Yes, everyone knows all that stuff. What I am asking for is a minimum of interpretation.
-
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!
New Living Translation
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
Yes, everyone knows all that stuff. What I am asking for is a minimum of interpretation.There is a much smaller number of Greek words when compared with the English vocabulary which is huge. Therefore inevitably some Greek words are going to have more than one meaning in English. Anybody who has studied translation knows this.
Unfortunately it seems that one cannot say that one wants a more 'literal' or 'word for word' translation, or one without 'interpretation' because one immediately gets jumped on by the dynamic equivalence groupies. Perhaps I can simply say.
I like Formal equivalence or Gender Inclusive translations.
The NLT is not (SFAIK) an Formal Equivalence translation and is Gender Inclusive..
Therefore
I don't like the NLT.
With reference to Colossians 1:15, the Genitive in Greek can be used in (if I recall) nine different ways. The context usually decides. To say that Christ is the firstborn 'of' all creation rather tends to deny His eternal origin. Also, prototokos tends to mean the heir rather than merely the eldest son.
I suspect that you and I would agree that formal versions are best to use, such as Nkjv/Nas/Kjv!Up to now, I have.
That was my purpose in asking about it. That was the view of William Tyndale, but it didn't stop him from writing a Formal Equivalence N.T.
I don't want a Bible that interprets the words. I want a Bible that translates them.
Again, I don't want a Bible that takes great liberties. I want a Bible that takes as few liberties as possible.
I truly hope it was. I am not recommending the KJV.
I believe that people in churches in the UK today are Biblically illiterate. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that they are reading Bibles that are not accurate. If people are functionally illiterate, then the Gideons provide an app that will read the Bible to them. Realising that a 'word-for-word' Bible is not possible, nevertheless I strongly believe that a Bible should as literal as is consonant with good English.
37818
Well-Known Member
No. The reference does in fact refer to Him as being a creature. Remember He became a man in the incarnation. Colossians 1:18 explains Colossians 1:15 regarding Him being the "firstborn." And Colossians 1:18 also explains Revelation 3:14 as well. Colossians 1:15 also refers to Him being the first of the New Heaven and Earth, Revelation 21:1. Not forgetting John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 that He is also the Creator.
As the "firstborn" Romans 8:29; Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 1:5-6 along with the prophecy of His resurrection Psalms 2:7; Acts of the Apostles 13:33.
Last edited:
KJV doesn't say anything about the words it adds to 1 John 5:7
37818
Well-Known Member
Because they were not translator additions to that Greek text.
You mean the Latin. It's not in the Greek.
37818
Well-Known Member
No. The KJV followed the Greek TR text. It just so happens that 99% of the Greek meanuscript evidence does not support that reading.
Firstborn refers to Him being the Lord, as being Creator, as being the Boss, not being a creature!
This is a rather misleading statement. The manuscripts that have 1 John chapter 5 are very small in number to begin with.
It doesn't follow the TR text until after 1520. The first two editions of the TR test didn't have it. Two copies of the Greek which added the words from the Latin were given to Erasmus and Erasmus relented and put them in.
But the truth is that they aren't in the Greek. They were added in the Latin.
Is it necessarily bad? I don't think it really is. But saying
is really painting too broad of a brush.
37818
Well-Known Member
No, it refers to Him being a creature (Colossians 1:15; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 3:14). The context does not deny He is the sole Creator (Colossians 1:16-17). He in His death and resurrection was actually fully a man. He did not cease being fully God being incarnated a man. Now if you do not like this point of view, that is between you and God.
NASB adds the word "earnestly" in 1 Corinthians 14:1.
37818
Well-Known Member
The KJV, 1 John 5:7 was translated from Greek in 1611 or so. And yes, I agree that the Latin would be a source for the Greek as it occurs in the TR, the 14th century Greek for the text was some what different (ms 629).
But what I said is nevertheless true.
37818
Well-Known Member
So 99% versus 1% of the Greek texts of 1 John is missleading? I do not think so,
37818
Well-Known Member
ζηλουτε is properly translated "desire earnestly."
So, the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and MLV translated it wrong.
Yes because 1 John period is not in most Greek manuscripts. Going by your logic 1 John is not scripture. My point is that it gives a misleading inpression.
1 John 5:7 is found in latin manuscripts and is also quoted by some of the Church fathers.
Ok so I pulled up some old notes of mine on 1st John 5:7.
First of all only 5 manuscripts that even contain 1st John period are from 7th century or earlier.
It is quoted by Tertullian (200AD), Cyprian (250AD), Priscillian (350AD), Idacias Clarus (350AD).
Jerome said in his day that 1st John 5:7 was being removed from manuscripts by the Arians.
1st John 5:7 is found, in the Old latin, the Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian, the Slavonik, and is found in at least 10 Greek manuscripts, and at least 6 old Latin manuscripts.
John Welsey in his day said that there were more manuscripts that contained 1st John 5:7 than do not.
Gill said it was in many old latin manuscripts of his day.
Robert Dabney, Matthew Henry and Princeton scholar Edward Hills all believed that removing 1st John 5:7 created poor grammatical structure in the Greek.
So to say that 99% of Greek manuscripts do not have 1st John 5:7 may technically be true, however a large percentage of Greek manuscripts do not have 1st John chapter 5 period. So while the stats may be correct, the presentation of those stats are misleading.
A better question would be what percentage of manuscripts that contain 1st John chapter 5 have the 5:7 vs the ones that have 1st John 5 and do not have 5:7, but with this you
Also have to take into account church fathers quotations and that all the manuscripts of other translations like Latin and others are a witness to a text that they were translated from which contained 1 John 5:7.
To say that 5:7 doesnt belong just because “99% of Greek manuscripts dont have it” is misleading and lacks evidence of critical thinking. Unless you are prepared to cut 1 John chapter 5 out of the bible for the same reason and logic then you are being inconsistent and contradictory.
Last edited:
You do not provide documentation or evidence for what you post from your notes. Perhaps some of your information may be vague, misleading, or incomplete and may display a lack of critical thinking.
You do not identify and list the specific Greek manuscripts or Old Latin manuscripts and their dates.
Is the count including the Greek manuscript which was made from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus? Were any of those Greek manuscripts made after the verse was included in a printed TR edition? Does that count include Greek manuscripts that may have the verse added in the margin? Could someone else have added the verse in the margin at a later date and was it possibly added in the margin as a translation from a Latin source or possibly from a printed TR edition?
Did any of the sources you cite repeat someone else's claim without verifying it themselves?
- Status