SHOULD Modern versions "retranslate" Theological Terms?

[JesusFan]

Concerned with the hact tht some modern versions like NLT intentionally have retranslated terms like Propiation/reconciliation/substitionary etc

Theological terms geting made "easier" in order to have more readers get a grasp of what was being said...

isn't the danger in this though can be "watered down" too much?

maybe better train our Christians bethren to be better students of the Word, more biblical in their thinking?

 

[StefanM]

Concerned with the hact tht some modern versions like NLT intentionally have retranslated terms like Propiation/reconciliation/substitionary etc

Theological terms geting made "easier" in order to have more readers get a grasp of what was being said...

isn't the danger in this though can be "watered down" too much?

maybe better train our Christians bethren to be better students of the Word, more biblical in their thinking?

These specific English terms are not inspired in and of themselves. Using alternate words to explain a concept is not watering down the text; it's simply translating it using different terms. The concept is what is important.

 

[JesusFan]

These specific English terms are not inspired in and of themselves. Using alternate words to explain a concept is not watering down the text; it's simply translating it using different terms. The concept is what is important.

But change the wording even when it might be the actual Greek term chosen by the Holy Spirit to have written down by author?

Do these theological terms in English convey the meaning used in the Greek accurately?

Just concerned that reason why changing terms is due to bible readers not really understanding anymore the theological terms/doctrines of the Bible, so we adjust it "down"

 

[StefanM]

But change the wording even when it might be the actual Greek term chosen by the Holy Spirit to have written down by author?

Changing the wording is essential to translation. Otherwise, we would keep the original terms in the original language.

Do these theological terms in English convey the meaning used in the Greek accurately?

Just concerned that reason why changing terms is due to bible readers not really understanding anymore the theological terms/doctrines of the Bible, so we adjust it "down"

Why not make it clear? There is nothing spiritual about verbosity or complex structure.

If you look in the Greek NT, you will find that the gospel of John is quite "adjusted down" relative to the gospel of Luke. Similarly, the Johannine epistles are much simpler linguistically than the Pauline epistles.

 

[annsni]

But change the wording even when it might be the actual Greek term chosen by the Holy Spirit to have written down by author?

What words do we have that stay as a Greek word? Are these terms Greek?

I believe that someone reading the Bible would be helped by the concept more than the term. I didn't know what any of these words were when I was younger and if I didn't have the opportunity to ask someone and didn't have a theological library (before the internet), then what would I do?

 

[JesusFan]

What words do we have that stay as a Greek word? Are these terms Greek?

I believe that someone reading the Bible would be helped by the concept more than the term. I didn't know what any of these words were when I was younger and if I didn't have the opportunity to ask someone and didn't have a theological library (before the internet), then what would I do?

.
Understand your question here, but think that main reason we change those terms is thatwe have raised a generation of Christians who have not been shown how to study and apply the "deeper" aspects of the faith...

Seems that even grade school aged kids in Sunday school few generations back learned more that those in adult studies today!

 

[annsni]

.
Understand your question here, but think that main reason we change those terms is thatwe have raised a generation of Christians who have not been shown how to study and apply the "deeper" aspects of the faith...

Seems that even grade school aged kids in Sunday school few generations back learned more that those in adult studies today!

That IS true but why must it be a term that they may never hear? Why not just understand the concept (which is what is important??). An example from outside of the Bible world is that my daughter is now asplenic. Now I'd probably guess what that means because of having had a little Latin from homeschooling and knowing some medical terms but honestly, "no spleen" is a bit easier to understand and it's not really "dumbing down" but instead making the concept clear. Of course explaining the concept doesn't mean we're dumbing things down and I'd certainly hope that someone would study the Biblical terms in light of all of Scripture - and that is something that we are striving to teach in my own family and in our church.

 

[webdog]

What difference does it make what word is used when many don't understand the concept even with the correct word?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Concerned with the hact tht some modern versions like NLT intentionally have retranslated terms like Propiation/reconciliation/substitionary etc ...

"Propitiation" in the KJV appears just three times: one Greek word is hilastērion (Strong's #2435) relating to an appeasing or expiating in Romans 3:25; the same Greek word is renedered "mercyseat" in Hebrews 9:5. Another Greek word is hilasmos (Strong's #2434) meaning an appeasing is found in 1 John 2:2 & 4:10.

"Reconciliation" appears in the KJV just 8 times (5 OT, 3 NT). There are two different Hebrew words behind it: one Hebrew word is kaphar (Strong's #3722) approximately meaning to cover over is found in the OT over 100 times, most of which are rendered "atonement" (71 times) but also by about a dozen other English words. The other Hebrew word is chata' (STrong's #2398) indicating to miss the mark in 2 Chronicles 29:24 is found over 200 times, most of which are rendered "sin" (188 times) but also by more than a dozen other English words. There are two words underlying it in Greek: a noun katallagē (Strong's # 2643) an exchange, and a verb hilaskomai (Strong's # 2433) to conciliate to one's self. Furthermore, "reconcile" appears in the KJV text just 5 times (3 OT, 2 NT), "reconciled" 7 times (all NT), and "reconciling" only 3 times (1 OT, 2 NT). Probably the key NT verses are 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 --

And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.​

"Substitutionary" doesn't occur in the KJV (nor "substitution", nor "substitute", nor "substituting").

