Why don't FEs preserve the Jots and Tittles?

I could go into debate with you again. But I do not think I will do so. It seems to me you have deliberately misrepresented the FE position of many. And my choosing to not debate or discuss further in no wise means you're standing as victor, if that's what you're out for. Neither does it mean your position as to Bible translating is superior than that of FE's. I have seen your view of the Bible through your statements. It is pitiable, nothing more.

You are apt at straining out gnats while at the same time swallowing camels. If you'd been around let us say in the 17th and the 18th century with your views of the Bible and its texts and of translation people who believed the Bible would have rebuked you to the face as a heretic. And when I use the word heretic I mean a person who constantly goes against revealed Scriptures and biblical teachings and Christian dogma. In our day and age of nothing but universal apostasy men like you with such views as yours are popular and tolerated among professors of religion. I do not envy such at all. I pity them, at the same time knowing my own like depravity and wretchedness.

People say modern versions have not removed any doctrines from the NT. I claim to the contrary that they have. I will give one clear example of evident and manifest unregeneracy on the part of translators of modern versions. It is the removal of the wording "faith of Jesus Christ/Jesus/Christ" from the word of God, by substituting it with "faith in Jesus Christ". The passages involved are, among others, Rom. 3:22, 3:26, Gal. 2:16, 3:22, Phil. 3:9. ***attack against versions removed***
NIV
ESV
NASB
NKJV
ASV
RSV
NRSV
ALT
RV

I would not want to be in the shoes of these translators on judgment day when it is time to appear before Christ Jesus the Righteous. And the reason for this gross mistranslation in these versions is not this time the Alexandrian text, because it reads just like the Antiochian. Nor is it DE. It is something else. And this gross mistranslation on the part of these versions add up to a removal of or weakening of the cardinal doctrine of the word of God, Justification. All these versions clearly attack the doctrine of justification. This is why no more I will ever recommend any of them as only or main translation to any one. They are not versions "profitable...that the man of God may be perfect". They are deficient versions. They contain God's words here and there, because God's very word is not against Christ Jesus the Lord, but on the contrary testifies concerning Him.

The modernists are***attack removed*** when they say no doctrines are affected by the differences in texts and versions. Let them ***attack removed***, I do not envy them and their dishonesty. But let them know that they will make an account one day to God in the person of the sovereign Master, Jesus Christ the Lord.

Harald

[ June 30, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

So if the object of our faith is not Jesus Christ, what is it? And if Rom 3:23 et al are perversions in the modern versions, what do you do with the KJV at Gal. 3:26, Eph. 1:15, Col. 1:4, and Col. 2:5?

Andy

 

Herald,
All that useless rhetoric. Do you even read what you post? Do you check to see if you are correct or not? Obviously not. You mention Rom. 3:26 as one of the "MV perversions." You allege that they do so by changing "of Jesus" to "in Jesus" However, this verse it is the same in both the MV's and the JV. They both have "in Jesus."

It is bad enough to make ridiculous statements about different versions of the bible, but at least do not contradict yourself with you own arguments.

 

Pardon the interuption, Just reading through. What's a FE and a DE? And why should I give a jot?

Rob

 

QUOTE:
"It is bad enough to make ridiculous statements about different versions of the bible, but at least do not contradict yourself with you own arguments."

Mr. Herrington. What is ridiculous about my statements? I have not contradicted myself at all with my arguments. Modern versions as I said ***attack removed*** the said passages. The KJV is not a modern version yet it also mistranslates Romans 3:26b. This is the only one of the above mentioned passages where it ***attack removed***. I have long been familiar with it, and on my website I have dealt with it somewhat

http://uk.geocities.com/romans5_21/KJV_NT_mistranslations.html

and last year or the year before I dealt with Romans 3:26 in the KJV on this same forum. Mr. Cassidy who then was moderator did not like my post. He obviously thought I "attacked" the KJV, but I was only defending the TR underlying it. As for the KJV translators I already a week ago or so stated my opinion of their spiritual state.

Harald

[ June 30, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Harald, unfortunately you don't participate in the PM system and I could not get your web page to open so I must inform you that I have edited your posts on this thread and I must remind us all that we will not attack other people or versions on this forum.
Murph

 

C.S. MURPHY: I must've missed this rule. Are we no longer allowed to say, for instance, "the Living Bible is a bad version?"

Formal Equivalency/Dynamic Equivalency (FE/DE). Formal equivalency tries to get the words across, dynamic equivalency tries to get the meaning across.

FOREVERSIH: Am I included in "n other FEs?" Heretic? Not consistently Christian? When has that been said?

HERR GRIFFIN: I thought you didn't care for paraphrases, do you?

Jason

 

What is the use for this version forum if one is not allowed to criticize some Bible version in the light of the inspired Greek wording? Such a rule as this makes the word of God unapplicable in the sense that one is not allowed to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered, which surely includes the Greek NT of the Lord Messias. Who has made this silly rule BTW? It is no better than New Hermeneutics so called. A rendering in any version which does not agree with the underlying Greek, must such be called good when it is evidently not. This your (plural) rule seems to force people to call evil good and vice versa. Do not be surprised if some then protest.

Harald

 

Please do protest but learn to do so in a manner that does not attack others and their beliefs. Criticise yes but don't call people liars, say they are lost or call another version perverse.
I do hope that you can understand and follow these rules.
Murph

 

Sure.

Jason

 

QUOTE:

Not consistently Christian? When has that been said?
[/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think HARALD used those labels in another thread. i don't keep tabs on who all r what--DE or FE."

FSIH. It was not I who said "not consistently Christian", if any did say at all. I could never have contrived such a peculiar term. I have not found in my Bible such a thing as a "not consistent Christian". In it are described children, young men, and fathers, all of whom John the apostle spoke to as Christians. Then the word of God teaches about false Jews, i.e. spurious believers. And many other titles are used for both classes.

Harald

 

I believe that when Jesus refers to the jots and tittles, he is referring to the smallest characters in the language in which he was speaking. Yes, I believe the smallest portions of scripture have not passed away.

FE intends to translate "jots and tittles" in this way. A FE translation attempts to translate with exactness what the original manuscripts said.

As far as the presumption that the jots and tittles are unchangeable, Jesus had something to say about that:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jason

 

And I believe there is good reason to believe that the Ben Chayim Masoretic text is the best representation of the originally given Hebrew OT. I would not be surprised if it is identical with the copy Christ had access to.

Harald