Bible translation technique?

Yes, they even translated out 7 books of the old testiment.

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

In other words, make changes in the translation so that it fits your preconceived theology.

Apparently, such a "unique" translation method will help you to see the previously not so clear "meaning" of the text. </font>[/QUOTE]I would have to see the thread or the context from which the quote was taken. It looks like you are trying to misquote the author's intended meaning.
What is your definition of "repent?" Does it fit with what the Biblical definition of what "repent" is? Why or why not? Perhaps the reason lies in your preconceived ideas of what repentance is. Have you repented of all your sins? Is it possible to do so? How do you know that you have the right definition of repentance? My guess is that you fit your own preconceived ideas into what the Scripture says about repentance, and thus misunderstand oompletely what the Bible says about the subject. No doubt this is what the author of the quote had in mind.
DHK

 

Again, I haven't looked up the quote in context, but reading it just as it is I can't disagree with it.
Whether in Greek or in English, words have different meanings. The best way to find out the meaning of any particular word is not only to use the lexicon, but also to use the context from which it is found.
To use a completely different example the word "wine," like our English word "cider" can mean either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Only the context can dictate which is fermented wine and which is not. I do not for one moment believe that when Jesus referred to drinking of "the fruit of the vine," that He was referring to an alcoholic beverage. Wine in that sense is symbolic of sin. It is leavened juice. Jesus would never celebrate the passover (or institued the Lord's Table) with leavened bread or leavened juice. Both are signs of corruption.
Yet we know that Noah got drunk with wine. Context is everything. Context determines the meaning of the word in many cases.

Thus he said: "I'd look up the references to repent, as well as..." His reference to Luther was probably a reference to one of his favorite commentaries just as you have some of your favorite church fathers. They are not authoritative. Only the Word of God is authoritative. But the research they have done is often helpful.
We can learn from the research of others. There is nothing wrong with honest study.

Consider the testimony of Adoniram Judson, missionary to Burma--America's first foreign missionary sent out by the Congregational church. The Congregational Church baptizes infants (I think by pouring). When Judson was crossing the Atlantic, he studied his Greek New Testament, in which he was fairly fluent. He came to the conviction that baptism must be by immersion, and that it was after conversion. He wrote back to the Congregational Church of his change of conviction. The immediate consequence is that they dropped all of his support. He landed in India not knowing how he would support himself or his wife, and not knowing exactly where to go. With some advice from William Carey and the direction of the Lord, he ended up in the land of Burma and became one of the most mightily used men of God in history.

What did Judson have to do? He had to do away with the predetermined, presuppositions about baptism that he had believed all of his life; that had been taught to him from childhood, and study the Bible objectively. An objective study of the Bible led him to the truth.
I don't think that the quote above is saying anything more than that.
DHK

 

Trying2Understand:
Your conclusion about the quote is correct. They call those places where these things take place SEMINARIES. All scholarship in the name of God is neither correct or honest, even in establishments you would expect academic integrity. Sad but true.

 

“He lies who renders a verse as it reads, with strict literalness; he blasphemes who
makes additions.”

 

Here is the thread the quote is taken from.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001064

 

Context is everything. The quote posted was in answer to a question concerning dubious Roman Catholic translations. The particular quote that you posted (which was not the entire post), was so ambiguous that one of the posters in the thread admitted that he had to read it at least three times before he got the sense of what he was trying to say, but in general agreed with him.
Why not come out with a more specific question based on something that has a lot more clarity if you have to use a quote. Or, you just could frame the question yourself without a quote.
DHK

 

DHK
Talking about questionable lack of context:"The quote posted was in answer to a question concerning dubious Roman Catholic translations.".
Thie following was the original question.

"I know about the use of the Vulgate (and translations thereof) as the official liturgical translation and the problems associated with that version.
However for none liturgical use (preaching, bible-study) other translations are normally used. Those are created from the same texts used for Protestant Bible versions, with a couple of apocryphal bits and books added.
Does anybody here know of any specific examples of questionable translating in those areas of Roman Catholic Bibles I haven't covered?"

 

Boy --

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

Wow!!

DHK, you sir are FAMOUS for not letting the Bible speak plainly, as indicated by our discusssions regarding the Protestant "legal fiction" of "imputed righteousness". You were told, not by me, but by a quote from two different PROTESTANT Bible Dictionaries that the Greek word "logizomai" does not have the meaning you place upon it, but you came right back and emphatically insisted that it did, and that the meaning given by both Kittle's and Vine's was wrong, presumably because the correct meaning torpedoes "imputed righteousness".

And you have the NERVE to criticize ANYONE regarding spurious handling of the Bible and torturing texts to make them meet your own criteria.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!

Go ahead now, give me your sorry excuse for a defense of your actions.

 

T2U,
I would completely disagree with you about your conclusions concerning the words for wine: oinos and yayin. But that is another subject and should be reserved for another thread.