 

[Dr. Bob]

There are a host of theological words that people SHOULD know. But they should know the meaning.

There are many AV1611 words that just cause even many on the BB to scratch their heads and go "Huh?". Col 3:5-6 serves as example:

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

or as the GET Real Bible says,

Therefore deaden every part of your earthly body to sexual sins, impurity, lustful passion, evil desire and greed (which equals self-worship).

mortify changed to deaden
members changed to every part
upon earth changed to earthly
fornication changed to sexual sins
uncleanness changed to impurity
inordinate affection changed to lustful passion
concupiscence changed to desire
covetous changed to greed
idolatry changed to self-worship

Feel free to look up in a lexicon each of the words and tell me where the newer 21st Century choice is not accuate and appropriate.

And best of all - ask your people how many can define concupiscence (or even spell it). They can't.

Hard to obey a Bible you can't understand/define basic words

 

[BobinKy]

Instead of all of the tit-for-tat rhetoric, why not simply reach for The King James Bible Companion.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: (Col 3:5-6; KJB)


Mortify - Put to death; remove the life of
Inordinate - Unrestrained; immoderate
Concupiscence - Strong lust; passion
(The King James Bible Companion)​

And a good thread would be the discussion of "idolatry" (KJB) vs. "self-worship" (GET Real Bible). In my opinion, "self-worship" as a reason not to do certain things simply does not carry the weight of "idolatry," nor does it lead the discussion away from the earthly to the spiritual.


...Bob

 

[TC]

Or I could just read the the NIV.

Colossians 3:5-6

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[a]
Footnotes:

1. Colossians 3:6 Some early manuscripts coming on those who are disobedient

Or the ASV 1901.
Colossians 3:5-6

American Standard Version (ASV)


5 Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry;
6 for which things' sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There is nothing magical about words used in 1611. They do not show any kind of intellectual superiority. The use of them does not make one a better theologian. It does not mean that we are more stupid than English speakers of 400 years ago. It just means the language has changed.

If older means smarter lets go back another 400 years and be REALLY smart theologians -

Therfor sle ye youre membris, whiche ben on the erthe, fornycacioun, vnclennesse, letcherie, yuel coueitise, and aueryse, which is seruyse of mawmetis; for whiche thingis the wraththe of God cam on the sones of vnbileue;

 

[BobinKy]

Or I could just read the the NIV . . . Or the ASV 1901.

Yes, you could read these versions. However, with both of these versions you may miss the sense of "unrestrained affection" present with the KJB.

Just for the record, I read four versions: GNT 2007, NIV 1984, NRSV, and KJB. Of the four, I frequently find the KJB communicates a deeper text than the other three.

...Bob

 

[BobinKy]

There is nothing magical about words used in 1611. They do not show any kind of intellectual superiority.

I take it you are not a student of Shakespeare.

If you want to read the English language at its best, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed. And if you want to listen to the English language at its best, pick up The Complete Arkangel Shakespeare: 38 Fully Dramatized Plays.

And this is the language of the King James Bible--the book that changed the world.

...Bob

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I take it you are not a student of Shakespeare.

...Bob

I don't use Shakespeare for my theology.

 

[TC]

Concerned with the hact tht some modern versions like NLT intentionally have retranslated terms like Propiation/reconciliation/substitionary etc

Theological terms geting made "easier" in order to have more readers get a grasp of what was being said...

isn't the danger in this though can be "watered down" too much?

maybe better train our Christians bethren to be better students of the Word, more biblical in their thinking?

I would rather see someone with a Bible that he or she can understand. What good does it do to have a Bible with all the correct theological terms in it if the reader doesn't understand any of it?

 

[BobinKy]

I would rather see someone with a Bible that he or she can understand. What good does it do to have a Bible with all the correct theological terms in it if the reader doesn't understand any of it?

What good is it to play the first game of baseball--even if you know you are going to lose?

...Bob

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I take it you are not a student of Shakespeare.

If you want to read the English language at its best...

...Bob

While I agree that Shakespeare is beautiful to say that it is English 'at its best' is merely an opinion, and we all have one of those.

If this was English 'at its best' should we also not use it for technical manuals and modern history books?

Thanks though, for the link. I love my King James bible and have been celebrating the anniversary. I even bought the special £2 coin from the Royal Mint.

 

[BobinKy]

I don't use Shakespeare for my theology.

Maybe if you did, your concept of theology--which you acquired from writers and speakers much inferior to Shakespeare--maybe your concept of theology would be broadened and improved.

...Bob