Why don't FEs preserve the Jots and Tittles?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Forever settled in heaven, Jun 28, 2003.

  1. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    aren't they important as FORMS?

    who authorized their omission in translation?

    does Rev 22 apply to FE translations or only to DE n what's popularly mocked as paraphrases?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Good question. Always taught that "form follows function" and since there is no function for "jots" or "tittles" in the English language, cannot see any need for the form.
     
  3. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thx, Doc. "form follows function"--wow, i'd never heard of that outside of architecture [​IMG] but i guess i'm still learning!

    i used to be swayed by the FE position--no, lemme confess--i was once an FE! it used to make me feel good mocking the DEs n using the term "paraphrase" pejoratively.

    why have i repented?

    well, how cld i continue being FE while NOT transmitting the following God-sanctioned FORMS fr the original languages into English:

    1. the moveable Nu

    2. Mizraim

    3. 't, indicating a definite direct object

    4. the disjunctive athnach

    5. pluperfect reduplications

    i was really hoping to dialogue w Harald n other FEs, but i guess when it gets down to the brass tacks, all we see r meaningless slogans ("as literal as possible, as free as necessary") n pious vituperation ("heretick," not "consistently Christian," etc.).

    perhaps their silence at this point is as indicative as anything we've seen so far. [​IMG]
     
  4. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    I could go into debate with you again. But I do not think I will do so. It seems to me you have deliberately misrepresented the FE position of many. And my choosing to not debate or discuss further in no wise means you're standing as victor, if that's what you're out for. Neither does it mean your position as to Bible translating is superior than that of FE's. I have seen your view of the Bible through your statements. It is pitiable, nothing more.

    You are apt at straining out gnats while at the same time swallowing camels. If you'd been around let us say in the 17th and the 18th century with your views of the Bible and its texts and of translation people who believed the Bible would have rebuked you to the face as a heretic. And when I use the word heretic I mean a person who constantly goes against revealed Scriptures and biblical teachings and Christian dogma. In our day and age of nothing but universal apostasy men like you with such views as yours are popular and tolerated among professors of religion. I do not envy such at all. I pity them, at the same time knowing my own like depravity and wretchedness.

    People say modern versions have not removed any doctrines from the NT. I claim to the contrary that they have. I will give one clear example of evident and manifest unregeneracy on the part of translators of modern versions. It is the removal of the wording "faith of Jesus Christ/Jesus/Christ" from the word of God, by substituting it with "faith in Jesus Christ". The passages involved are, among others, Rom. 3:22, 3:26, Gal. 2:16, 3:22, Phil. 3:9. ***attack against versions removed***
    NIV
    ESV
    NASB
    NKJV
    ASV
    RSV
    NRSV
    ALT
    RV

    I would not want to be in the shoes of these translators on judgment day when it is time to appear before Christ Jesus the Righteous. And the reason for this gross mistranslation in these versions is not this time the Alexandrian text, because it reads just like the Antiochian. Nor is it DE. It is something else. And this gross mistranslation on the part of these versions add up to a removal of or weakening of the cardinal doctrine of the word of God, Justification. All these versions clearly attack the doctrine of justification. This is why no more I will ever recommend any of them as only or main translation to any one. They are not versions "profitable...that the man of God may be perfect". They are deficient versions. They contain God's words here and there, because God's very word is not against Christ Jesus the Lord, but on the contrary testifies concerning Him.

    The modernists are***attack removed*** when they say no doctrines are affected by the differences in texts and versions. Let them ***attack removed***, I do not envy them and their dishonesty. But let them know that they will make an account one day to God in the person of the sovereign Master, Jesus Christ the Lord.

    Harald

    [ June 30, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  5. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if the object of our faith is not Jesus Christ, what is it? And if Rom 3:23 et al are perversions in the modern versions, what do you do with the KJV at Gal. 3:26, Eph. 1:15, Col. 1:4, and Col. 2:5?

    Andy
     
  6. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Herald,
    All that useless rhetoric. Do you even read what you post? Do you check to see if you are correct or not? Obviously not. You mention Rom. 3:26 as one of the "MV perversions." You allege that they do so by changing "of Jesus" to "in Jesus" However, this verse it is the same in both the MV's and the JV. They both have "in Jesus."

    It is bad enough to make ridiculous statements about different versions of the bible, but at least do not contradict yourself with you own arguments.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Pardon the interuption, Just reading through. What's a FE and a DE? And why should I give a jot? [​IMG]

    Rob
     
  8. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    QUOTE:
    "It is bad enough to make ridiculous statements about different versions of the bible, but at least do not contradict yourself with you own arguments."

