why Is Being a Literal translation seen as being "wooden/bad?"

[convicted1]

LOL - I admit I never shop at Walmart. We got one and I was all sorts of excited - but then I went there and wasn't that impressed. It's pretty far for me to go anyway and I guess it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I like Target for a lot of my stuff and my grocery store is only a couple of minutes from me when Walmart is a good 25 minutes away. So I pretty much never go there. I know so many others who swear by it though!

Shame on you Sissy, shame on you. Think of his wife's profit sharing. You need to help you fellow believers out. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[convicted1]

Glad to help....I buy my socks there too :tongue3:

Whites or dress socks? The whites wear good for a while, and then you need bubblegum to keep them off'n your ankles.:laugh:

 

[Oldtimer]

I agree with you, but, do we need 547 English translations that contadict each other to get it right? Doesnt that just cause more confusion?

John

Saw that confusion this past Sunday. Our SS quarterly uses the Holman version.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Colossians 2:9 (HCSB)
9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature[a] dwells bodily in Christ,
Footnotes:
a.Colossians 2:9 Or of the deity
b.Colossians 2:9 Or nature lives in a human body

Scripture passage captioned: Choose Fullness Over Emptiness (Col 2:8-15)

The lesson then tries to explain "fullness" while totally avoiding the word "Trinity", as in Godhead is the Trinity. Then proceeding from that point. The SS teacher stumbled around, too, why trying to teach using the teaching guide.

Quote from the extended explaination of "Fullness".

Paul used the term fullness but gave it an entirely different meaning. Instead of being expressed through a string of supposed powers, God made Himself known uniquely in Christ, in whom full deity resided. God's deity was not scattered; it dwelt in Christ.

..... (conclusion)

When a person first trusts Christ as Lord and Savior, that person is filled with the Spirit of Christ. Since Christ is the fullness of God, now that person has the fullness of God living in him or her.

Remember, this is a Baptist quarterly used in a Baptist adult Sunday School class. If the KJV verse had been used, with a one sentence explaination that Godhead is the Trinity, they wouldn't have spent about a quarter of the lesson text trying to explain fullness while avoiding the words "Trinity" or "Godhead".

In my humble opinion, if the SS teacher had simply read that one verse in the KJV as a cross reference to the HCSB, then he wouldn't have floundered in "confusion" as he tried to instruct us on "fullness". Even pointing out the KJV wording didn't help, as his lesson prep work for the rest of the lesson didn't recognize concept of the Godhead / Trinity (which term you prefer to use) as what "fullness" actually means.

Again, IMHO. I've got a lot to learn. That's why I go to SS. "Confusion" sure doesn't help, as in this example, last Sunday.

 

[thomas15]

The question isn't the reality of the trinity, rather is the Greek to English translation of Col 2:9 in the HCSB correct. Does θεότητος indicate a "threeness" or a three-in-one?

As a general statement, the KJV does not remove all confusion from theological knowledge. To modern 21st century English speaking people it creates some confusion of it's own. Your SS teacher should have better prepared the lesson and should acquire a better understanding of basic concepts like the triune nature of Jehovah.

Saw that confusion this past Sunday. Our SS quarterly uses the Holman version.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Colossians 2:9 (HCSB)
9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature[a] dwells bodily in Christ,
Footnotes:
a.Colossians 2:9 Or of the deity
b.Colossians 2:9 Or nature lives in a human body

Scripture passage captioned: Choose Fullness Over Emptiness (Col 2:8-15)

The lesson then tries to explain "fullness" while totally avoiding the word "Trinity", as in Godhead is the Trinity. Then proceeding from that point. The SS teacher stumbled around, too, why trying to teach using the teaching guide.

 

[Van]

Hi DaChaser1;

why would literal versions get tagged as being wooden, not so good to use for study, while less literal versions seen as being sperior to study bible in?

I read only page one, so if this is repetitive, sorry.

I do not believe a literal translation needs to be wooden, provided the underlying text is not wooden. Often times when I study a NASB verse, I see that some other translation says the same thing, only better. The NKJV often says the same thing better. The NIV does a marvelous job of making the text read well. But sometimes it seems they make a mistranslation read well.

But the bottom line for me is that their is room to (1) stick to the grammatical requirements, (2) one English word or phrase for each word meaning, and (3) footnote the idioms, i.e. like the HCSB, and still basically follow the phrasing of the NKJV.

 

[seekingthetruth]

The question isn't the reality of the trinity, rather is the Greek to English translation of Col 2:9 in the HCSB correct. Does θεότητος indicate a "threeness" or a three-in-one?

As a general statement, the KJV does not remove all confusion from theological knowledge. To modern 21st century English speaking people it creates some confusion of it's own. Your SS teacher should have better prepared the lesson and should acquire a better understanding of basic concepts like the triune nature of Jehovah.

I agree with the point that confusion comes from the understanding of scripture. I see it one way , you see it another, but God only meant it one way.

But, when many translations are combined that have seperate literal meanings, it gets even more confusing.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

So, you're saying you're "effectually drawn" to Wally-world? Come out, you closet Calvinist.....

Maybe I am a "Walvinist" :laugh::laugh::laugh:

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Some people say that scripture is "living' meaning that it changes with the times.

Many more say that the US constitution is 'living'

I believe that the writers of the Constitution had one meaning with their writings....and I believe that God had one meaning for the message of the Bilble.

And neither, ever, ever, change.

It is only the liberals that seek to justify their lifestyles that believe that "meanings" and "scripture" can change with time.

Ahhhh, the curse of poilitical correctness has infested God's church.

John

 

[mandym]

Some people say that scripture is "living' meaning that it changes with the times.





