faithful to the original text as best as can be achieved. The fact is that we have much more to work with than we have ever had in terms of discoveries and reference materials. There are documents which have been discovered to help in understanding cutures and historical evidence. An example might be the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ebla tablets.
MVs are purchased indiscriminately by the public, perhaps based on advertising and promotion, without regard to their quality, accuracy or particular theological slant. After all, Bible publishers are in business and sell their books much like the their secular counterparts.
Any study Bible would qualify because people are too lazy to study.
Buying a JW Bible would take care of the divergence of opinion but it would not be the truth. If you have done any translation there is often a number of ways passages can be tranlsated and have the same meaning. Over the course of history shows how languages throughout time have used different phraseology to say the same things and even different tenses of words. For example a perfect subjunctive was used very little in the NT.11. Multiple translations tend to produce a divergence of opinion and interpretation rather than consensus and convergence in theology.
I definitely agree with you here. These are excellent translations.12. Why do we need so many modern translations? Even if the argument holds, which I would contest, that we need a new version, why isn't the ASV or NASB sufficient?
franklinmonroe said:There were several translations and dozens of editions before 1611, and over a 100 versions before 1881 (I am assuming that the "modern" era approximately begins with the RV). How could ALL of the those be the Word of God? They do not read the same; I have found the early Bible texts to be at least as diverse as so-called "MVs". So just as the OP had done, this question is unfairly cast only at contemporary versions. Are there more "MVs" now than ever before? Certainly. But I believe that this is mostly a result of modern publishing technology, just as there are more books of every kind now (are new Bibles in disproportion to the expanding media market?). Well, just read the C.S. Lewis quote below all my posts.
From what I've read of the Wycliffe, Tyndale, & Geneva seemed to look alot like the Kjv and nasb except for spelling type differences. I haven't read these older ones alot but just wanted to ask someone who is more knowledeable in this area about whether there as many as differences like the ones between say the Kjv, Nasb and the Tniv or Nlt? I do preach from the KJV out of preference but I do use nasb, nkjv, Net(awesome notes) etc for study.
paidagogos said:What did Mary intend? Was she saying that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? Or, was she using a convention of speech? How do you know?
So, what are you suggesting by your question? Jesus was not virgin-born? Scripture contains an error? This is scribal error in transmission?
Please explain.
How we phrase a question has prejudical effect on the answering. For example, how would you answer the question: "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" The question controls the debate. Personally, I think your question is too broad and ill-defined to have a knowable answer. Any answer would be highly biased of individual opinion and interpretation of the question.
Apply a simple hermenuetic: "Interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages." The Bible is unambiguous about Jesus's virgin birth. What more do you need?
Annsi answered well for me as I was on a trip out of the country. Thanks!