Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Questions about manuscript evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
    The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dante View Post
      I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
      And Easter instead of Passover
      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
      1 Corinthians 16:13

      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
      -Ben Witherington III

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Dante View Post
        I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
        Well that'll get the KJV Only crowd spinning on their eyebrows and spitting out wooden nickles

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
          Well, being liberal means you are more open up to newer ideas. I remember reading the passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where the passage meant rape. But then, I did some research and some articles say it does not mean rape. Some suggest it is seduce.. well, can we have them change that word 'rape' into seduces in all the bible versions.
          Context is key, and the Hebrew is different than the English. The word translated merely means "lie with", and in the context, seduce makes better sense. Especially since the English understanding of rape is given a different judgment in the text. Oh, and context is what would decide for many translations. This is because words often have multiple meanings, so that has to be taken into account. You're also wrong about your example, here's the NIV of Deuteronomy 22.

          Source: NIV

          Deuteronomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

          28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Rape is used as the translation in both passages, even though seduce makes more sense of the context.

          That's not the definition of liberal that I'm familiar with, where did you get it?


          I guess there is also no slavery in bible history. Only servants right?
          You do know there is a difference between indentured servitude, and modern understandings of slavery, right? Much of what is spoken of in the OT is indentured servitude, although there are instances of chattel slavery. Anyway, both the word slave and servant are used in the NIV, and it appears to be based on context. I suggest these videos for a quick look into the issue on the word translated as both servant and slave('ebed).

          See, the people who redo the new version of the bible tried to make it more acceptable by using words that total means something else. It doesn't mean what it says!
          That doesn't appear to be the case with the NIV, especially since your first example is false, and there is the original language and context to consider.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
            Not to derail the thread, but would you classify those Christian's who were open to newer ideas, back in the day, like heliocentrism, as liberal?
            What evidence is there that heliocentricism is true? By all appearances the earth doesn't move. If we look up in the sky, we see the sun appears to revolve around the earth and the stars appears to rotate once every 24 hours. This is how it appears and this is probably how it is.
            Last edited by AkByR64; 05-15-2015, 09:24 AM.
            Yeng Vg

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Reading a translation won't always offer you the full context of a passage. That's not good Bible study. If you can't read the original language, it's good to go to commentary sources in order to get a better understanding of said passage. In your Deut. example the NIV uses the word "rape" and the NET Bible uses the phrase "overpowers and rapes her", whereas the King James version uses the phrase "lay hold on her, and lie with her". It has the same meaning, but different wording. Other modern translations use similar language as the King James. The ESV and the NASB use the phrase "seizes her and lies with her".

              Academic commentators aren't using the King James or any modern translations like the ESV or NASB. They're reading the words in the original languages, but even reading the passages in the original languages doesn't guarantee that they're all going to agree with one another on an interpretation. While the Gospel message may be simple enough, the Bible take dedication and prayerfulness to understand. The Bereans were commended for their exuberance in examining the scriptures. I've been studying the scriptures for decades now, and am constantly learning new things, and finding new dimensions to things I thought I already knew. An old translation or a modern translation of the Bible isn't going to change that.
              I am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.
              Yeng Vg

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                I am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.
                I think you don't understand how translations work. Change is inevitable when it comes to translating from one language to another. A single word can mean two very different things, but depending on the context, the meaning of the word changes, therefore changes are to be made. Surely even you should know that to table a motion means to postpone the discussion of something during a meeting, but that's only in the US, whereas in the UK, the meaning is the complete opposite, such that the translator must first understand whether tabling a motion is in the US sense or the UK sense, before the translator can make the translation, and when one translates, one cannot translate such a term literally. This is why Google Translate is unreliable. It is not the context of what the word originally means that is changed when the word itself is changed; the context remains constant, but the meaning becomes erroneous. Therefore, it is for this very reason that all should reject the KJV as a reliable translation.
                The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

                Comment


                • #23
                  This website states rape is not in view in the Deut 22:28-29 passage. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

                  Again, it implied rape, regardless of language.
                  Yeng Vg

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Context is key, and the Hebrew is different than the English. The word translated merely means "lie with", and in the context, seduce makes better sense. Especially since the English understanding of rape is given a different judgment in the text. Oh, and context is what would decide for many translations. This is because words often have multiple meanings, so that has to be taken into account. You're also wrong about your example, here's the NIV of Deuteronomy 22.

                    Source: NIV

                    Deuteronomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

                    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Rape is used as the translation in both passages, even though seduce makes more sense of the context.
                    Seduces is different from rape I'm afraid. If you used the word seduces, it would not mean rape. ^_^
                    Yeng Vg

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                      Seduces is different from rape I'm afraid. If you used the word seduces, it would not mean rape. ^_^
                      Yes, they are two different words in English, but in ancient Hebrew you have different words available, and there are limitations that come with that. The word translated merely means "to lie with", so context has to inform what it would mean when translated into English. The context suggests that "seduce" is a better English equivalent. "Rape" fits the earlier verse that has a punishment of death.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dante View Post
                        I do say that the King James Version is the worst orthodox translation of the Bible (as I'm not counting heretical "translations" such as the "New World Translation"). Why do I say so? Which other translation includes mythical creatures from pagan mythology such as satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices in their translations? The KJV is also the translation that's responsible for the misconception that "Lucifer" is an actual name for Satan.
                        Checking Bible Gateway, the BRG, Geneva, and Jubilee Bible contain all three mythical creatures; the ISV, NABRE, NASB, and RSV contain "satyr", the Wyclif bible contains "unicorn" and "cockatrice" and the YLT contains "cockatrice."

                        "Lucifer" is in 11 other translations.

                        (Yes, I'm bored at work).
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                          I am not surprised if the translator changed the meaning of the word. I mean didn't they know? Changing the word will change the context of what it originally means. Therefore by doing that, it shows that this bibles are made by men for men. If it is truly from God it should not change.
                          As Dante said, the process of translation and interpretation doesn't work in the way you seem to think it does. Even the KJV was translated in such a way as to accord with the best available knowledge that the translators had in the early 17th century. The original penners of the Bible were the inspired ones, not the translators who came some 1600 or 2000 years later. Again, as Dante pointed out, words can have a number of different meanings, and it's up to the translation committee to figure out the best grammatical, literary, historical, and social context of the passage in order for it to make as much sense to the modern reader. In that regard, all translations of the Bible from the Vulgate to the Wycliffe, to the King James, to the modern NET Bible are going to be infected with some of the beliefs and personal interpretations of the translators. There's no getting around that. That's why it's good to study the Bible in it's original languages, and to consult various commentaries so we can get a broad understanding of what the original authors were trying to convey.

                          Unless we're talking about clearly and openly biased translations like The Queen James, or The Silent Voices Bible, most modern translations aren't purposely attempting to foist their personal interpretations on the reader. The NIV isn't a conspiracy attempt to mislead people away from the truth. The translators of the Bible are doing their best to convey what they believe the original authors were saying. Some Bibles do a better job at this than others.

                          I don't agree with Dante's characterization of the King James. I certainly don't think it's one of the worst translations available (that might go to one of the more dynamic Bibles). It's not the best either.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                            What evidence is there that heliocentricism is true? By all appearances the earth doesn't move. If we look up in the sky, we see the sun appears to revolve around the earth and the stars appears to rotate once every 24 hours. This is how it appears and this is probably how it is.
                            Ooookay. I see now that I've been wasting my time.

                            Yeesh. We should have a litmus test for new posters so that we get a heads up.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              [...] I believe the NKJV has been supplemented with some of the Dead Sea Scroll findings.
                              Edited by a Moderator
                              Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-17-2015, 06:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The NKVJ has indeed been supplemented with some of the DSS findings (just checked my copy); I'm fairly certain the NRSV also incorporates material from the DSS.

                                As far as I am aware, the long delay in releasing material from the DSS pertains mostly to the non-canonical writings found there.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X