1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Recently Published NT Translation

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jerome, Dec 18, 2017.

  1. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Van Tran:
    David Bentley Hart’s The New Testament: A Translation:
     
  2. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would like to see his reasoning, but I would guess it because there is no article before "θεὸς". The very argument the Watch Tower Society uses. Not to mention the old heresy of Arianism. This is unconvincing. If a lower case god was in view, or "a god", the sentence would read Και ό λόγος ην θεος.

    Of course it does not. It reads καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Note the location of Θεός. The emphatic positioning of "God" at the beginning shows Jesus' equality with God (The Father) from earlier in John 1:1. It could be paraphrased somthing like, "What the Father(God) was, Jesus(Word) was."

    However, if the Watch Tower, Arians and assuming Hart has produced a similar argument, had the article that demand before θεος, it would destroy the Christian concept of the Trinity. To say somthing like και ό(article) λόγος ην ό(article) θεος would also be saying that Jesus is the Father. The lack of the article keeps us from confusing Jesus with the Father.


    Long story Short, the word order in the Greek calls for the capital "G" God. The lack of article is against "Oneness". Issue with Hart's John 1:1 causes me great concern. At least he didn't say "a god", but "god" can certainly allow one to see it as just "a god".


    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Van,

    Have you found a place to view Hart's notes on John 1?

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    26,482
    Likes Received:
    444
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is NO reputable and recognized greek scholar that would translate jesus as being a god, as the intent of John here was to show Jesus as being very God, bu yet not the Father Himself, not for Him being a lessor god!
     
  5. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you claim the ESV/NIV,CSB are all no good.
     
  6. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nope, I snipped the text from on line review articles, and none I have found included the footnotes.
     
  7. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sheer nonsense, Jesus is God Almighty.
     
  8. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, Hart's translation butchers the verse, but note he does translate "apo" correctly (as from) rather than as the agenda driven mistranslation found in the ESV.
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    26,482
    Likes Received:
    444
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I said that very thing!
     
  10. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was unable to follow your argument from Greek grammar, but I agree, Hart's translation of John 1:1 is wrong in the opinion of a great many scholars, such as Dr. Dan Wallace.
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    26,482
    Likes Received:
    444
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If he holds to Jesus to just being a god, than whatever he wrote would be suspect!
     
  12. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No you did not! You said, and note I provide the quote:
     
  13. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scripture teaches there is no other god than Yahweh. Therefore to say some entity is "a god" or "god" uncaptialized (indicating not Yahweh) is tantamount to saying the entity is not God.
     
  14. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I *wouldn't say he butchers it. He does have support from the likes of G.K. Beale and Robert H. Mounce on this verse. He is following Greek syntax is sense of word separation from the preposition. Απο is closer to the slain lamb then it is to "book", "names" or the verb "written". I prefer a word order similar to NASB & ESV, but I can't say he butchered it. He made a decision there that was compatible Greek grammar ...as far as word order goes. One must make a judgement call as to what word the preposition is linking the prepositional phrase to.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    #94 McCree79, Jan 13, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  15. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because of Rev 17:8, the difficulty must be resolved in favor of written from the foundation. See NET footnote.
     
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    26,482
    Likes Received:
    444
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Or to say, along with the JW, that Jesus is a mighty god, but not the almighty God! Does he hold to that viewpoint concerning Christ?
     
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    26,482
    Likes Received:
    444
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Also need to look at the entire NT itself, as there is ample proof the election of God being based upon God choosing and dtermining that based upon His own Will.Period.
     
  18. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You tell me.
     
  19. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, he doesn't! He is a conservative Eastern Orthodox scholar. This gets back to Martin Marprelate in post #2 quoting from the OP article: "unless you can read the original languages, you should avoid making public pronouncements about which translation is best."

    His typographical conventions are explained at length in the notes:

    "The truth is that, in Greek...the Ianguage of the GospeI's proIogue is nowhere near so Iucid and unequivocaI as the [English] transIations make it seem."

    "my point is not that there is anything amiss in the theoIogy of Nicaea, or that the originaI Greek text caIIs it into question, but only that standard [EngIish] transIations make it impossibIe for readers who know neither Greek nor the history of Iate antique metaphysics and theoIogy to understand either what the originaI text says or what it does not say. Not that there is any perfectIy satisfactory way of representing the text's obscurities in EngIish, since we do not distinguish between articuIar and inarticuIar forms in the same way; rather, we have to reIy on orthography and typography"

    "how I deaI with the distinction in my transIation of the GospeI's proIogue, and I beIieve one must empIoy some such device: it seems to me that the withhoIding of the fuII reveIation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fuIIest sense, until the ApostIe Thomas confesses him as such in the Iight of Easter, must be seen as an intentionaI authorial tactic. Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticuIar form of theos as 'a divine being,' but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were aII the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectIy serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text of the GospeI cIearIy means to assert some kind of continuity of identity between God the Father and his Son the Logos, not mereIy some sort of association between 'God proper' and 'a god'."
     
  20. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for posting his notes Jerome.

    I disagree with Hart's conclusion. The use of θεος shows the qualitave equivalence of the Son and the Father. An equative statment as well. Namely being Jesus and the Father are one being. I think "God" is superior to "god" here. Reading the little "g" to me implies Jesus is lesser in worth and value than the Father. If not a separate "god" all together. The use of the predicate nominative is the perfect way to express the equative and qualitve equivalncy in nature(being), yet sperate persons of Jesus and the Father.

    I honestly have a hard time seeing how Hart can say the above and still see "god" as better than "God".


    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
Loading...