Translating the Bible

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: //Dan. 3:25 He answered and said, Behold! I see
four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire,
and there is no harm among them. And the form
of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
KJV – “the Son of God.” – clear attack upon
deity of Christ here - Jesus is not a son of the gods. //

Interesting, Who is 'he' here? He is a pagan King.
What scripture requires a pagan King to only speak
unadultrated doctrine ONLY?

 

[Ed Edwards]

The New American Standard Bible
John 1:18 (NASB):
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten
God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

What doctrine hinges on this verse and this verse alone
which contridicts a doctrine based on the following scripture?

Joh 1:18 (KJV1611 Edition):
No man hath seene God at any time: the onely begotten
Sonne, which is in the bosome of the Father,
he hath declared him.

And if one succeeds in getting that far, what is the
denomination that believes that doctine?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

random comments from the antenna farm

The Trinitarian Bible Society has a Koine Greek New Testament (TR Scrivener). At $9.60 plus shipping it seems like a good deal. Maybe I can give a better report later. I just ordered one for myself.

My current TR is an interlinear with a word for word literal. I find the interlinear format to sometimes be helpful but more often distracting.

I also have a copy of Aland's revised text. It has loads of notes regarding the textual variants. The notes sometime seem to ignore the "western" readings. I don't know why.

 

[tinytim]

So Satan wrote translations that glorify Christ? That's a new one.

I have used and use many translations and I am not confused at all. I've used the NASB and NIV to show the deity of Christ to JW's and New Agers.

You know why I am not confused? Because I've read about and learned about the canon of scripture and translation issues and manuscripts, etc.! It is not confusing when you study the facts. :type:

Exactly, it is confusing to those that refuse to study the facts. Of course anything is confusing without the proper knowledge. Math was confusing until I studied it. That is what education is for.

 

[rbell]

funny...I still hear those doggone crickets...

 

[AVBunyan]

Interesting, Who is 'he' here? He is a pagan King.
What scripture requires a pagan King to only speak
unadultrated doctrine ONLY?

The question Ed is this - Was the man in the fire our Saviour or not? We know it was and all saints believe it was. So, in the King James the king was right. Why would people want the other reading where it declares that wasn't Jesus or confuses the issue?

Yes, that king was pagan but God can use anybody to declare his truths. The "pagan" king in Dan. 4 certainly knew who the true God was, did he not?

The fact that we know it was Jesus and the modern versions support Christ's diety in other passages doesnt make it right for the modern versions to pick at this doctrine subtly in other verses.

Ed - do you really believe the modern versions support the deity of Christ consistly and as clearly as the King James does? I'm asking a serious question here - not looking to debate.

God bless

 

[tinytim]

The question Ed is this - Was the man in the fire our Saviour or not? We know it was and all saints believe it was. So, in the King James the king was right. Why would people want the other reading where it declares that wasn't Jesus or confuses the issue?

Yes, that king was pagan but God can use anybody to declare his truths. The "pagan" king in Dan. 4 certainly knew who the true God was, did he not?

The fact that we know it was Jesus and the modern versions support Christ's diety in other passages doesnt make it right for the modern versions to pick at this doctrine subtly in other verses.

Ed - do you really believe the modern versions support the deity of Christ consistly and as clearly as the King James does? I'm asking a serious question here - not looking to debate.

God bless

Interesting... you would rather have an interpretation of what the king said than the actual truth of what he said....

I would rather know exactly what he said, than what the KJV Translators thought he meant.

Yes it was Jesus, and the king recognized that the being he saw was divine.

So how does that mess with the deity of Christ?

 

[AVBunyan]

Interesting... you would rather have an interpretation of what the king said than the actual truth of what he said....

The real issue with me is - why not let the text stand as it is in a King James Bible - what is wrong with it? Why do folks feel they have to correct it on a regular basis?

And yes, I've heard about the biased KJV translators, later reading, printing errors, copyists' erros, etc.

Why not let the text stand - the king declared it right - what was in the fire was theh Lord jesus Christ. Why is so difficult about this?

God bless

 

[Blammo]

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/

God is not the author of confusion. I think we have plenty of English versions of the Bible. Why add to the confusion? I see no need for yet another version, the one I use is plenty good, (if not perfect), so why don't you use your time for something more productive? As someone else said, there are people of other languages who could use a good translation. We have plenty.

 

[tinytim]

I havent got time right now too do any research but I will tonight... but I doubt the king said it was "Jesus"

I will look at it tonight though.

 

[tinytim]

Real quick here is some info from Adam Clarkes commentary:

Dan 3:25 -
Is like the Son of God - A most improper translation. What notion could this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? for so the place is understood by thousands. בר אלהיןbar elahin signifies a son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the king calls him in Dan_3:28 : "God hath sent his Angel, and delivered his servants." And though even from this some still contend that it was the Angel of the covenant, yet the Babylonish king knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. No other ministration was necessary; a single angel from heaven was quite sufficient to answer this purpose, as that which stopped the mouths of the lions when Daniel was cast into their den.

 

[tinytim]

And of course 3 verses later the king tells us what he means:

Daniel 3:28
(28) [Then] Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed [be] the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

He meant a divine being like an angel.

Now are you saying that Jesus was an angel?

cya tonight.

 

[AVBunyan]

And of course 3 verses later the king tells us what he means:

He meant a divine being like an angel.

Now are you saying that Jesus was an angel?

cya tonight.

I take the KJV as it stands - the bible is wonderful - the verse just interpreted the verse. Just run the references on"the angel of the Lord" and you will see the preincarnate appearances of Jesus Chrsit are often called "the angel of the Lord".

Gen 16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
Can a mere angel do this?

