My Principal Problem With MVs...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TCGreek, Jan 6, 2008.

  1. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I truly welcome MV, but they have forced me to say the following: "They undermining theological terms."

    2. Are we, then, to rewrite all our theologies because terms like "Justification, Propitiation, Redemption" and so on, have no real meaning for contemporary readers, because they don't know what these terms mean?

    3. I still believe in keeping alive that link to the past even in our MV---so using theological terms like "Justification, Propitiation and Redemption" is ok.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Feel Free to define "Justification, Propitiation, Redemption"
    from the Geneva Bibles or King James Bibles.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you suggesting that all modern versions seem to undermine or do not use the theological terms such as Justification, Propitiation, Redemption?

    Do not at least some modern versions such as the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ2000, the KJ21, and perhaps others keep such terms?
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NKJV keeps these Biblical terms; I cannot speak as to any other.

    Ed
     
  5. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    NLTse, NCV, NET--try those on for size. :thumbs:
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    TCG ,some OV's ( older versions ) did not use the word 'propitiation' . I looked up Romans 3:25 ; Hebrews 2:17 ; 1 John 2:2 ; 1 John 4:10 and that word was not found in Wycliffe ( 1395 ) , Tyndale ( 1526 ) , and Coverdale . In the Bishop's Bible it was only used in Romans 3:25 . So the "link to the past' may not be so strong .

    I did not look up the words 'justification' and 'redemption' yet .

    The wording "atoning sacrific' may not be as exacting as you wish , but in the more functionally-equivalent versions footnotes are provided which flesh-out the meaning . The NET Bible elaborates on this very well .

    The 1996 New Living Bible has the following wording for the pertinent element of Romans 3:25 : For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's wrath against us .
     
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon,

    1. I guess I'm thinking too much about systematic theologies.

    2. But I'm one who believe we need to keep these theological terms in our Bibles, for the simple reason that we need them; compare other disciplines and their jargons.
     
  8. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Redemption is in the NLTse and NET

    Justification is in the NET

    What aspect of the word "propitiation" does the word "atonement" not cover?
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Probably the averting of God's rightful wrath which is due to us -- but the act of Christ taking the full bore of it upon Himself . Also the sense of the apeasement , not just the expiation ( as the RSV has it ) of our sins .
     
  10. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good job, Bruce Lee. :thumbs:
     
  11. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    1873 Cambridge KJV

    UPS delivered my 1873 Cambridge Edition KJV today and I love it.

    Anyone else own this particular edition? and how often do you read from it?
     
  12. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cambridge has a great reputation in the publishing world. I have no doubt that you have masterpiece craftsmanship before you. I'm thinking about getting their NASB Minister's Bible. :thumbs:
     
  13. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, what's the difference between the 1611 and 1873 KJV?
     
  14. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    262 years.

    From what I understand, just minor changes in spelling for the period.

    Just got it around 4 yesterday evening and had things to do around house so was not able to read alot, but it does look good
     
  15. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are some other changes too...

    My KJV in my parallel bible is an 1873, and I ran some checks, and there are some differences besides spelling..

    For instance...If my memory serves me correct, on Heb 10:23, the 1873 replaces the word faith with joy..

    SFIC, check your 1873, and see if this is the case with yours..

    I used to have a list of changes on another computer, If I can find it, I will post a new thread so this one will not be hijacked....

    Another thing with the 1873 is the footnotes... they reflect the original sidenotes of the 1611. Anyway, mine does...
    plus mine is in paragraph form..
    And I think Ed Edwards uses one too...
     

Share This Page

Loading...