Only the Originals Are Inspired

[Yeshua1]

I take it that you speak from experience in Textual Criticism, and have examined the Greek texts for yourself? Quoting from books is one thing, doing the research for yourself, is a different matter!

Just took textual criticism courses in school, and have read much material...
Not against the various greek texts, as really do not see any major doctrines being affected here!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't wish to sound rude to you, but I get the impressions from your exchanges especailly with myself, that you hardly know anything about the text of the Hebrew or Greek Bible? I apologise if I am wrong

Know enough to be knowledgably about the subject , but hardly an expert!

 

[John of Japan]

The Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament had these "scholars" who helped complile the "text". Here are some of their beliefs.

...

EUGENE NIDA is the father of the heretical dynamic equivalency theory of Bible translation. He believes God’s revelation in the Bible “involved limitations” and “is not absolute” and that the words of the Bible “are in a sense nothing in and of themselves” (Nida, Message and Mission, 1960, pp. 222-228). He does not believe the Bible is written “in a Holy Ghost language.” He believes the record of Jacob wrestling with the Angel was not a literal event. He denies the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ (Nida, Theory and Practice, 1969, p. 53). He denies that Christ died to satisfy God’s justice. He believes the blood of the cross was merely symbolic of Christ’s death and is never used in the Bible “in the sense of propitiation.”

...

I have studied Nida extensively and oppose his translation theory. It's neo-orthodox. But I'm looking at his book The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 53, and can't see where he denies the substitutionary blood atonement there. Enlighten me.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding his statement in Message and Mission that God's revelation is "not absolute" (p. 225). He explains that "it is not absolute in the sense that there is nothing more or that we know everything about God" (Ibid).

I am not a defender of Nida--far from it. I just think we should quote our opponents accurately, and truly understand what they are saying. This is a common fault of arguers on bibliology--they often misquote and misrepresent their opponents. (I am not saying you intentionally did so. You may have simply gotten your insight from someone else. If so, perhaps you should state your source for these Nida quotes.)

Caveat: I do see footnote 19, which would explain why liberal Bratcher translated haima as "death" originally in the TEV, the first DE translation. But I don't see any specific denial of the substitutionary blood atonement.

 

[SavedByGrace]

in # 109 you say that the N/A Greek text is "superior" to the TR

Just took textual criticism courses in school, and have read much material...
Not against the various greek texts, as really do not see any major doctrines being affected here!

in # 109 you say that the N/A Greek text is "superior" to the TR. I said no, because the underlying Greek text used by N/A is more corrupted than the TR. The two principal Greek manuscripts of the NT are the Codices, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanius, both of the middle 4th century. Fred Kenyon in his "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament", informs us, that at the time these 2 mss were copied, the Emperor Constantine requested from Jerome, 50 copies of Scripture be produced on vellum for the Churches. This work was carried out at the library at Caesarea, and undertaken by two scribes, Acacius and Euzoius (p.41). Both these "scribes" were followers of the arch-heretic, Arius, who denied the Holy Trinity and Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit! Can they be considered "faithful" copyists? It is like asking a JW or Mormon to translate the Bible, and say without any doubt, that it is the Word of God!!!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have studied Nida extensively and oppose his translation theory. It's neo-orthodox. But I'm looking at his book The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 53, and can't see where he denies the substitutionary blood atonement there. Enlighten me.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding his statement in Message and Mission that God's revelation is "not absolute" (p. 225). He explains that "it is not absolute in the sense that there is nothing more or that we know everything about God" (Ibid).

I am not a defender of Nida--far from it. I just think we should quote our opponents accurately, and truly understand what they are saying. This is a common fault of arguers on bibliology--they often misquote and misrepresent their opponents. (I am not saying you intentionally did so. You may have simply gotten your insight from someone else. If so, perhaps you should state your source for these Nida quotes.)

Caveat: I do see footnote 19, which would explain why liberal Bratcher translated haima as "death" originally in the TEV, the first DE translation. But I don't see any specific denial of the substitutionary blood atonement.

Thanks for pointing this out, I have here quoted from third-party Christians, who I expected would be accurate and honest in their writings. clearly, from what you are saying, they have not been

 

[SavedByGrace]

Know enough to be knowledgably about the subject , but hardly an expert!

apologies for any offence I may have caused.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for pointing this out, I have here quoted from third-party Christians, who I expected would be accurate and honest in their writings. clearly, from what you are saying, they have not been

Thanks for your humble answer.

