|
|
Post by LS on Feb 18, 2014 18:58:45 GMT
I noticed a passage from the NET bible recently, Joshua 1:2 "Moses my servant is dead. Get ready!1 Cross the Jordan River! 2 Lead these people into the land which I am ready to hand over to them." Now compare that with the KJV of Joshua 1:2 "Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a KJV only person, I was only using it as a reference. What bothered me about the NET interpretation was the use of exclamation marks! Somehow I don't "see" God exclaiming when giving instructions, but maybe that's just me. Anyway, I decided to do a little research on the "The NET Bible" and found this on their "Welcome" page The Net Bible . Com "The NET Bible (New English Translation) is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes!" The very first sentence is an exclamation, which I found amusing  On the endorsement page NET Endorsements there are two Pastor / Teachers and one recently deceased Professor, all of whom I highly respect, giving their feedback. But what I found most interesting was the endorsement by Mr. William E. Paul - Editor, Bible Collectors’ World . In it he states: “One of the newest translations of the New Testament, a very ambitious work by twenty anonymous scholars, is called the NET Bible" "Twenty anonymous scholars? My first thought was, "Yes, we're bible scholars, but please don't attach our names with this work". Does anyone else find this oddly amusing?
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 18, 2014 19:32:01 GMT
LS, I do find the exclamation thing strange. I also find the wording around the land strange too.
Net: "Lead these people into the land which I am ready to hand over to them."
KJV: "go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel."
The KJV says God is giving the land to the Israeli's while the NET says God will give the land over. I know these are such minor, picky technicalities, but things are gradually changed over years using minor technicalities. Some editions of the bible have written in abominations. I'm not saying that NET is a bad version, I'm just saying I think KJV is a better translation of this passage.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 18, 2014 21:33:24 GMT
I found that funny too, actually. Apparently, these guys like exclamation marks. It gives me the impression of someone shouting.
LS, you forgot to add an exclamation mark to the impression you got of what they were thinking when you said....
"Yes, we're bible scholars, but please don't attach our names with this work!" hahahahaha
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 18, 2014 22:54:27 GMT
Actually, Elizabeth, you make a great point that I overlooked, I don't think you're nit-picking at all. To me, that particular passage in the KJV conveys a clear, concise message, whereas the same passage in the NET, regarding the land, just sounds strange. Shiloh ... what can I say? You had me literally laughing out loud (why didn't I think of that?) Good one! |
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 18, 2014 23:17:42 GMT
Jim, thank you for making me feel like I wasn't just being a cranky old lady. Shiloh, you are too funny, I really laughed. Now, I double checked the passage with the NASB and Darby version and this is what they had: NASB (Jos 1:2) "Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel. Darby (Jos 1:2) Moses my servant is dead; and now, rise up, go over this Jordan, thou and all this people, into the land which I give unto them, to the children of Israel. Like the KJV, the NASB, and Darby have the giving of the land in the present tense. It is possible that the NET has the better translation to the original source. I am not sure how you would check that out as I am not a Greek scholar. I trust the KJV and NASB people generally though. Elizabeth |
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42 
|
Post by eben on Feb 19, 2014 1:01:31 GMT
The NET translation of those verses are a bit hilarious, it makes God sound as if He is trying to startle. To be honest, the KJV translation is far easier to understand here.
"I know these are such minor, picky technicalities..."
But my contention is that these seemingly insignificant stuff add up and the end thereof is a different message.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 3:16:18 GMT
Elizabeth, good catch!! That is the EXACT thing I noticed, but since I came to this thread late, you beat me to it, lol!!! Yes, I am very skeptical of any Bible translation that has different wording in it. Like eben said,
Well said!! The accuracy of the Word is very important.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 19, 2014 20:19:24 GMT
eben and leeza, I think it does end up as a slightly different message, as the verb tense in different. I wonder if it was done on purpose, I tend to think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 20:49:00 GMT
Yes, me too, Elizabeth! Plus like Jim said, even the Net Book scholars want to remain anonymous, so what does that tell you, lol!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 19, 2014 21:24:58 GMT
I was rather curious about this NET bible, so I went to wikipedia and found this:
"The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry."[1] Many of those involved in the project's initial discussions eventually became part of the translation team. The translation itself claims to be non-sectarian, "inter-denominational" and evangelical.
If this bible was meant to be interdenominational, and was written by all these different scholars, I can see how these bad translations are arising. And Jim, apparently there are people who will put their name to this project.
