... for a pastor to say,
"This word is also translated '...' in other places in the Bible."
"The Greek (/Hebrew/Aramaic) word used here can also be translated '....'"
"The NASV (NKJV/ESV/etc.) translates this verse as '...' which is a much clearer rendering."
When did it become sin...
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Mexdeaf, Jan 31, 2007.
Page 1 of 4
-
As far as I know, never! I think that's good Biblical study!!
-
-
-
-
It seems you're talking about lying by omission. This could be sinful in one way of looking at it. But if preachers start presenting every possible alternative in every sermon they will (1) considerably lengthen their sermons and (2) seem to be arguing with themselves. At times it may be better to simply present what supports your topic and move on.
One thing I really consider sinful is standing in the pulpit and blaspheming God's word. It is done quite frequently when preachers stand in the pulpit and call modern Bible versions some of the names that have been banned here at BB. If those terms are wrong for BB discussions they are just as wrong for sermons in our churches. -
One author claimed that updating is all right if it is done as follows: "'This word means' is acceptable; but 'A better rendering would be' is not" (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 315).
-
But don't the definitions sometimes get confused?
-
Truth of the matter is, I heard Fundamental Baptist preachers- godly ones who studied the Word- say that many times when I was new in the faith, and I learned much from it. It wasn't until KJVO became popular (I am guessing around the late 1980's or so) that I noticed preachers shying away from using statements such as those.
IMHO, KJVOism has done much to prevent IFBers from being true scholars of god's Word. -
Does he say why? -
Perhaps this author's statements before the quote indicate somewhat his reasons why.
"There are places that may need explanation, and it is the right for the teacher within reasonable limits to amplify, elucidate, and expound the English as well as the underlying text. But this must not be done in such a way to imply to the listener that errors exist. For example, 'This word means' is acceptable; but, 'A better rendering would be' is not" (WAY OF LIFE ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 315). -
-
It is never a sin to update an older version of the Bible to meet the level of the understanding of the hearers.
For instance:
KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
NKJ 1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
KJV 2 Corinthians 6
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
NIV 2 Corinthians 6
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.
HankD -
-
The Church of Rome refused to modernise the Vulgate as Latin turned into Italian and the people were left with a "mystery" book that only scholars could understand.
estote autem factores verbi et non auditores tantum fallentes vosmet ipsos
HankD -
Just goes to show what can happen when any version of onlyism is practiced. The Vulgate onlyists would rather have had the Scriptures a mystery to the average reader than to change anything. Doen't make a lick of sense!
-
George Santayana -
:D :laugh: :thumbsup: :eek: -
2-The Bible says not such thing.
To answer the thread starter question, the reasons why it is wrong is because 99% of the time, what follows those statements are either completely wrong or irrelevant, because grammar and context narrow the possibilites of a words meaning in a text. Citing all its possible definitions is absurd, for its use in a sentence automatically excludes the other meanings, and limits it to one—the one the author meant. Therefore correcting the Authorized Version in this way is often ignorance of basic grammatical understanding, not “scholarship”. How ironic. -
Excuse me....
I asked WHEN it became sin.
Because it happened long before Peter Ruckman, David Otis Fuller, J.J. Ray, and Benjamin G Wilkinson happened on the scene to 'enlighten' us all about KJVOism.
Even Jesus clarified the meaning of the Scriptures.
Page 1 of 4