Hebrews 2:9

I like they way the Geneva puts it;

But we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, which was made little inferior to the angels, through the suffering of death, that by God's grace he might taste death for all men. Heb 2:9

I made the spelling changes for those who can't read it in it's original state.

 

Uh, that was my statement. It had nothing to do with being gentle. It had to do with obsessing over a difference in translational interpretation, which is all that this is.

I disagree. I think the KJV is correct. The word "braxu" means "little" - it can mean a "little time" if time is indicated by the context or it can mean a "little place" if place is indicated by the context, or, as it seems to be used here, as a statement of degree of position. By the way, Wiclif translated this passage as "made a litil les thanne aungels" and Tyndale said, "him that was made lesse then the angelles." Cranmer says "him that was made lesse then the angels." The Rheims says "him that was a litle lessened under the Angels." I doubt if all those good men could have made exactly the same terrible error. They must have seen there was good reason to translate as they did.

I am truly sorry my opinion that it is a matter of translational interpretation and not an obvious mistake has so upset you that you call me names and accuse me of having a double standard. Perhaps you are too emotionally involved in this issue to continue, but the fact remains that the word "braxu" is context driven and does not, in and of itself, imply time.

 

Skan,

Sounds like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning!

Anyway I agree with you! In this case the KJV translation makes fine sense. I think this translation here is preferrable to the NASB.

 

Nope. I'm feeling just fine. I really don't understand why so many people get all emotional whenever somebody disagrees with their conclusions. It must be the old nature coming through.

I am not certain it is better, but it certainly is consistent with the meaning of the Greek word and the context. I think all translators read something into the text they are translating (we all have presuppositions which influence us) but to accuse translators of "error" simply because their presuppositions differ from ours seems just a bit self centered to me.

 

Version to version to comparison is subjective, and so far as scriptural integrity, fruitless. I could easily say, "from the MV standpoint, I do see weaknesses in the KJV, but if I did look at the MVs from the KJV standpoint, all I can see is strength!".

The only valid comparison would be to compare versions to their source texts, which still exist today. When you do that, you find that every translation to English (including the KJV,NIV, NASB, et al) have translational issues in them. These are, in the very least, due to the inhierent proplems of translating from Hebrew or Koine Greek to English. In the Greek especially, there are words that don't appear in English. The word "love" is one example. In English, there is only one word. In Greek, there are several. All the English translations fall short of adequately translating John 21:15-17. The KJV is no exception. It DOES NOT read in English the same way it does in Greek. One must understand the differences between phileo and agape, as well as who spoke which and why.

 

And, of course, the ones you left out:

(ASV) But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.

(EMTV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, through the suffering of death, having been crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God, He might taste death for everyone.

(GB) But we see Iesus crowned with glory and honour, which was made litle inferiour to the Angels, through the suffering of death, that by Gods grace he might taste death for all men.

(ISV) But we do see someone who was made a little lower than the angels. He is Jesus, who is crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might experience death for everyone.

(KJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

(LITV) but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.

(MKJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for all.

Is this going to degenerate into a "battle of the versions?" I thought one of your criticisms of the KJVOs was they compared English versions instead of comparing to the Greek? Have you adopted their tactics?

Is it possible that different translators approach the text with different presuppositions which affect how they translate the passage?

 

Hey folks, let's all take a breather here. Hebrews 2:9 is a reference to Psalm 8:4-6, which reads:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet (In this passage, note that "man" referrs to all humankind, and "son of man" referrs to us individual mortals).

In this passage, the Hebrew word for "a little" is m`at, which means "slightly" or "somewhat". The verse in Hebrews is telling is that, for a while, Jesus was made human.

Let's not try to read too much into this, folks.

 

Version to version to comparison is subjective, and so far as scriptural integrity, fruitless. I could easily say, "from the MV standpoint, I do see weaknesses in the KJV, but if I did look at the MVs from the KJV standpoint, all I can see is strength!".

The only valid comparison would be to compare versions to their source texts, which still exist today. When you do that, you find that every translation to English (including the KJV,NIV, NASB, et al) have translational issues in them. These are, in the very least, due to the inhierent proplems of translating from Hebrew or Koine Greek to English. In the Greek especially, there are words that don't appear in English. The word "love" is one example. In English, there is only one word. In Greek, there are several. All the English translations fall short of adequately translating John 21:15-17. The KJV is no exception. It DOES NOT read in English the same way it does in Greek. One must understand the differences between phileo and agape, as well as who spoke which and why. </font>[/QUOTE]And whose translation are you using to deduce that and come to this conclusion, yours?

In the English "love" is defined as it is expressed by context, not needing three or more different words to define it.

Good effort, but bad grammer.

 

I agree, and your synopsis is exactly right. That is why God gave us that "single standard", In Our King James Bible.

 

I have an adequate knowlege of biblical Hebrew and koine Greek. Biblical Greek and Hebrew are common study courses at most Bible colleges. But for those who have no formal training of Greek and Hebrew, there are plenty of resources (such as Strongs) that can assist a person in biblical study.

And whose translation are YOU using to deduce that and come to this conclusion? My grammer regarding the aformentioned verses are 100% accurate. What makes you say that the examples I gave are inaccurate?

 

As he said, the Greek from which the KJV was translated. The words that have been translated as love are different, and the context doesn't help.

Who cares? That's not the way it was in koine Greek, and that's what really matters.

Are you saying that the English KJV IMPROVES the grammar of the koine Greek?

 

Which you say has authority over the source texts from which it was derived (the source texts exist today). Hence, you're guilty of idolatry of versions, or, as I coined the phrase, versionolatry.

 

That is EXACTLY what I'm a sayin'.

 

That is EXACTLY what I'm a sayin'. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know how that could be, since my understanding is that koine Greek has more words in common use that both King's or American English.

 

That is one of the most ASININE statements I've heard in a while...

 

That is one of the most ASININE statements I've heard in a while... </font>[/QUOTE]Its true, though.