Our Lord is terrible

[Rufus_1611]

The Holy Bible says God is ferdful, I believe it and will not hesitate to read any passage of the Holy Bible exactly as it is written.

Praise God! While I disagree with your choice as I believe there is a masterpiece that is better, it gives me joy to see a brother taking a stand and far better it is to take that stand on the one you chose, than one of the Catholic Bibles.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So we are free to choose the translation we feel best?

My NKJV says God is awesome. It is not a Catholic bible. Can I not trust it?

 

[Rufus_1611]

So we are free to choose the translation we feel best?

Certainly. Everyone is free to choose whatever path they desire. Of course with every decision we make, there is an effect or a consequence of that decision.

My NKJV says God is awesome. It is not a Catholic bible.

We disagree on this point.

Can I not trust it?

You can trust it but you should not trust it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Last night in VBS the theme was "God is Awesome" The main verse was Psalms 47:2

Psalms 47:2 NKJV
(2) For the Lord Most High is awesome; He is a great King over all the earth.

One kid asked, "Why does my bible say He is terrible?"...

He was using a KJV...

Psalms 47:2 KJV
(2) For the LORD most high [is] terrible; [he is] a great King over all the earth.
...

The Holy Bible, God's Inerrant Written Word
for the American English users of the 21st
Century (2001-2100) says:

Psalm 47:2 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
For the LORD Most High
is awe-inspiring,
a great King over all the earth.

 

[Rufus_1611]

The Holy Bible, God's Inerrant Written Word
for the American English users of the 21st
Century (2001-2100) says:

Psalm 47:2 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
For the LORD Most High
is awe-inspiring,
a great King over all the earth.

The Holy Bible, God's Inerrant Written Word for the American English users of the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and (if the Lord tarries) 22nd century says:

"For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth." - Psalm 47:2
​

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So, at the end of the day is God

A) To be feared?
B) Ferdful?
C) Terrible?
D) Awesome?

and why?

 

[Rufus_1611]

So, at the end of the day is God

A) To be feared?
B) Ferdful?
C) Terrible?
D) Awesome?

and why?

He should be feared at the beginning and the end of the day because He is terrible.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Him being awesome.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

BTW - I prefer the old word "terrible" here, but that definition is no longer valid for the vast majority of the population. Like it or not, the word choice must fit the language of the day.

I also prefer the old words for "peculiar" and "careful" but I can't make everyone else use these 17th century definitions in the 21st century anymore than the 1611 translators could make their readers use the word "ferdful."

They changed their words to fit the language of the day, I think they set a good pattern for today.

 

[EdSutton]

My NKJV says God is awesome. It is not a Catholic bible.

We disagree on this point.

You can trust it but you should not trust it.

In fact, assuming you are a Baptist, the NKJV has a higher percentage of Baptists on the Translation group, if I'm not severely mistaken, than about any other major Modern Translation, and definitely a higher percentage than the SBC 'authorized' translation, the HCSB.

That in no way speaks to anything about the question of accuracy in the translation, but it is definitely NOT a "Catholic Bible."

And one would have been extremely hard put to label the late Dr. Arthur L. Farstad, the Editor-in-Chief of the NKJV, as 'sympathetic' to the "Catholic" tradition, by any stretch, IMO. While I never had the privilege to get to know Art Farstad, I do in fact know, and am personal friends with some of his (own) personal friends and fellow seminary types, and with whom, I have little doubt, that they would agree with my assessment.

Ed

 

[Rufus_1611]

BTW - I prefer the old word "terrible" here, but that definition is no longer valid for the vast majority of the population. Like it or not, the word choice must fit the language of the day.

I also prefer the old words for "peculiar" and "careful" but I can't make everyone else use these 17th century definitions in the 21st century anymore than the 1611 translators could make their readers use the word "ferdful."

They changed their words to fit the language of the day, I think they set a good pattern for today.

Very well. So we have a word, "awesome", that predominantly means outstanding, excellent or "cool". Does this mean the NIV etc. are outdated and should be replaced as the use of "awesome" would be confusing for the preponderance of contemporary readers because they think it means something else?

 

[Steven2006]

After reading through this thread, one thing struck me. Of course I would expect anyone who is posting on this board would be diligent enough to study the bible he or she reads to better understand it. So in one way everyones opinion here is correct unto themselves. I doubt anyone who posts on a Baptist message board would not be serious enough about their bible studies to either understand what they are reading, or if not study in order to better understand. Also these same people would be able to explain any version to an eight year old child if called upon.

But the real issue I think should be what about everyone else? What about all those people that don't read or study their bibles? The real question I think should be. If the average ordinary Joe, finds himself wanting to read the bible, to see what it says, what will he get from it? I think ideally the Word of God should be easily understood. Not for the people who will study diligently to better understand, but for the masses that wont. If I was going to buy a carton of bibles to hand out on the street, I would choose a MV, in order to better insure that whomever opened it, to wherever in the bible they chose, would have the greatest chance of understanding the Word of God, at that moment.

I will add my church uses the KJV exclusively in all of the preaching or teaching. But they are not a check your bible at the door type of church, I personally use the NASB in my own studies, while often comparing it with three to four other versions. I find with the NASB I can get deeper into Gods Word without having to stop and look up definition, which distracts me from what I was reading.

 

[EdSutton]

B) Ferdful?

"Ferdful??"

Never heard the word before.

I learned a new word, today. Just goes to show that anyone can teach you something, even the long since gone on to glory, John Wyclif.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Very well. So we have a word, "awesome", that predominantly means outstanding, excellent or "cool". Does this mean the NIV etc. are outdated and should be replaced as the use of "awesome" would be confusing for the preponderance of contemporary readers because they think it means something else?

I think your argument here has merit. I don't like the usage of the word awesome for "cool."

We are in something of a conundrum here. How do we get across the meaning of words like "terrible," "peculiar," and "careful" in this day and age. Do we not try to find the modern word that best suits the meaning. How many people know the 1611 meaning of words like these? Are we forever stuck trying to explain 17th century words to 21st century readers? You and I understand the use of the word 'terrible." Parts of Ireland are still described has having a "terrible beauty." But how do I get my neighbours to understand things like this when that is not the normal usage?

 

[Rufus_1611]

I think your argument here has merit. I don't like the usage of the word awesome for "cool."

We are in something of a conundrum here. How do we get across the meaning of words like "terrible," "peculiar," and "careful" in this day and age. Do we not try to find the modern word that best suits the meaning. How many people know the 1611 meaning of words like these? Are we forever stuck trying to explain 17th century words to 21st century readers? You and I understand the use of the word 'terrible." Parts of Ireland are still described has having a "terrible beauty." But how do I get my neighbours to understand things like this when that is not the normal usage?

Thank you for your fair mindedness and objectivity on this issue.

Perhaps, with your neighbour, you start with verses like Genesis 1:1, John 14:6, 1 Peter 1:19-20 etc. Then you move to 2 Timothy 2:15 and then you get into the stuff spoken of in 2 Peter 3:16 such as, what it means to be loved by a terrible God.

 

[EdSutton]

The Bible doesn't say anything about Him being awesome.

Mine does! More than 15 times, I add. Here's just a couple or three.

Deuteronomy 7:21
You shall not be terrified of them; for the LORD your God, the great and awesome God, is among you.
Psalm 111:9
He has sent redemption to His people;He has commanded His covenant forever: Holy and awesome is His name.
Daniel 9:4
And I prayed to the LORD my God, and made confession, and said, “O Lord, great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who love Him, and with those who keep His commandments,
Zephaniah 2:11
The LORD will be awesome to them, For He will reduce to nothing all the gods of the earth; Peopleshall worship Him, Each one from his place, Indeed all the shores of the nations.

Okay, so I made it four, just for good measure!

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thank you for your fair mindedness and objectivity on this issue.

Perhaps, with your neighbour, you start with verses like Genesis 1:1, John 14:6, 1 Peter 1:19-20 etc. Then you move to 2 Timothy 2:15 and then you get into the stuff spoken of in 2 Peter 3:16 such as, what it means to be loved by a terrible God.

Thats fine and a valid point. But where is the error in using a translation in their language? Why not use a translation from what are, IMHO, the superior text body (the traditional textual body) and using formal equivalence as a translational method?

Why must we use a translation in 17th century English any more than the 17th century readers would use a 14th century translation?

 

[EdSutton]

Here's some samples of the words the modern versions use instead of "terrible" in Psalm 47:2:

• Awesome - NIV
• To be feared - NASB
• Stunning - Message
• Excites Terror - Amplified
• Awesome - NLT
• To be feared - ESV
• Fearsome - CEV
• Awesome - NRSV
• Awesome - NKJV
• Wonderful - NCV

Thus, this isn't even an across the board problem with the MVs as some of them include the element of fear. The Amplified "excites terror" gets the point across pretty well and even the "To be feared" renderings work, in a sense, as well.

All the above, as well as the KJV "terrible", the Wyclif "ferdful", or even the Msg "stunning" are but an attempt to get across the majesty and power of God here 'contained' in the Hebrew. And all fall somewhat short, of a full and complete understanding, in a single word (some much more than others) at that, IMO.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Thats fine and a valid point. But where is the error in using a translation in their language? Why not use a translation from what are, IMHO, the superior text body (the traditional textual body) and using formal equivalence as a translational method?

Why must we use a translation in 17th century English any more than the 17th century readers would use a 14th century translation?

'Zackly!! And that is also 'zackly why I am NKJVO!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ed Ducks 'incoming'!
>
"Hope I'm far enough away not to get hit!" raying: :tonofbricks:
>
>
"Guess not!" :laugh:

Ed

 

[npetreley]

3 Mi frendesse, thou art fair, swete and schappli as Jerusalem, thou art ferdful as the scheltrun of oostis set in good ordre.
4 Turne awei thin iyen fro me, for tho maden me to fle awei; thin heeris ben as the flockis of geet, that apperiden fro Galaad.
5 Thi teeth as a flok of scheep, that stieden fro waischyng; alle ben with double lambren, `ether twynnes, and no bareyn is among tho. As the rynde of a pumgranate, so ben thi chekis, without thi priuytees.
7 Sixti ben queenys, and eiyti ben secundarie wyues; and of yong damesels is noon noumbre.
8 Oon is my culuer, my perfit spousesse, oon is to hir modir, and is the chosun of hir modir; the douytris of Syon sien hir, and prechiden hir moost blessid; queenys, and secundarie wyues preisiden hir.

Kewl. I think everyone should talk like that. This language is ferdful as the sheltrun of oostis set in good ordre. We might not understand what anyone is saying but I bet we have fewer arguments. Or maybe we'd have just as many arguments, but I'm not sure onlookers would know it.

.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Thats fine and a valid point. But where is the error in using a translation in their language?

There is no error in using a translation in their language. The language of people today is modern English, the language of the Authorized Version is modern English. All that has changed is the redefining of words and thee, thy and thous.

Why not use a translation from what are, IMHO, the superior text body (the traditional textual body) and using formal equivalence as a translational method?

The superior text body is the received text, the Authorized Version was the last translation to diligently use that text. All the others are based off of the Catholic manuscripts.

Why must we use a translation in 17th century English any more than the 17th century readers would use a 14th century translation?

17th century English remains 20th and 21st century English, it's all modern English.