Translator Question

Brian, thank you for pointing that out. I had researched when verses first came into usage, but division into chapters is something I had not thought of.

That bears consideration. I was serious earler when I spoke of publishing the KJV without verse numbers. I will now need to look at leaving chapter divisions out as well. I want to read the Bible in as close to the same format as it was intended to be, without resorting to learning more of the ancient languages and struggling with papri scrolls.

This is gonna take a lot of editing, however <sigh>.

--Ralph

 

No, that's okay, Steve. I will continue to admonish you. 'Tis no trouble, my brother.

Just joshing, I am not calling you a 'heretic' but another coment about you calling me one. Nope, I am not. In fact, my ancestry has much Welsh, Scot, and Irish in it. God gave us Celtic peoples the right to be downright obstinate, especially when we are right. And I am.

More seriously, as to usage of the term 'heretic' itself, it is usually reserved for someone whose religious beliefs are vastly different from your own. You and I, Steverino, are both Baptists. We subscribe, with some minor differences, to the same general doctrines and love the same God. It's not like I'm trying to talk you into worshipping a golden goat or somethin', eh?

Now THAT would be heresy! So you might like to pay somewhat closer attention to the terms you use.

And do not let anyone get your goat. And I'm not kidding (pun, as ever, intended).

--Ralph

[ December 29, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

1. No one doubts God's ability to use whatever means he wants. He has made it clear that men are to hold the position of elder and deacon in the churches.

2. This is incorrect as well. Do men now have babies because they are saved? What, you mean people have different roles? Exactly. Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with roles and everything to do with justification. You need to consider the surrounding context.

 

Felluz, "heretic" as translated in the KJV at this point is about someone who is divisive. It did not originally mean someone who denied basic biblical truth. Therefore, it is silly to use it in a name-calling sense.

Btw, any posts that include further name-calling will be deleted. We are not children.

 

You have a point there but I think what Pastor Bob was trying to get across is that just because we have technology doesn't mean that we are wise. There is a spiritual decline in the MV's and the Translation committees are questionable. There is another factor not considered. The further away one is from the time period the greater the rate of error. If you maintain that the scholars of today are better equiped to do the job right first time, where does the NIV translators get their version of Heb 11:11?

Another consideration is the idea of copyright. If the Bible is God's Word, belonging to God, why is the NIV copyright? Yes I do know the answer given to that question but the point is: Does the NIV belong to God or Zondervan? No part of the KJV/AV text is copyright.

By the way I have some idea on the TEXTS. I can pick holes even in the KJV but I maintain that the KJV uses the purest TEXTS.

Or consider the NRSV in Ge 1:2. That is an interesting concept where the Holy Spirit is rendered "a breath." I think the reason for this rendering goes far deeper than translation. Another point of consideration is the difference btw a translator and an interpretor. When one translates the Biblical Texts one should merely translate - not interpret like so many have done in the MV's.

 

1. No one doubts God's ability to use whatever means he wants. He has made it clear that men are to hold the position of elder and deacon in the churches.

2. This is incorrect as well. Do men now have babies because they are saved? What, you mean people have different roles? Exactly. Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with roles and everything to do with justification. You need to consider the surrounding context.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand the position of those Baptists who now say women cannot be ministers but I respectfully point out that Baptists have had female pastors and deacons since the 18th century. It is (at least in the SBC) suddenly Biblically incorrect only since the fundalmentalists have taken over. But, this too shall pass. In my honest opinion--like the KJV is dwindling in influence--so too shall pass the sexist and racist attitudes that have plagued religion in specific and humanity in general for so long. I'm sorry, but the patriarchial bias will eventually go.

One should read only love into the Bible. If a message of seeming intolerance or the deameaning of one individual over another or of saying we are not all equal comes from reading the Bible, obviously a misinterpretation is taking place.

In Christ--who is the ultimate equal opportunity employer--I am pleased to be a humble and obedient servent,

--Ralph

[ December 29, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

I totally disagree. I don't think there is any way you can substantiate this argument.

Sounds to me like you just argued for the eclectic text that uses this well known principle to give greater weight to the earlier texts. It is interesting to see it coming from you. It is also interesting to see you deny its validity by arguing that the KJV is based on the purest texts when they are clearly the farthest removed from the time period.

Just glancing briefly at the Greek text, I would say from there. What particularly are you questioning?

The KJV/AV text is copyrighted. This is a oft quoted misrepresentation. It is also a straw man. The NIV is not copyrighted because it is their word; it is copyrighted because it is their work product. It prevents someone else from stealing it and making money off of it, from changing it. It enables consistency. All translations are copyrighted.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand. The prohibition by Scripture of female pastors is not a statement that they are not equal. It is a statement of different roles. The limiting of the pastorate to men has been the traditional position of Christian churches all through church history. It is only in relatively recent times that people have disregarded that biblical injunction. There is a misinterpretation taking place. It is not from our side however. This is a place where it is imperative to let the text speak for itself. It does not need our help.

Scripture does not forbid women from ministry. To to contrary, it commands women to minister. It does however limit the office of pastor to men.

 

Since God himself created the church he
alone reserves the right to decide how he
wants his church run. It's his church.

It is not demeaning for God to decide he wants
only men to run the church. He designed
women and knows whats the best way to run things.

1 Cor. 14:34- Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35.) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

A woman that preaches is not in the will of God. I
think God sees women and men as equal but he
has willed them to have different roles. I
believe in using honesty when reading the bible.

Sister in Christ,
Heidi

 

Nope, sorry, cannot agree on the above. Everyone quotes 1st Timothy in saying that women cannot be pastors or deacons. That scripture is simply Paul setting forth rules for the first century church (reflecting his own patriarchial bias)--it's certainly not God talking. And Paul's rules for the first century church are not meant to be nor are binding on the 21st century church. We're a bit more enlightened than he was. God loves us all equally. Let he or she who can do the job, do it to the everlasting glory of Christ Jesus.

But this is not me coming out of left field (I am probably more conservative than the rest of you, even the KJVonlylites (albeit not about the KJV itself). As I said there have been Baptist women pastors for centuries and great savors of souls. Does the name Lottie Moon ring a bell?

To take the position that women should be in a subserviant role (as the SBC has done to their dishonor) is a losing proposition. And the denomination is losing members, even former President Jimmy Carter resigned from the SBC (say what you want about his ability as President, he IS a solid Baptist Christian). The force of history is now with equality. And equality is being with God. I prefer to be on God's side.

Like many, I'm having a crisis of conscience over the radical fundamentalist drift of the SBC and it's because of unsupportable and distasteful positions such as women submitting to men and the other things that come from a strictly literal but wrong interpretation of scriptures.

--Ralph

[ December 30, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

Ralph, a couple of points:

1. Continue the discussion about women in ministry in another forum.

2. If you think the leadership in the convention is radical fundamentalism, either you are way on the left spectrum, or you don't know what fundamentalism is. They are at best, very conservative New Evangelicals.

 

Ah... I apologize. I see (from reading your profile) that you are "anti-CBF" and that I am treading on toes. Sorry. ... I have not decided about the CBF yet, myself, although we have a growing number of churches in this area moving to them. I like the Mainstream Baptists a lot better.

Yes, this should go in another forum albeit a lot of it stems from the way people interpret or misinterpret the Bible.

But... I must say... Fundalmentalists ain't conservative despite what they may think .

Now, back to our regularly scheduled conversation about translator questions.

--Ralph