"Is" vs. "Contain"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dogsbody, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are all versions (KJB, NASB, NIV, etc) "The Word of God" or do the Bible versions "contain" the Word of God? As an example, I believe a Gospel trac "contains" the Word of God.
    All input welcome. [​IMG]
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Your gospel tract contains the Word of God.

    Faithful translations are the Word of God.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    We have the WOG as He wills us to have it on any particular time or place. The various valid versions/translations read as God chose them to read.
     
  4. liebeskind

    liebeskind
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    And Copyright Derivative Laws have nothing to do with it right?

    If it were the will of God, then all the bibles are correct and a Sodomite is a Shrine Prostitute.

    The Message Bible
    Matthew 6
    9With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this: Our Father in heaven,
    Reveal who you are. 10Set the world right; Do what's best-- as above, so below. 11Keep us alive with three square meals.


    AS ABOVE, SO BELOW
    by G R S Mead
    The Theosophical Review, Vol XXXIV, 1904

    —Kircher, Prodrom. Copt., pp 193 and 275.

    “As above, so below" -- a "great word,” a sacramental phrase, a saying of wisdom, an aphorism, a mystic formula, a fundamental law - or a two-edged sword of word-fence, that will probably do the wielder serious damage if he is not previously put through careful training in its handling?

    The Will of God, I think NOT!

    Ron.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    Although I don't agree with much of what the KJV Anglican bishops and translators of the 1611 AV believed and taught in their view of the "sacraments" and "ecclesiology" (amongst a few areas of dogma), I do tend to agree with them concerning the various translations of the Scriptures:
    HankD
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Notice carefully what Robycop3 said: "various VALID versions/translations"

    We have had many discussions of what a "valid" translation is and I don't know of many people who have considered "The Message" in that list. The list would include obvious translations such as: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, HCSB and others.

    There ARE bad translations out there, we do not consider these "valid". Robycop3 can speak for himself, but I think he would agree with this.
     
  7. liebeskind

    liebeskind
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Notice carefully what Robycop3 said: "various VALID versions/translations"

    We have had many discussions of what a "valid" translation is and I don't know of many people who have considered "The Message" in that list. The list would include obvious translations such as: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, HCSB and others.

    There ARE bad translations out there, we do not consider these "valid". Robycop3 can speak for himself, but I think he would agree with this.
    </font>[/QUOTE]So a Shrine Prostitute is a valid translation when describing a Homosexual (male on male)? And again, are you saying that copyright derivate laws have nothing to do with it?

    Ron
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although I work with lawyers on "intellectual property rights" almost every single day, I do not understand your question about copyright derivate laws? Do they have nothing to do with what?
     
  9. liebeskind

    liebeskind
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Do they have anything to do with why they do not come close to what the codices state!

    Ron.
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess what you are asking is, are translations not correct due to the fact that one translation must change the meaning to keep from violating the copyright of another translation.

    I will answer it this way. The source materials are not under copyright. If I were to put a team of scholars together and they translate the entire Bible, I can assure you that there will be no copyright violation. If you have twenty different scholar teams, then you will have twenty different "wordings" that will be obvious to anyone, not just the USPTO.

    If a verse comes close or is the same here and there, then a company would have difficulty with their case. Under copyright law the owner has to prove that the document under "test" has to have been derived from the other version. I doubt very seriously if the NIV translators took the NASB and said, "Let's translate this verse another way so that we do not violate their copyright."

    If I translate something the same, then I am the originator. There is almost no likelihood that an entire chapter or book would even come close to the same wording when being translated from Greek or Hebrew. A verse or two here and there, or a phrase, maybe, but that would not stand up in court.


    Copyright issues are irrelevant when discussing different versions, unless an obvious theft of material took place.
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Philip: "If a verse comes close or is the same here and there, then a company would have difficulty with their case. Under copyright law the owner has to prove that the document under "test" has to have been derived from the other version."

    In this vein, there have been repeated full page ads promoting the HCSB as the most perfect translation ever made (I don't make this up: "No other translation comes so close to faithfully representing the original language texts"; "the most faithful translation of all"; "Nothing could be closer to the truth", etc.).

    The heading of the ad was the fragmentary biblical quotation: "I trust in your word" (Ps 119:42), followed by the usual "HCSB, copyright 2003," etc, not to be reproduced without permission from the publishers, etc.

    However, they neglected to mention that *exactly* the same rendering of the same verse fragment appears in GNB/TEV, NRSV, NKJV, ESV, NLT, MKJV, REB, NIV (and the nearly exact but older English form "I trust in thy word" in numerous other translations).

    One wonders how far copyright claims have to go in this regard. In the present case, to press such a claim on a fragment that reads identically in numerous other translations borders on the absurd.
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right Ziggy. No claim can be made on a fragment. It would become obvious if an entire book had the exact wording from beginning to end that it was plagerized from another translation. Translators of Greek and Hebrew cannot and will not come up with the same individual "words" since the languages are so different.

    Many verses WILL read the same depending on how literal the translation is, this is not infringement unless it was "derived" from the other translation (Ronald H. "Derivate copyright laws")

    If the document was indeed copied, and it could be proven, then a case could be developed.

    I do think the ads used by the HCSB are somewhat interesting, if not a little egotistical as well. Or should I use the words: Marketing hype, instead? [​IMG]
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ron, what does the WORD OF GOD SAY? Not the language translation. Go to the Hebrew/Greek and find out what it says.

    Does it say "shrine prostitute"? (which, btw, is one who commits homosexual/fornication)

    Does it say "sodomite"?

    Does it say "homosexual"?

    That is the key. Do NOT base any English translation on ANOTHER translation's words. It will make neither "right" or "wrong"; they will simply be "different".

    Simple answer: "Shrine prostitute" is an excellent translation of the Hebrew "qadesh" in this context, "a falsely-sacred person, a male devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry."

    Often called a sodomite or unclean in the AV. But "shrine prostitute" is equally valid. Neither of them is wrong. I like the more detailed and descriptive "male shrine prostitute"; some might read and think a sodomite is simply a person who lives in sodom!
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ronald H:So a Shrine Prostitute is a valid translation when describing a Homosexual (male on male)? And again, are you saying that copyright derivate laws have nothing to do with it?

    Ron, please call a synagogue and ask them what "qadesh" means.

    Are you sufficiently well-versed in history to know just how worship was conducted in the various pagan shrines in the Middle East? Are you an EXPERT in Hebrew? Do you know EVERY definition of "sodomite"?

    Did you ever wonder why the KJV and other older English Bibles don't read"homosexual"? The answer is simple...the word wasn't coined until 1892. Thus, not even the RV has that word in it.

    As for copyrights...DOES A COPYRIGHT CHANGE EVEN ONE PUNCTUATION MARK OF A GIVEN WORK?

    Did you know the AV 1611 was copyrighted by England, and that the current KJV is still copyrighted in England?

    The whole copyrights thingy is nothing more than KJVO balderdash, trying to imply a BV is evil cuz it's copyrighted. BAH-HUMBUG!
     

Share This Page

Loading...