-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the new Jerusalem Bible version?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
It may be surprising to folks like yourself (are there folks like you?) but functionally-equivalent versions often are more accurate than the so-called direct translations. That's because they have more flexibility and are written in the vernacular.so-called functional equivalency versions do not necessarily mean most accurate.
Total fiction. There is no necessity for rewriting scripture in accordance with the opinions of men. None, zip, nada. A lot of folks like you are confused in that regard. Note the advocates are long on generalized statements, and short of examples.
Word for word philosophy translations sometimes miss the mark by getting the meaning wrong of the source word or phrase. Same thing can happen to a functional equivalent version.
Sometimes word for word philosophy verses misconstrue the grammar. Same thing can happen to a functional equivalent version.
Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations.
The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
Word for word philosophy translations sometimes miss the mark by getting the meaning wrong of the source word or phrase. Same thing can happen to a functional equivalent version.
Sometimes word for word philosophy verses misconstrue the grammar. Same thing can happen to a functional equivalent version.
Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations.
The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
Last edited by a moderator:
I note that you are not dealing in specifics. Just your normal Van-routine using your favorite expressions fit for a juvenile.Total fiction. There is no necessity for rewriting scripture in accordance with the opinions of men. None, zip, nada.
All versions, whatever the translational style, need to be compared with other Bible translations.Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations.
The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
Did you see any examples to support the statement? Nope. Just yet another ad homenim. Here is the fictional statement: functionally-equivalent versions often are more accurate than the so-called direct translations
And here is the factual statement that I applied to all functionally equivalent versions: The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
This is why for bible study, we should start with a word for word translation philosophy version, like the NASB95, and then compare with other well accepted versions such as the NET, HCSB, LEB, WEB and interlinears.
And here is the factual statement that I applied to all functionally equivalent versions: The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
This is why for bible study, we should start with a word for word translation philosophy version, like the NASB95, and then compare with other well accepted versions such as the NET, HCSB, LEB, WEB and interlinears.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's right.functionally-equivalent versions often are more accurate than the so-called direct translations
Why? Who laid down that rule?This is why for bible study, we should start with a word for word translation philosophy version, like the NASB95,
The most well-accepted version is the NIV...by far.and then compare with other well accepted versions such as the NET, HCSB, LEB, WEB and interlinears.
Mr. Rippon loves to edit what others say to reverse the meaning. Here is what I said,
Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes the views of others is naive.
Here is the rule that requires that we start with a word for word translation philosophy version: Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
But Mr. Rippon deleted the bolded portion, reversing the meaning, and posted it as if it reflected my view.Van said:Here is the fictional statement: functionally-equivalent versions often are more accurate than the so-called direct translations.
Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes the views of others is naive.
Here is the rule that requires that we start with a word for word translation philosophy version: Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
Here is the rule that requires that we start with a word for word translation philosophy version:
No, it is not "the rule" --it is "an opinion" that you agree with;that's all.
And Mr. Rippon rejection of that rule is, wait for it, ... his opinion.
Here is the rule that requires that we start with a word for word translation philosophy version: Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
Here is the rule that requires that we start with a word for word translation philosophy version: Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
It is not "the rule" as you insist on saying. It is my opinion that one need not start out with with what are called "word-for-word' translations. It is a misnomer to call particular translations that anyway.And Mr. Rippon rejection of that rule is, wait for it, ... his opinion.
There is no hard-and-fast "rule" that one has to abide by. It is merely a proposition --one not laid in stone may I remind you.
Your opinion agrees with that of Mr. Marlowe's. Fine and dandy.
Fine and dandy!! If anyone seeks to engage in Bible Study, close study, study of the details, then start with a word for word translation philosophy version such as the NASB95. But since all translations contain inaccuracies, in study we must compare multiple versions, such as the NET, HCSB, LEB, WEB and interlinears with our primary study bible, a word for word translation philosophy version.
Your opinion has been noted.If anyone seeks to engage in Bible Study, close study, study of the details, then start with a word for word translation philosophy version such as the NASB95.
You need to add some solid Bible commentaries to your study habits because your theology needs some HELP!in study we must compare multiple versions, such as the NET, HCSB, LEB, WEB and interlinears with our primary study bible,
Theology based on sound Bible study is a good thing. For example theology that is consistent with all scripture is a good thing. For example the conditional election of 2 Thess 2:13. Or Christ laying down His life as a ransom for all 1 Timothy 2:6. Or unregenerate men seeking God, Matthew 23:13. Or those heading for destruction being bought with His blood, 2 Peter 2:1. A theology that must nullify all these verses and many more needs HELP!
Excellent! Start right away. Time's a'wastin'.Theology based on sound Bible study is a good thing.
Casting aspersions is the stock and trade of empty suits, but our response should be kind and firm. Study to show yourself approved, and be not a copy and paste poster of mistaken views from the dark ages. Theology that is consistent with all scripture is a good thing. For example, theology consistent with the conditional election of 2 Thess 2:13. Or theology consistent with Christ laying down His life as a ransom for all 1 Timothy 2:6. Or theology that teaches some unregenerate men seek God, Matthew 23:13. Or a theology where even those heading for destruction have been bought with His blood, 2 Peter 2:1. A theology that must nullify all these verses and many more needs HELP!
NJB Readings
Matthew 20:28 :
Just as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransmom for many.
Matthew 26:28 :
for this is my blood the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 10:45 :
For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Mark 14:24:
This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many.
Matthew 20:28 :
Just as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransmom for many.
Matthew 26:28 :
for this is my blood the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 10:45 :
For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Mark 14:24:
This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many.
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Thus “many” refers here to elect (chosen) and non-elect (those not chosen).
Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Thus, since Christ tasted death for everyone, here “many” refers to the elect and non-elect.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
This verse parallels Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 2:9 where Christ tasted death for everyone.
Mark 14:24
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Ditto, Christ tasted death for everyone.
Romans 5:15
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Here clearly everyone but Christ is the meaning of “many” both elect and non-elect.
Romans 5:19
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Everyone, those saved or to be saved, and those lost and headed for destruction are included in the meaning of “many.”
Bottom line, the meaning of “many” must be discerned from context, and parallel statements. Many can refer to members of the body of Christ, or to everyone, i.e. for all have fallen short of the glory of God, referring to those made sinners. When the context is the group of people Christ died for, we can define “many” as used in Mark 10:45, with all as used in 1 Timothy 2:6.
For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Thus “many” refers here to elect (chosen) and non-elect (those not chosen).
Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Thus, since Christ tasted death for everyone, here “many” refers to the elect and non-elect.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
This verse parallels Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 2:9 where Christ tasted death for everyone.
Mark 14:24
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Ditto, Christ tasted death for everyone.
Romans 5:15
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Here clearly everyone but Christ is the meaning of “many” both elect and non-elect.
Romans 5:19
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Everyone, those saved or to be saved, and those lost and headed for destruction are included in the meaning of “many.”
Bottom line, the meaning of “many” must be discerned from context, and parallel statements. Many can refer to members of the body of Christ, or to everyone, i.e. for all have fallen short of the glory of God, referring to those made sinners. When the context is the group of people Christ died for, we can define “many” as used in Mark 10:45, with all as used in 1 Timothy 2:6.
Then you disagree with Michael Marlowe who does not consider it such.Because the NJB is a functional equivalent translation
Now, back to what I said in my last post : "This thread is about the NJB. Quote from it if you wish to contribute." Otherwise you are just spouting for the sake of spouting. Get specific about why you object to certain renderings.