Removing Our Theological Terms?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TCGreek, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. One of the criticisms I've heard of the new versions is the removal of the old theologically charged terms like Justification, Sanctification, Holiness, Propiation, Redemption, etc.

    2. Is this a fair criticism?
     
  2. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on what you want the Bible to say.
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Some of these “sacred words” are transliterations from the Greek and Latin.

    To believe that certain words are sacrosanct is akin to believing only one version is set apart by God.

    Words are used to communicate ideas.
    When a certain word has lost its meaning among a particular group, other words should be used to communicate the same idea to them.

    Is the criticism of versions that don't use these terms fair?

    Depends upon how accurately they communicated the idea.
    But each of those words (in the OP) is so packed with meaning that a novice could easily write a couple of pages about their meaning.
    It would be hard to use other words: some have tried, some have failed.

    Rob
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    No harm if replaced with more modern equivalent terms.
     
  5. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've just had a look at the various new versions that I have on my computer (I don't use them all!) and looked up the sample words you gave. Here are the results. I've put the count for the AV/KJV first, for comparisson:

    Justification: AV 3, NKJV 3, Rotherham 2, YLT 1, ALT 3, Darby 3, ESV 4, God's Word 0

    Sanctification: AV 5, NKJV 5, Rotherham 8, YLT 12, ALT 9, Darby 5, ESV 6, God's Word 0

    Holiness: AV 43, NKJV 32, Rotherham 27, YLT 18, ALT 6, Darby 42, ESV 36, God's Word 17

    Propitiation: AV 3, NKJV 4, Rotherham 18, YLT 3, ALT 4, Darby 3, ESV 4, God's Word 0

    Redemption: AV 20, NKJV 23, Rotherham 27, YLT 29, ALT 12, Darby 32, ESV 28, God's Word 0

    There doesn't seem to be anything conclusive there, with the exception of the "God's Word" version (I think the full title is "God's Word to the Nations" - it looks like one to avoid)
     
  6. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like the same kind of logic used when the floodgates began to open on all the various interpretations and versions being written and distributed. :tear:
     
    #6 Cutter, Aug 9, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2007
  7. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question. For me personally, it was at a point early on in my Bible studying career that I felt uncomfortable with the fact that we use terms that are not used by the general public. So if you are trying to explain to an unbeliever what you believe and you’re using terms that you have to define on the fly, it makes it hard to keep your audience interested.

    Communication is everything when it comes to the message of the Bible. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with keeping the message simple and understandable.

    In considering the KJVO debate, it is implied that the sampler folk of the 17th century could understand the language and therefore we today should be smart enough to do what ever it takes to master the meaning of the archaic words. How do we know that this is an accurate statement of fact? I'm sure that this is not an original observation on my part but it seems more likely that the KJB was responsible for standardizing the English language rather than the KJB reflecting the language of the common folk of the time. Some of these theological words are difficult to conceptualize even when put into early 21st century language so what makes us think that they had universal understandability back in the day?

    I don't mean to re-state the obvious. My considered opinion is that we have choices when it comes which version(s) of the Bible we can use. I will admit that there are times when the KJB has spoken to me on a particular passage in a way that no other version has. The question is though, was this the work of the Holy Spirit or the words selected by the translators? At the time in history that the Lord walked among men, his audience had a choice between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek LXX. It appears that some of the NT writers used the LXX and I think it is safe to assume that at least one of them could read from the Hebrew Scriptures. There doesn't seem to be any warnings about using alternate translations then, why should there be one now?

    So my opinion on the OP question is that it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if having theologically charged or any archaic words in their Bible is important or not. Doctrine is the thing, if your doctrine is wrong, your vocabulary is of no benifit if you ask me.
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The KJV only leads in one category ("Holiness" with 43). The ESV has the most "Justification" (4), Young's Literal has the most "Sanctification" (12), Rotherham's has the most "Propitiation" (18), and Darby has the most "Redemption" (32).

    The KJV wins none of these indivdual matchups--

    NKJV has the same count as the KJV of "Justification" and "Sanctification", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Propitiation" and "Redemption". The NKJV only falls behind the KJV with "Holiness". Winner: NKJV (+1)

    Rotherham exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Sanctification", "Propitiation", and "Redemption". The Rotherham falls behind the KJV with "Justification" and "Holiness". Winner: Rotherham (+1)

    Young's Literal has the same count as the KJV of "Propitiation", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Sanctification" and "Redemption". The Young's Literal falls behind the KJV with "Justification" and "Holiness". Result: Tie

    Analytical-Literal has the same count as the KJV of "Justification", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Sanctification" and "Propitiation". The Analytical-Literal falls behind the KJV with "Holiness" and "Redemption". Result: Tie

    Darby has the same count as the KJV of "Justification", "Sanctification", and "Propitiation", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Redemption". The Darby falls behind the KJV with "Holiness". Result: Tie

    ESV exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Justification", "Sanctification", "Propitiation", and "Redemption". The ESV only falls behind the KJV with "Holiness". Winner: ESV (+3)

    One could conclude from this data that the above versions are populated with MORE doctrinal vocabulary than the KJV.
     
    #8 franklinmonroe, Aug 9, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2007
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is there a new game in town! Dueling versions?? Where do I sign up to play?? :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
  10. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Here are a couple things to consider. I think the language of the KJV is still simple/modern enough to communicate to the average person the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The concepts of justification, sanctification, et. are not doctrines that the unbeliever necessary grasps with a full understanding right away.

    What I mean by this, is that a brand new Christian may come under the conviction of the Holy Spirit that he/she is a sinner, that his/her good works cannot make him/her right in the sight of God, and be impressed for his/her need for Jesus and the forgiveness of his/her sins through His blood. The sinner is broght to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

    Could we see in such a situation (a real one btw) the doctrine of justification? Absolutley. Does the sinner know this? Not by that term, no.

    It is the Gospel that is the power of for salvation to everyone that believes. When it comes to a Christian gowing in their faith, the Holy Spirit will illumine the Word of God to the believer.
     
  11. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1.The consensus seems to be that it doesn't really matter about these theologically charged terms as long as the truth of them is communicated properly.

    2. Afterall, isn't that what is done in our writing of books and preaching and teaching--we find ourselves having to explain the terms.

    3. So what if the MVs take the lead in that department?

    4. My preference, however, is to keep the terms as showing continuity with the past.

    5. Neither am I saying that we need to treat them as “sacred words.” I akin the use of these terms as the same in other fields of discipline. Computer science as an example has certain terminologies that computer geeks use among themselves, etc.
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Franklin , what about :

    set apart
    made holy
    justify
    justifies
    made right
    redeem
    ransom

    etc. , etc. ?
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Offer some examples
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not likely, more like the ones which used the most words were in error.
     
  15. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't have thought you deemed the word of God so lightly?
     
  16. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Typo: should be "sacred cows."
     
  17. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. There's always going to be that continuity with the past.

    2. We would have to rewrite all of theologies.
     
  18. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. On second thought, Neither do I consider them "sacred words" in the sense that those particular English constructs are sacred, and therefore no other words can be used to capture the biblical languages.

    2. "Propitiation" is the Greek hilasterion; "Propitiation" is an English construct derived fromt the Latin.

    3. But here is an interesting dialogue:

    Ben says, "Christ became our mercy seat." (used in the NET).

    Charlie asks, "What is a 'mercy seat'?"

    Ben replies, "It's what some versions refer to as Propitiation, referring to the work of Christ on the cross by which He satisfied God's holiness so God could extend mercy to sinners."

    Charlie responds, "Thanks. I always wondered about that word Propitiation. So mercy seat is another say of saying the same thing like Propitiation?"

    Ben answers, "Yes, and if you use the NIV/TNIV they have 'a sacrifice of atonement.'"

    4. At any rate, we have to define what we mean by "a mercy seat," "a sacrifice of atonement," and "propitiation." And on top of that, we have to give the OT background.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robycop3
    No harm if replaced with more modern equivalent terms.

    Salamander:Offer some examples

    SURE!

    'homosexual' for 'sodomite'

    'shield' for 'target'

    'tumors, boils. lesions' for 'emerods'(the word from which we get 'hemorrhoid')

    'cling' for 'cleave'

    'prevent' for 'let'(where applicable)

    'come' for 'prevent'(where applicable)

    'Passover' for 'Easter'

    Got lots more if ya need'em!
     
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,213
    Likes Received:
    192
    It's my translation day (Eph. 5), but as I work I've been thinking about this, so I thought I'd put my two yen worth in.

    I agree with your statement here, TC. To believe that we have to "update" the old terms, I think, ignores our need for technical terms.

    It also ignores the tremendous depth of the Bible. The Bible has plenty for the most ignorant heathen and for the most erudite theologian. The heathen can read "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," get saved, then ask later in a Sunday School class hear what justification means from the theologian. I oppose "dumbing down" the Scriptures liked we've dumbed down so much else in America.

    Back to work! :type:
     

Share This Page

Loading...