John

Hebrews 4:12 says it is living. But that has nothing to do with changing. It has to do with being relevant for everyone as it is always.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Hebrews 4:12 says it is living. But that has nothing to do with changing. It has to do with being relevant for everyone as it is always.

Our relationship with God is based on HIS relevance, not ours.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Your scripture to prove that the Word of God changes with the times makes no sense to me.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13:8 says that God is always the same, you claim that 4:12 proves that He changes...??????

How so????

I dont get it

John

PS, if God changes with the times, then what are we to believe?

 

[mandym]

Your scripture to prove that the Word of God changes with the times makes no sense to me.





PS, if God changes with the times, then what are we to believe?

Uh..I did not say anything of the sort. You need to go back and reread my post.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Uh..I did not say anything of the sort. You need to go back and reread my post.

The topic was about the Word of God changing with the times. Some say that that the Word is "living" and that it changes as the world changes.

You disputed that. Maybe you should reread the previous posts.

John

 

[mandym]

The topic was about the Word of God changing with the times. Some say that that the Word is "living" and that it changes as the world changes.

You disputed that. Maybe you should reread the previous posts.

John

Good grief! Take care.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Good grief! Take care.

You said;

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

And my question to you is how does this verse relate to the changing of God or Scripture?

To me, your scripute backs up the fact that God's Word, and God Himself is unchanging.

"Living", as we use the term today, means it changes with the times

God, nor His Word ever changes.

I dont understand your frustration with me

John

 

[gb93433]

To assert that someone who prefers a less literal translation is liberal is hogwash.

To completely follow the word order of the Greek, Aramaic, and Greek texts would result in a mistranslation. English does not always use the same word order. In most of the Bible the text is written by most who use Greek as a second language. The Greek of John is very different than what Paul uses. It is much like an elementary student writing English compared to one who is a graduate student in English or philosophy. Each text must be interpreted and translated according to what is being said including misuses of grammar in light of the literary and historical context. A text must be taken from its source contexts and translated in the context of an English speaking person. Even today a lot of what is said in UK English is not always fully understood by an American.

Even the word "conversation" in the KJV is an inaccurate translation of the Greek word for readers today. It is no loner accpetable in society to mean what it meant then. The typical meaning of the word "gay" is not what it meant 30 years ago. I can remember when I heard church people say something like you are sure gay today. Imagine that today in church.

 

[gb93433]

You said;

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

And my question to you is how does this verse relate to the changing of God or Scripture?

The word used for "word" in HGeb 4:12 is logos. Is the "word" the "Word" Jesus, the written word, the word in creation, the spoken word, or something else? I cannot imagine that the people who heard Heb. 4:12 read to them would have had much trouble knowing.

 

[Amy.G]

Even the word "conversation" in the KJV is an inaccurate translation of the Greek word for readers today. It is no loner accpetable in society to mean what it meant then. The typical meaning of the word "gay" is not what it meant 30 years ago. I can remember when I heard church people say something like you are sure gay today. Imagine that today in church.

How about the word incontinent?

And don't get me started on "Easter".

 

[Van]

Lets compare the NIV, considered non-wooden, with the NASB, considered wooden using Colossians 2:9

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form[NIV]

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form[NASB]

First we note the NIV translators have substituted the pronoun Him, with its antecedent, Christ. Since the Greek indicates (same gender) that Christ is indeed the antecedent, I see nothing wrong with this dynamic translation, i.e conveying the idea rather than literally what was said.

Next we note the NIV translates "tes" as "of the" whereas the NASB just uses "of." If one or the other is superior, I cannot see the basis.

Lets turn now to the wooden "all the fullness of the deity." Both versions use this terrible phrase. The idea is that all the attributes of God, 100%, reside in Christ. Hence, in the person of Christ, we have God, and not merely some part of God. Thus one God in three persons, with each person being God fully and completely.

And finally, what is this dwells in bodily form phrase saying? Contrary to some commentaries, this is not saying the same thing as John when he said the Word became flesh, but rather the opposite. In Christ dwells the eternal spiritual being - the Word - that cannot be seen with physical eyes.`

Yes, you get it, this is one of the most profound verses in all the Bible.
And no discussion of it should be limited to the terrible translations found in modern versions. It is a cornerstone verse in our doctrine of the Trinity, but it is hard to tell given the terrible translation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The word used for "word" in HGeb 4:12 is logos. Is the "word" the "Word" Jesus, the written word, the word in creation, the spoken word, or something else? ...

I actually think that logos at Hebrews 4:12 is better seen as a reference to the "Word" (Second Person of the Godhead), not Scripture. Notice the pronouns in verse 13. To whom does "his" and "him" refer? What is the immediate antecedent of these two pronouns? --

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. ​

"Neither" should make it clear that the author's thought continues (as originally written there would have been no verse break between). In fact, logos is singular masculine here.

 

[Van]

Reply to Franklinmonroe;

I actually think that logos at Hebrews 4:12 is better seen as a reference to the "Word" (Second Person of the Godhead), not Scripture. Notice the pronouns in verse 13. To whom does "his" and "him" refer? What is the immediate antecedent of these two pronouns? --

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. ​

"Neither" should make it clear that the author's thought continues (as originally written there would have been no verse break between). In fact, logos is singular masculine here.

Doesn't everyone know this? Just kidding, I had not seen this and could not quite grasp the actual ideas being expressed. Thanks for your insight.

While the Barnes commentary chooses another option, all of his observations fit nicely with your option. Very nicely!!!

BTW, I loved his explanation of soul and spirit, with the word translated soul meaning meaning the flesh, and the word translated spirit meaning soul.