The thing about the reference about the blood is that Nida is discussing something called transformational grammar on that page, and if your source did not know what that was, he would misunderstand. Here is the actual quote your source was probably referring to: "Blood is literally an 'object word,' but it refers here not to an object, but to an entire event, with which the object blood is associated. That is to say, though it is literally an object, it really refers to an event." So he is not denying the blood atonement, simply explaining the connotation of "blood" in Eph. 1:7, which he himself translates on the same page: "God redeemed us through Christ's shedding of his blood, and God forgave our sins."

 

[SavedByGrace]

Thanks for your humble answer.

The thing about the reference about the blood is that Nida is discussing something called transformational grammar on that page, and if your source did not know what that was, he would misunderstand. Here is the actual quote your source was probably referring to: "Blood is literally an 'object word,' but it refers here not to an object, but to an entire event, with which the object blood is associated. That is to say, though it is literally an object, it really refers to an event." So he is not denying the blood atonement, simply explaining the connotation of "blood" in Eph. 1:7, which he himself translates on the same page: "God redeemed us through Christ's shedding of his blood, and God forgave our sins."

thanks for that. I just saw this on an online copy of this work, in the footnote. God bless!

 

[John of Japan]

I am not a defender of Nida--far from it. I just think we should quote our opponents accurately, and truly understand what they are saying. This is a common fault of arguers on bibliology--they often misquote and misrepresent their opponents. (I am not saying you intentionally did so. You may have simply gotten your insight from someone else. If so, perhaps you should state your source for these Nida quotes.)

In his hermeneutics class, my son references how D. A. Waite quotes Hort & Westcott, and then shows the students how Waite completely misrepresents the men. My son is not a Hort & Westcott defender, but simply uses this to teach that we must quote our opponents accurately if we are to be ethical. Then, that applies to Scripture. We must quote Scripture accurately, in context, or we are not handling God's Word correctly.

 

[SavedByGrace]

In his hermeneutics class, my son references how D. A. Waite quotes Hort & Westcott, and then shows the students how Waite completely misrepresents the men. My son is not a Hort & Westcott defender, but simply uses this to teach that we must quote our opponents accurately if we are to be ethical. Then, that applies to Scripture. We must quote Scripture accurately, in context, or we are not handling God's Word correctly.

could not agree more. If we truly want to represent the God of the Bible, and His Word, then we must be 100% truthful at all times, even if it disagrees with our thinking/theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have studied Nida extensively and oppose his translation theory. It's neo-orthodox. But I'm looking at his book The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 53, and can't see where he denies the substitutionary blood atonement there. Enlighten me.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding his statement in Message and Mission that God's revelation is "not absolute" (p. 225). He explains that "it is not absolute in the sense that there is nothing more or that we know everything about God" (Ibid).

I am not a defender of Nida--far from it. I just think we should quote our opponents accurately, and truly understand what they are saying. This is a common fault of arguers on bibliology--they often misquote and misrepresent their opponents. (I am not saying you intentionally did so. You may have simply gotten your insight from someone else. If so, perhaps you should state your source for these Nida quotes.)

Caveat: I do see footnote 19, which would explain why liberal Bratcher translated haima as "death" originally in the TEV, the first DE translation. But I don't see any specific denial of the substitutionary blood atonement.

Do you know if any of the translators on esv/nas denied any doctrines of Christianity, or if they sought to pervert their versions?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for pointing this out, I have here quoted from third-party Christians, who I expected would be accurate and honest in their writings. clearly, from what you are saying, they have not been

Would say that the KJVO gang totally misrepresent the modern versions and the non TR Greek texts, as their bias really comes thru!

 

[John of Japan]

Do you know if any of the translators on esv/nas denied any doctrines of Christianity, or if they sought to pervert their versions?

Not that I know of.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Would say that the KJVO gang totally misrepresent the modern versions and the non TR Greek texts, as their bias really comes thru!

well, I am not a KJVO person. I have the Hebrew, Greek, LXX, Syriac, Latin Old and Vulgate, Coptic, and many English versions. I also have the 27th and 28th editions of the UBS Greek text, and that of N/A, Souter, Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tragelles, etc etc, lest I be accused of some bias! I also have the 3 JW versions for checking up purposes!

 

[Yeshua1]

well, I am not a KJVO person. I have the Hebrew, Greek, LXX, Syriac, Latin Old and Vulgate, Coptic, and many English versions. I also have the 27th and 28th editions of the UBS Greek text, and that of N/A, Souter, Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tragelles, etc etc, lest I be accused of some bias! I also have the 3 JW versions for checking up purposes!

Not saying you were, but the KJVO members are!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not saying you were, but the KJVO members are!

indeed!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:55 PM Pacific.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:55 PM Pacific.

This thread is closed.