Featured The Fulfilled Covenant Bible

Bible translation is all about linguistics. You are on the Bible translation forum. Got it?

 

Okay, folks. All is clear now. I should have read further down the page on the website I gave. It said, "It is hoped that this collaborative effort, which is based on the World English Old Testament and the King James Clarified New Testament texts (both of which are in the public domain), has produced a valuable resource, free of futurist translation bias, to advance our Lord’s Kingdom."

Compare the FCB to the KJV in the NT and you get extremely close equivalence, often exactly the same verses, except that the FCB does not italicize the words as the KJV does. Also, noting the above phrase, "free of futurist translation bias," and you know that what I said about preterist presuppositions. So it's really not a new translation at all, just a re-working of the KJV according to preterist bias. :sleep:

Looking at the bios of the men on the website, none of them have training in the original languages, and they even seem to oppose such training. Mike's bio even says, "He has credited the absence of imposed and enforced indoctrination from seminaries and Bible Colleges, for allowing for independence in his studies, with a dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s ability to teach." Gary also shows no training in this area, saying in his "Spiritual Journey," "The Greek word is 'Dialegomai', where we get the English word dialogue from." This is committing what is called the root fallacy, in which the meaning of a word is thought to come from it's etymology rather than its contemporary usage. These men are claiming knowledge they don't have.

Again, here is a statement on the site: "The blatant omission of the Greek word mello (about to), which is an imminent time indicator, from the KJV 106 times. The NIV and NASB “only” omit mello about 85 times. Mello has now been re-inserted back into the Word of God, where it has always belonged." (Huh? So they are putting a Greek word into the English Bible?) The word menno is actually in the TR 107 times, translated "about to" six times. It is often translated "to come" in the KJV, a perfectly legitimate rendering. Therefore, the idea that it is omitted 106 times from the KJV is therefore errant nonsense. It is translated every single time, just not precisely like a preterist would like it to be.

In the testimonies, you will find close connections on the website to Charismatic ministries and churches, and also a large portion of Gary DeMar's Christian Reconstructionism heresy (not Baptistic in the slightest). Gary's testimony ends with a typical Charismatic statement, "He even put the icing on the cake, to confirm His word personally to me, by confirming it with signs and wonders following!" Gary also talks about receiving many prophecies in his "Spiritual Journey."

I'm sure they mean well, but none of these men are qualified or equipped to revise the Word of God. Don't waste your money on this "translation."

 

But the men on the FCB website make numerous (albeit mistaken) references to NT Greek. Were they then wrong to do so, wrong to try to use linguistics?

 

My background includes extensive training and experience in NT Greek, something I recommend to all preterists. However, as I recall you once thought I depended too much on the Greek. Funny thing to think, seeing it is the original language of the NT as you well know. :type:

Do you then believe the English translation to have more authority than the originals?

 

John, you've brought up some very serious points that should give people pause before buying or especially relying on this "translation."

 

I felt it was worth the work to find out the details. Sometimes people need to be informed.

 

100 years ago, at a time when the sale of 1 or 2 million copies of a book represented a significant percent of the english speaking book buying population, the Scofield Refrence Bible achieved that distinction. While not perfect, this edition had a tremendous impact and in no small way helped to facilitate the indepth study of the Bible by the common man. True, popularity doesn't equal correctness but consider the following:

Let me know when the preterist study bible reaches sales of 10% of the 1 million copies sold in the first few years after the Scofield hit the stores.

With respect to dates, it is interesting to observe how preterists use history to make their case. One can only speculate how the public would react if the dreams of preterist were to come true and their movement were to take off! Foes of dispensationalism love to find fault with the Scofield Bible published in 1917, but how does that make their (preterist) theology correct? It doesn't of course.

Image what secular historians and even non-preterists Christians would say if the historical "proof" preterists give to bolster their theology were to receive widespread evaluation. In my opinion, it would make the pre-mil, pre-trib dispensationalists (of which I'm one) look down right sane in the eyes of the non-believing world.

from Wikipedia:

The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible is now in the public domain, continues to be published, and is "consistently the best selling edition" in the United Kingdom and Ireland.In 1967, Oxford University Press published a revision of the Scofield Bible with a slightly modernized KJV text and a muting of some of the tenets of Scofield's theology. The Press continues to issue editions under the title Oxford Scofield Study Bible, and there are translations into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. For instance, the French edition published by the Geneva Bible Society is printed with a revised version of the Louis Segond translation that includes additional notes by a Francophone committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible

 

That can't be so, the evangelical brain trust belongs totally to the reformed theologians. According to them, dispensational theology is strictly a popular movement.

A visit to the website of this publication is most informative. Take a look at the photographs at the picture and video tab and see if they don't remind you of another popular movement just past. And yet the dispensationalist uses a sensationalist approach to theology. Preterism in general seems to have skipped over Titus 2:11-13. I guess it does not apply to them.

Notice also the lack of specific and technical information of the physical hard copy bible being offered for sale.

 

Found this article by the guy publishing this [obviously through a vanity press] in the latest issue of some newsletter called "Fulfilled!":

Apparently there was a "my Preterist Bible needs a new name" contest:laugh:

 

I object to this Michael Day on two levels. First of all, if he really had faith that he was doing the right thing, he wouldn't wait until he had 500 orders. If you're sure, you go ahead and step out by faith. He says he will "step out on faith" once he receives 500 orders and breaks even. Breaking even is not faith.

Secondly, he pretends a knowledge of Greek he doesn't have. He makes these statements like he was a Greek scholar, but several are so obviously wrong it is plain he doesn't even have a basic Greek grammar or lexicon--probably nothing but Strong's in some basic software.

I just noticed today that asterisktom has fled this forum and re-started this on the Baptist Theology and Bible Study thread, and there mentions the mello (mellw) issue there. It will be a good study for me, and hopefully, enlightening for others.

 

Not before putting us all on his iggy list.

 

Really? I'm devastated! :sleep:

 

By just being a hyper/full pretierist, and by interpreting how to translate thru those lenses invalidate suppossed "Greek expertise?"

isn't it amazing that he has seen insights in the greek that scholars on Esv/Nasb/Niv were unable to see?

 

Yeah, really! :laugh: