Featured What version would Jesus read?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which versions would Jesus not use? Sure seems germane to the present tweet.

Apparently we have a sizeable number who do not agree that the Modern English Translations are seriously corrupted, perhaps even more than the Douay-Confraternity. There is a preponderance of evidence that Westcott and Hort were instrumental in polluting the scripture.

Beware of wolves dressed like sheep.

Thanks for the challenge. It is really interesting to read about who was on The English Revision Committee. There was an abundance of High Church Right Reverend Doctors, including Westcott and Hort.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.("even so" is a really good connective phrase)

Bro. James

 

As I said before --you are not telling the truth. You bear the responsibility to back up your reckless assertions --preferably in a thread of your own making.

 

Oops, I neglected to credit the folks who concocted that sentiment.

Here you go:

"Satan has found as many translators as there are frivolous and impudent minds; and he will probably find even more, unless God give them pause before it is too late. If the reader asks me for an example, let me refer to Sebastian Castellio's translation of the Bible. . . . We therefore regard it as a conscientious duty to break the silence we have hitherto kept, and to warn all Christians against this man, the chosen of Satan." —John Calvin and Theodore Beza, Bible de Genève, Preface

 

Jerome, since there are no quotation marks in your post #37 I will asssume you hold to that view.

 

Actually, the correct term for textual criticism is "lower criticism," a completely different animal from higher criticism. And anyone who edits a Greek NT does textual criticism--anyone!! So Erasmus did textual criticism, Scrivener did textual criticism, Burgon did textual criticism (though he didn't edit a NT), etc.

But yes, they looked down on the TR, that much is true.

 

n

Pardon me for mistakenly correcting you, saying that Westcott and Hort were textual critics but not translators. You are correct that they were on the ERV committee.

 

RE: John Burgon and a few other issues:

I know for a fact that John Burgon believed the Traditional Text needed correcting because I read it in his book The Revision Revised (containing a collection of documents). This was many years ago when I was still KJVO and nearly fell off my chair while reading.

Since then, I have settled in as a TR preference type although on occasion I use the NIV, NKJV and others.

I don't think it matters which version Jesus "prefers" - obviously He used the Hebrew text preached in Aramaic and perhaps knew some LXX passages (also,obviously at some dimensional level of His deity He knew every language).

I definitely believe Paul used the LXX in Asia Minor when preaching to Gentiles.

FWIW and IMO, the biggest hurdle in translation of the Koine Greek to English (or any other language perhaps - JoJ correct me on this) are noun/prepositions relationships (i.e. Instrumental vs. locative), then verb nuances and tense differences (i.e. aorist vs. perfect).

However - obviously the Holy Spirit (being omniscient of course) knows both the mind of the hearer(s) and the text in question. To me this is one of the reasons for Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to convict the world (containing a myriad of languages/cultures) of sin along with the word of God with those who bring the good tidings. ALL IS FORGIVEN.

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.

To this end, I believe God can use even a "poor" translation. The Great Commission is a partnership (so to speak) between the "sent" and those to whom they are sent. He WILL and in fact MUST help those who bear the good news.

Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

James 5:16b ... The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

My opinion of course (except for the scripture).

HankD

 

Shunnnnnn

 

He wouldn't read from a version --but from the originals.

 

My theory is that when He comes back He/we will all speak the same language - learned instantly I would imagine.

Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

HankD

 

"Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder." (NIV)

It is not speaking of a pure language.

 

Hi Rippon, The NIV is incorrect.

First of all the Hebrew word they have for "lips" is saphah and it is singular not plural in the Hebrew.

In addition, the NIV contradicts itself.

They have it right (same word - saphah) in other places:

NIV Genesis 11:1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.

NIV Genesis 11:7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

lips : Hebrew saphah :2278a; Lip, Language, speech; Theological workbook of the Old Testament (TWOT).

Same wording (saphah) used also in:

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

And several other places.

"shoulder to shoulder" is "with one shoulder" in the Hebrew.

It is a figure of speech and many of the modern translations use "shoulder to shoulder".
Many others do not.

However IMO, "shoulder to shoulder" means with "one consent" or "one accord" anyway.

Hebrew - "one shoulder" - figure of speech - in other translations:

ASV Zephaniah 3:9 ... to serve him with one consent.

RSV Zephaniah 3:9 ... and serve him with one accord.

NAB Zephaniah 3:9 ... to serve him with one accord;

NKJV Zephaniah 3:9... To serve Him with one accord.

Douay-Rheims (Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate)
Zephaniah 3:9 ... and may serve him with one shoulder

Young's Literal Translation:
Zephaniah 3:9 ... To serve Him with one shoulder.

LXX (The Septuagint, Greek translation of the Hebrew OT circa 285BC; Encyclopedia Britannica using the Brenton Translation):
Zephaniah 3:9 ... to serve him under one yoke.


HankD

 

Well, GW,CJB WEB and NASU agree with the NIV here.

That's a quibble.

You are allowed a mistaken opinion. ;-)

Have you ever heard of such a thing as semantic domain? One English word does not have to be used on every occasion for a particular translation of a Hebrew word.

Then it's not an issue. It never was.

But getting back to your preference of the word language in Zephaniah 3:9 --It does not refer to a language such as French or Spanish. It refers to holiness of speech. Or, as NRSV,ESV, MEV,EXB and CEB have it --pure speech.

The NLT and HCSB have it rendered as purify the speech.

 

It is an issue.
The difference between singular and plural can make a big difference in Hebrew words.

There are two kinds of plural in Hebrew - Dual and standard and one singular form.
Dual is used when there are generally two of anything - eyes, ears, lips, etc.
"Lips" is one of those dual plural nouns. But, when it is singular in Hebrew (as in Zephaniah 3:9) it means language. This is how a Hebrew knows the difference because he has more than one lip on his face.

saphah Same Hebrew word as used in Zephaniah 3:9.

ESV 11:1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words.
NLT 11:1 At one time all the people of the world spoke the same language and used the same words.
HCSB 11:1 At one time the whole earth had the same language and vocabulary.

Zephaniah 3:9 - A promise partially fulfilled in Acts 2:6.

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

I will cede that there is a small possibility that your choice of scholarship is correct.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Let the readers decide.

Good discussion.

HankD

 

Actually, sometimes the NT quotes the LXX, and sometimes the NT writer re-translates from the Hebrew. It depends on what purpose the author has in quoting the OT, and whether or not the LXX correctly makes the point the NT author wants to make.

 

Got it. Thumbsup