That's what dynamic equivalence is. Rather than formal equivalence, which is focused on translating words accurately, d.e. focuses on translating meaning accurately.
The *KJV* has the "book" translation. That was his point. All manuscripts (that I'm aware of) have "'eulou' of life". The TR contains "'biblou' of life" because Erasmus didn't have any Greek manuscripts that contained this passage, so he translated this passage *into* Greek from the Vulgate.
I will look into my notes about the grammatical issue. I find it interesting that in all that was written about the Trinity at the Nicean council, the verse is never mentioned. That would be like having an international prophecy conference today dealing with explicitly and specifically defining the rapture, and nobody ever mentioning 1 Thess 4:16-17.
[ December 18, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
Christ's body, broken for you
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BrianT, Dec 14, 2002.
Page 5 of 6
-
For whatever it's worth:
On page 727 Volume III of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT it states that the general usage of the word klao (outside the NT) has the meaning of "to break off" as a branch of a tree and not necessarily to break or tear into pieces. That is to cut off rather than to shatter etc...
Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Could this be the metaphor that Paul had in mind?
HankD -
When you study the argument of 1 John 5, the addition is totally out of place. It has nothing to do with what John is saying. It was an addition, probably from a scribal marginal note that noted a similarity. A later scribe saw it in the margin and added it in tthe text. The veritable paucity of manuscript support precludes any serious consideration of its textual authenticity. -
-
-
[ December 18, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ] -
RE: 1 John 5:7
The Latin fathers starting with Tertullian (disputed) from around 175AD quote the passage with the statement "the scripture says" (or words to that affect).
It is found in many of the old Itala (dates from 200AD) and the Vulgate mss but only a few late Greek mss.
HankD
[ December 18, 2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: HankD ] -
Although I am not strictly KJVO (I know there are translation weaknesses) I believe "broken" is original.
Interesting thread.
HankD -
-
At no time did he declare that it was wrong because it disagreed with his preferred version nor did he say that the KJV is not the Word of God because the phrase is included. In fact, Pastor Larry has affirmed that the KJV is the Word of God on numerous occasions.
The statement whether original or not does not insert a false doctrine nor detract from God's message to man. Therefore, it is not an error. However, if you demand a word for word, verse for verse equivalent to the originals then it probably is an error.
[ December 18, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ] -
The Revelation 22:19 Question - Since I did not have a clue what he was talking about when he mentioned this variant I will not be presumptuous and give my own answer. I will only refer to another web site.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_re22_19.html
Hey, only an idiot acts like he knows every answer. -
My original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I make the doctrinal assumption of the perpetuity of the scriptures. Any manuscript line that did not survive use for an extended period of time is deemed unreliable in its variant reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your response:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your assumptions are not only unsupported by evidence and logic, they contradict them. The more generations a hand copied document line contains, the more likely that errors will be introduced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A doctrinal assumption is a doctrine that is taught by a religious group (in this case many denominations of Baptist) in which I did not want to fully explain but took for granted that you understood and probably accepted.
However, since you claim that it is illogical and without evidence I will explain it.
First: Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
The Word of God is magnified above the Name of God. This expresses the extreme importance of the Bible. It would be illogical to believe that God would hap hazardly protect His Word when He has placed such preeminance.
Second: Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
God claims that His Truth endures to all generation. If it misses a generation, or if the Bible disappears then God lied.
Third: Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Here the contrasting of grass and the flower with the Word of our God gives the definition of preservation. The Bible will not be decay nor will it ever be destroyed.
Therefore the Perpetuity of the Scriptures is based in scripture.
I do not discount logical arguments. However, never make a one that supplants Biblical Revelation. The Perpetuity of the Scriptures is based in the Sovereignty of God. It is illogical to conclude that since we have manuscripts that have errors or even variants then this doctrine is incorrect.
You must prove that the Perpetuity of the Scriptures is false based on actual undeniable fact, not interpretation of evidence. -
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet at the same time you trust Erasmus to collate the perfect Greek text? Surely you see the inconsistency here... You trust him to select at random a handful of incomplete mss and collate them into an inerrant text while denying that Nestle-Aland was able to come up with an accurate text considering 100's if not 1000's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I rely on the Sovereignty of God. This argument requires me to accept that Erasmus did not collate the perfect Greek text (and please note that I already mentioned the straw man argument of a perfect text). First prove that He did not. Bring undeniable facts that his Greek text contains false or misleading inclusions (do not give opinion).
I do not accept Nestle-Aland because of the assumptions that they make when performing a textual criticism, namely that the Alexandrian text is superior because it dates older. When in fact, any corrupting of the text that was attempted began before any extant text that we have. Also, the early fathers quote from the TR line more than the Alexandian line (as soon as I again find the title of the book that details this I will post it). These assumptions of theirs are not held by all. Therefore, these assumptions must be proven.
Also, I will state that if God does not providentially work in the preservation of His Word, man cannot and will not do it. -
-
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have made up your mind what your conclusion would be then imparted on a single-minded journey to reach that pre-determined end.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I spent two years researching this subject (1996-1997). I used the NIV for a number of years prior. I tried to understand as much as I could without a working knowledge of Greek at the when I did research it. I may not be able to adequately present some of my findings but I do what I can and continue to research it.
The bottom line problem that I have is Textual Criticism that is the underlying factor of all of the modern translations. Somehow I am supposed to trust some man that I have never met nor know what his doctrines are. He tells me that he does trust worthy work yet he had to update his own work 27 times. None of the major translations used the most recent edition. And since Nestle-Aland had to correct themselves that many times should I wait to see if they do it again. This may sound critical and unscholarly - well it is. These are very simple and practical objections. I guess when they can be reliable on the simple and practical, then I may begin to trust them on the complex and scholarly.
If you can give me any solid reason that I should rely on them, without using Greek variant arguments, please tell me. I am open (it may not sound that way, but I am). God came down in the form of a man, how much more practical could He get when He died on the Cross to save me.
-
-
In any event, you are the first person I have ever run across to make this claim. Every authority I have read has held the exact opposite view. In fact, this is widely considered a validation of the Alexandrian texts.
-
The heights of RCC heresy and suppression of true Christianity came between 700 AD and the late years of the Reformation. During the same period, muslim infidels controlled Egypt and the holy lands. I do not dispute that the BT is an accurate transmission of God's Word. However, when attempting to reconstruct the originals, I think consideration must be given to the line of text that contains the oldest mss especially since many of them seem to have been frozen in time so to speak. -
You said,
I have no problem accepting God's word as is.It's not hard try it;your argument is built on sinking sand.
Perhaps someone else in this thread has already point this out... but...
When you say "God's word," I assume you are referring to the KJV? Assuming that you are --
Do you acknowledge that the KJV was the work of scholars who studied and referred to manuscripts and older Bible versions in the making of the KJV?
If so, then do you believe that the scholars of the KJV were able to choose variant readings and the proper translation for each and every reading in all the Old Testament and New Testament? If yes, then how did the KJV scholars achieve this? -
It's different from the King James Bible.
Just because it does not read word-for-word like the KJV doesn't mean it's bad or untrustworthy. The KJV did not read word-for-word like the Bible versions that came before it -- should the KJV have been rejected since it was "different" from the other versions?
And, if you are tempted to bring up the ol' KJVO motto that "Things that are different are not the same," Please take a look at this web page:
http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/axiom_vs_thesis.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bible Versions Discussion Board
[ December 21, 2002, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Gromit ]
Page 5 of 6