Look at Gen. 22:15-18;

Now - how about this...
Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exo 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,

Comparing scripture with scripiture...
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Simply incredible the book - amen?

Now brother - about this angel of the Lord issue? Not trying to be cute here (really) for you raised a good issue - I just let the greatness of oour Lord's book do the interpreting and it gets me excited!!! :thumbs:

God bless

 

[Ed Edwards]

Blammo: //I think we have plenty of English versions
of the Bible. Why add to the confusion? //

What do you find confusing when you have two English Versions?

Blammo: // God is not the author of confusion.//

Sorry, I already argued your point under the table
back in post #28:

Clean1:

Your misunderstanding of this scripture does NOT support
your contention. So your contention fails.

'confusion' here in the KJV is the opposite of 'peace'
not the opposite of 'understanding' which your conclusion
needs. I call this error by ellipsis (...), the part of the verse
which has been omitted by the ellipsis (...)
shows clearly that 'confusion' is the opposite of 'peace'.
Use the Bible to understand the Bible!

Here is the Strong's description of the Hebrew term
translated in 1611 with the words "the author of confusion"
Note the complete absence of the modern meaning (2006) of
the word 'confusion' which is 'misunderstanding'.
Sorry, someone is trying to put new wine into old skins -
it just doesn't work

G181
ἀκαταστασία
akatastasia
ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah
From G182; instability, that is, disorder: - commotion,
confusion, tumult.

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: // I take the KJV as it stands//

teehee, you have a moving target not a 'STAND'!

How about these footnotes (all from the original KJV1611)?

KJV1611, Mt 1:11 "Iosias begate Iechonias"; footnote,
"Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias"

KJV1611, Mt 26:26 "and blessed it";
footnote, "Many Greeke copies haue, gave thanks"

KJV1611, Lk 10:22 "All things";
footnote, "Many ancient copies adde these words,
And turning to his Disciples he said."

KJV1611, Luke 17:36,
footnote: "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

KJV1611, Ac 13:18 "suffered he their manners";
footnote, "Gr ETROPOFORRHSEN, perhaps, for ETROFOFORHSEN, as a nurse beareth or feedeth her childe, Deut 1.31, 2 macc 7.27. according to the Sept[uagint] and so Chrysost[om]"

KJV1611, Ac 25:6 "more then ten dayes";
footnote, "Or, as some copies reade, no more than eight or ten dayes"

KJV1611, 1Co 15:31 "your reioycing";
footnote, "Some read, our"

KJV1611, 1Cor 15:55 "O grave";
footnote, "Or, hell"

KJV1611, Eph 6:9 "that your master";
footnote: Some reade, both your and their master"

KJV1611, Jas 2:18 "without thy workes"
footnote: Some copies reade, by thy workes"

KJV1611, 1Pet 2:21 "suffered for us";
footnote: Some reade, for you"

KJV1611, 2Pet 2:2 "pernicious wayes";
footnote: "Or, Lascivious wayes, *as some copies reade*"

Yea, hath God said?

 

[AVBunyan]

AVBunyan: // I take the KJV as it stands//

teehee, you have a moving target not a 'STAND'! How about these footnotes (all from the original KJV1611)? Yea, hath God said?

Ed - I believe the text - footnotes are footnotes - Whatever the translators put in as footnotes matters little or nothing to me - especially when ithose footnotes you are referring to disagrees with the text.

What matters to me is the text - the text of my King James Bible is my final authority - not the footnotes.

God bless

 

[Blammo]

What do you find confusing when you have two English Versions?

Two? There are no less than 100 English versions, and more on the way. And, confusion, in 1Cor 14 means exactly what I was saying in my previous post. Take a church with 100 people in it, hand everyone a different version of the Bible, have them all read aloud from the same passage. What will you have? (Confusion)

 

[EdSutton]

funny...I still hear those doggone crickets...

Izzat Jimmy or Jiminy? A lot could be riding on a couple of letters, you know! :tongue3: :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

Ed

P.S. BWAW! HAW! HAW! Haw! haw! haw!
>
>
> ha!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Two? There are no less than 100 English versions, and more on the way. And, confusion, in 1Cor 14 means exactly what I was saying in my previous post. Take a church with 100 people in it, hand everyone a different version of the Bible, have them all read aloud from the same passage. What will you have? (Confusion)

Excuse me, I rephrase:

Bro Blammo: What confusion is called you when you ONLY
have two different versions?

BTW, I don't recall having been in a Baptist church where
everybody* read aloud at the same time.

*note: even if 'everybody' is only ten people.

The Version Dilemma (two propositions, only one of which can
be correct):

1. God is limited to one and only one English Version.

2. God uses the Holy Spirit to enhanse God's words
when they are read from different versions in a language
in which the user is familiar).

Which lemma (axiom) would Jesus use?

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: // ... the text of my King James Bible is my final authority ... //

I doubt it I suspect that you, like I and the rest of us, have
a final authority WHAT YOU THINK the Bible says.

Here are several kinds of footnotes:

1. Commentary footnotes (such as thsoe of MacArthur or Scofield):
these are personal opinions and worth as much as the walk
of the author)

2. Cross-reference footnotes (refering to other similar
passages of the Bible) these are useful, but subjective (depends
on the author/translator)

3. Translator footnotes (denoting multiple sources of the
Bible which are 98% agreeing and 2% disagre-ing) These
are the very foundation of Truth in a translation. Versions
or Translations without these translator footnotes border
on the LIE and SATAN is the Father of Lies.
KJVs without the translaor footnotes are the main cause of
confusion in God's local churches at this time.

The witholding of the meaning of Translator Footnotes
among Baptists is of the same spirit as when the Catholic
Church priesthood witheld the scriptures from the laiety.