    Mr. Herrington. What is ridiculous about my statements? I have not contradicted myself at all with my arguments. Modern versions as I said ***attack removed*** the said passages. The KJV is not a modern version yet it also mistranslates Romans 3:26b. This is the only one of the above mentioned passages where it ***attack removed***. I have long been familiar with it, and on my website I have dealt with it somewhat

    http://uk.geocities.com/romans5_21/KJV_NT_mistranslations.html

    and last year or the year before I dealt with Romans 3:26 in the KJV on this same forum. Mr. Cassidy who then was moderator did not like my post. He obviously thought I "attacked" the KJV, but I was only defending the TR underlying it. As for the KJV translators I already a week ago or so stated my opinion of their spiritual state.

    Harald

    [ June 30, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  9. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harald, unfortunately you don't participate in the PM system and I could not get your web page to open so I must inform you that I have edited your posts on this thread and I must remind us all that we will not attack other people or versions on this forum.
    Murph
     
  10. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    C.S. MURPHY: I must've missed this rule. Are we no longer allowed to say, for instance, "the Living Bible is a bad version?"

    Formal Equivalency/Dynamic Equivalency (FE/DE). Formal equivalency tries to get the words across, dynamic equivalency tries to get the meaning across.

    FOREVERSIH: Am I included in "n other FEs?" Heretic? Not consistently Christian? When has that been said?

    HERR GRIFFIN: I thought you didn't care for paraphrases, do you?

    Jason :D
     
  11. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the use for this version forum if one is not allowed to criticize some Bible version in the light of the inspired Greek wording? Such a rule as this makes the word of God unapplicable in the sense that one is not allowed to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered, which surely includes the Greek NT of the Lord Messias. Who has made this silly rule BTW? It is no better than New Hermeneutics so called. A rendering in any version which does not agree with the underlying Greek, must such be called good when it is evidently not. This your (plural) rule seems to force people to call evil good and vice versa. Do not be surprised if some then protest.

    Harald
     
  12. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please do protest but learn to do so in a manner that does not attack others and their beliefs. Criticise yes but don't call people liars, say they are lost or call another version perverse.
    I do hope that you can understand and follow these rules.
    Murph
     
  13. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deacon: FE is Formal Equivalence; DE is Dynamic Equivalence--both r terms used to describe ways of translation.

    i think HARALD used those labels in another thread. i don't keep tabs on who all r what--DE or FE.

    do u believe that jots n tittles shd be preserved in translation?
     
  14. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure.

    Jason
     
  15. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    apprec ur candor, Jason.

    now, can u tell us if

    1. the KJB (any revision) preserves the jots n tittles (present in the squarish Aramaic script tho not in the palaeo-Hebrew)

    2. if n how FE intends to preserve the FORM of these (presumably inspired) jots n tittles

    my prob w FE isn't w its exceptions (i.e. DE) but its rule.
     
  16. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    QUOTE:

    Not consistently Christian? When has that been said?
    [/QB]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i think HARALD used those labels in another thread. i don't keep tabs on who all r what--DE or FE."

    FSIH. It was not I who said "not consistently Christian", if any did say at all. I could never have contrived such a peculiar term. I have not found in my Bible such a thing as a "not consistent Christian". In it are described children, young men, and fathers, all of whom John the apostle spoke to as Christians. Then the word of God teaches about false Jews, i.e. spurious believers. And many other titles are used for both classes.

    Harald
     
  17. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that when Jesus refers to the jots and tittles, he is referring to the smallest characters in the language in which he was speaking. Yes, I believe the smallest portions of scripture have not passed away.

    FE intends to translate "jots and tittles" in this way. A FE translation attempts to translate with exactness what the original manuscripts said.

    As far as the presumption that the jots and tittles are unchangeable, Jesus had something to say about that:

    Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    Jason
     
  18. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I believe there is good reason to believe that the Ben Chayim Masoretic text is the best representation of the originally given Hebrew OT. I would not be surprised if it is identical with the copy Christ had access to.

    Harald
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    You got that right. </font>
    • I really enjoy reading FE (New King James, NASB) because I work with Greek</font>
    • I really enjoy devotional reading of DE (Complete Jewish Bible is my favorite) because of the flow of language</font>
    • I am slowly translating my own from the Greek, the GET Real Bible (Griffin Expanded Translation but the more I work on it as FE, the more I want it to be DE</font>
    • I do not even read paraphrases, reader's digest edition, or the book of Mormon</font>
     
  20. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    if an FE translation truly "attempts to translate with exactness what the original manuscripts said," n the "original manuscripts" (Ben Hayyim, Jesus' Capernaum Bible, DSS, or whatevr) HAD the jots n tittles that are NOT supposed to "pass fr the law till ALL be fulfilled," how is it that i do not see ANY so-called FE Bible or translator preserve the jots n tittles?

    all i hear is their loud complaining about DEs not doing so.
     

Share This Page

Loading...