Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
Very true!
Click to expand...
The Csb started out to be MT based, but when the editor of project died, moved to CT base.
Rippon2
Well-Known Member
Joined:
Jan 13, 2020
Messages:
1,119
Likes Received:
177
Faith:
Baptist
No, it was its predecessor --the HCSB. At no point did the CSB start out to be MT-based.
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
As you rightly pointed out here, it was the HCSb, but I tend to see it as basically the Csb as before the revision!
Joined:
Mar 3, 2020
Messages:
167
Likes Received:
36
Faith:
Baptist
On page 4 of the Preface it states:
It’s with this goal in mind that the Literal Standard Version (LSV) was written—a modern, yet literal English translation based upon the most prolific texts: the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus (TR) and Majority Text (M) for the New . However, in certain, specific instances other manuscript versions and text-types are used where the evidence seems incontrovertible (e.g., the LXX and DSS in the Hebrew and Aramaic; the Alexandrian in the Greek).
Click to expand...
John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him]."
That is not a TR or M reading.
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
On page 4 of the Preface it states:
John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God;
the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him]."
That is not a TR or M reading.
I have no problem with "only begotten God"(or "only begotten son" for that matter), yet I have to wonder what is the incontrovertible evidence which tips the scales one way or the other for the LSV.
No other translation criteria are cited other than the very vague statement given above.
Click to expand...
They might have been better off going the Nkjv way, translate it as the MT does, and then footnote the alternatives!
rlvaughn
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
Messages:
10,544
Likes Received:
1,558
Faith:
Baptist
Makes me wonder if it isn't just shorthand for "we generally use TR and M, except when we would rather use something else."
Joined:
Mar 3, 2020
Messages:
167
Likes Received:
36
Faith:
Baptist
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 4, 2011
Messages:
27,029
Likes Received:
1,027
Faith:
Baptist
Begotten is archaic, but can be updated using "fathered" if the action is male, or "born" if the action is by a female.
However, I doubt that "the only fathered One" would be well received.
Arguments for "begotten" actually are based not on study (its a mistranslation from the Latin) but on provincialism, if it was good enough for those in the past, it is good enough for me.
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
Begotten is archaic, but can be updated using "fathered" if the action is male, or "born" if the action is by a female.
However, I doubt that "the only fathered One" would be well received.
Arguments for "begotten" actually are based not on study (its a mistranslation from the Latin) but on provincialism, if it was good enough for those in the past, it is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
And good enough for those such as on BGAD and Dr Robertson!
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 4, 2011
Messages:
27,029
Likes Received:
1,027
Faith:
Baptist
Utter falsehood, the BGAD indicated "begotten" was inadequate for a translation of monogenes.
One and only or unique are the translations considered "adequate."
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
Actually, allowed/permitted/ as per the Bible researcher!
Joined:
Jul 7, 2019
Messages:
1,867
Likes Received:
315
Faith:
Baptist
Lol, a truly eclectic edition!
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 4, 2011
Messages:
27,029
Likes Received:
1,027
Faith:
Baptist
God permits sin, does not make it right.
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
No, says can be still used!
Joined:
Feb 14, 2019
Messages:
9,903
Likes Received:
1,820
Faith:
Baptist
No, I don't know anything about it. However, the stated goal is misguided. It seems to concentrate on individual trees and yet missing the forest. A context-for-context translation would be much better.
Click to expand...
Beating a (subjective) dead horse. This is your opinion and your opinion only. You cannot definitively claim context for context is better.
Joined:
Feb 14, 2019
Messages:
9,903
Likes Received:
1,820
Faith:
Baptist
That is not exactly what it says....
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
My Lexicon is the BAGD edition, and this author states it far better than I ever could!The Only Begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιος)
Joined:
Feb 14, 2019
Messages:
9,903
Likes Received:
1,820
Faith:
Baptist
Ah, I am talking about BDAG, not BAGD. I'm not even familiar with BAGD.
Yeshua1
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Mar 19, 2012
Messages:
52,624
Likes Received:
2,742
Faith:
Baptist
The edition before the latest one, think published 1979!
Joined:
Feb 14, 2019
Messages:
9,903
Likes Received:
1,820
Faith:
Baptist
Is BAGD the same as BDAG?