I will agree with you on this point. As I said before the quote was poorly worded and ambiguous. But I think you are right.

There was no preconceived theology on Juddson's pary. What are you talking about here? He was a congrationalist. He wasn't studying a translation. He was studying from the original Greek (or at least a copy thereof). His conviction came from a study of the Greek Scriptures when he put away his Congregational biases and studied the Scriptures in the original languages. There were no preconceived ideas here at all. No adding to the Word of God; nothing of the type of false allegations that you are making. He wasn't translating the Bible while crossing the Atlantic. he was studying it in the Greek language, and from the Greek he realized that there was no way one could get pouring of water on infants.
DHK

 

The Vulgate is a Roman Catholic translation, translated by Jerome.

Most of the modern versions are translated from the same MSS that the Catholic versions are, while the KJV is translated from that group of MSS which we call the textus receptus or received text. Thus there are a number of differences between the KJV and other translations (including the Catholic Bible), such as omissions of entire verses, phrases, words, etc.
DHK

 

If you make that claim, then why is not 3 and 4 Maccabees and about 100 others such as 1 Enoch not included in the RCC Bible?

 

Again, I haven't looked up the quote in context, but reading it just as it is I can't disagree with it.
Whether in Greek or in English, words have different meanings. The best way to find out the meaning of any particular word is not only to use the lexicon, but also to use the context from which it is found.
To use a completely different example the word "wine," like our English word "cider" can mean either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Only the context can dictate which is fermented wine and which is not. I do not for one moment believe that when Jesus referred to drinking of "the fruit of the vine," that He was referring to an alcoholic beverage. Wine in that sense is symbolic of sin. It is leavened juice. Jesus would never celebrate the passover (or institued the Lord's Table) with leavened bread or leavened juice. Both are signs of corruption.
Yet we know that Noah got drunk with wine. Context is everything. Context determines the meaning of the word in many cases.

Thus he said: "I'd look up the references to repent, as well as..." His reference to Luther was probably a reference to one of his favorite commentaries just as you have some of your favorite church fathers. They are not authoritative. Only the Word of God is authoritative. But the research they have done is often helpful.
We can learn from the research of others. There is nothing wrong with honest study.

Consider the testimony of Adoniram Judson, missionary to Burma--America's first foreign missionary sent out by the Congregational church. The Congregational Church baptizes infants (I think by pouring). When Judson was crossing the Atlantic, he studied his Greek New Testament, in which he was fairly fluent. He came to the conviction that baptism must be by immersion, and that it was after conversion. He wrote back to the Congregational Church of his change of conviction. The immediate consequence is that they dropped all of his support. He landed in India not knowing how he would support himself or his wife, and not knowing exactly where to go. With some advice from William Carey and the direction of the Lord, he ended up in the land of Burma and became one of the most mightily used men of God in history.

What did Judson have to do? He had to do away with the predetermined, presuppositions about baptism that he had believed all of his life; that had been taught to him from childhood, and study the Bible objectively. An objective study of the Bible led him to the truth.
I don't think that the quote above is saying anything more than that.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you have never tasted real grape juice and studied why real wine was sold and how it was used.

 

BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES.

Proverbs 23:
29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.

Prov.20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Hab.2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

 

DHK
"The Vulgate is a Roman Catholic translation, translated by Jerome."
Yes quite aware of that.
Are you aware of the fact that Jerome's translation is closer to the Textus Receptus than to the modern critical texts?

"Most of the modern versions are translated from the same MSS that the Catholic versions are, while the KJV is translated from that group of MSS which we call the textus receptus or received text. Thus there are a number of differences between the KJV and other translations (including the Catholic Bible), such as omissions of entire verses, phrases, words, etc."
Yes also aware of that.
The members of my church are not going to adopt the KJV ever. If you don't realize why, reread the post you replied to.
The problem (?), of not using the TR applies equally to almost all bibles the world over.
Still if I were to take your advice I could suggest to my church to adopt the States Bible.
It was translated using the Elsevier edition of the TR and it renders the Old Testament better than the KJV.

 

Obviously if you live in the Netherlands, and your church speaks Dutch you would not be using the KJV. Most of the countries that I have visited do not have a Bible translated from the TR, nor have they studied the issue very much. The KJVO controversy is mostly confined to North America. When the Wycliffe Bible Translators (who have done a remarkable job in translating the Bible into many different languages), took there translations to various countries of the world, they made their translations from the Critical Text. Thus we have so many countries today that have a Bible translated from the Critical Text rather that from the TR.
If I visit a foreign nation, and that is the only Bible they have, I never even bring the subject up. It is more important to concentrate on the gospel and the great truths relating to the gospel, which can be taught out of any translation of the Bible.
DHK

 

DHK
I never hear anything but glowing reports about the Wycliffe Bible Translators. Still I can count myself lucky to be among those nationalities that doesn't need them.
As I said there is even a Dutch Textus receptus version of the Bible around, so we get to have our own version of the KJVO's.