Wikipedia Quote Click Here
I went to another site about this NET bible and apparently they are concerned about neutralizing gender more than say, the KJV. Here is a paragraph that I found interesting:
The gender-neutral language in the NET Bible is moderate when compared to some other recent Bible versions, such as the TNIV. We notice that in the NET Bible, the willful "brother" does not disappear from Matthew 18:15-17, the cowering "women" are still to be seen in Isaiah 19:16, and the masculine singular pronouns are not removed from Psalm 1. But there is an avoidance of the words "son," "man," and "men" when the translators felt that the sense would not be affected by putting in their place "child," "person," "people," etc. For example, in Mark 1:17 the generic masculine ανθρωπων in "I will make you fishers of men" is neutralized with the rendering "I will turn you into fishers of people." This is accurate enough, and it requires no explanation or apology. But we note with disappointment that when the editors do offer an explanation of it in their preface, they do not acknowledge the true reason for their avoidance of the word "men," and instead they repeat the evasive claim often made by proponents of gender-neutral language, that a phrase like "fishers of men" would be misunderstood by modern readers. We should like to see evidence that any reader who is capable of understanding the metaphorical usage of "fishers" here would be so dense as to think that "fishers of men" means that Jesus is calling Simon and Andrew to become evangelists of male adults only. But again, regardless of the motives for it, it makes little difference whether the plural of ανθρωπος is translated "men" or "people" in most places.
Click Here Bible Researcher.com
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 20, 2014 2:01:13 GMT
Reading that quote actually made me laugh out loud, Elizabeth, thanks for taking the time to research this further.
You're right, the project Director and editor, Mr. W Hall Harris III's name is mentioned in the Wiki piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 21, 2014 5:39:50 GMT
So, folks, how about a little speculation. The Word of the Lord abides forever. Since there will be no desire to pervert the Word for any reason, will it be imperative to guard the Word and be picky, or would our occasional paraphrasing be innocuous enough - i.e., the unblemished content being second nature and written on our hearts - and not the letter of the Word being as important when we cite parts of God's Word [edit: later when we're in Heaven]? Wouldn't it be even easier if when we had a question about meaning we could consult the actual person who wrote it centuries ago, or maybe ask Jesus Himself? Will every being of any variety speak the same language and dialect, and will unique colloquialisms disappear? Will we learn that the canon we have is a relatively smaller subset of the entire Word of God recorded by means we could not possibly comprehend? Will we discover our current Scripture, although sufficient for our limited dimensionality, is part of an array of currently incomprehensible spiritual dimensions, which we'll eventually discover contain far deeper revelations of the Father's glory and truth than would have ever been possible for mortals to even sense?
Just imagine how long our posted threads could eventually get with that depth of material to work with! [Exclamation point intended, LS.] I suspect these quaint keyboards will be amusing communications relics, although keyboards will likely still be employed for a while in the early decades of the Millennium. It may take a while to rebuild the world's infrastructure to support mass-produced electronic devices again, though. Speaking of mass productions, are we thinking the RCC will cease such gatherings? I'd say, yup!
Sorry for this assault, but in fairness you all had a chance to stop reading this. Any thoughts, other than SG, you really need to get a life?
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 21, 2014 14:11:32 GMT
I disagree StillGuessing, every single word is important - down to the last jot or tittle. That is how God taught Israel to preserve His Word, and that is how the Gentiles should follow: treat the Word the same way God's chosen people (Israel) treats His Word.
Yes, God's Word abide for ever. But let us keep it plain and simple: how many times have God said to preserve His Word? It is written in the Bible. If God told Israel how every single jot or tittle matters, that also includes us. And only the King James have faithfully preserved God's Word by translating it word-for-word. All of the modern versions disregard God's commandment by translating His Word according to what translators believe is right in their own understanding.
we can agree to disagree on this. It Is not a matter of salvation of faith thru grace.
maranatha
|
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 21, 2014 15:46:24 GMT
I don't believe we disagree, eben, but God's Word, Truth, Revelation, and Majesty in my estimation transcend what can be written into a book, particularly one we can carry around in our hands -- the Holy Bible -- or have 17 versions of stored on a silicon chip we carry in our shirt pocket. I am not saying there is anything insufficient in what God has preserved for us, and we know for certain that what's there is indeed error free at the root, absent man's and Satan's distortions and abuses. But it has to be abridged, though, to be useful for we limited creatures. John testifies to the abridgement in the last verse of his Gospel: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." There's way more to the Word - God revealing Himself to us. After all, consider 1 Corinthians 2:9: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him..."
There's a lot more to the Word of God than meets the eye. That's what I am trying to say. And we right now do not have the ability to know much of the truth, regardless of how much we may have studied to show ourselves approved unto God. But our abilities and senses to understand, plus our new perspectives, and also not to leave out the Spirit of God who will always be within us, and adding the experiences He is going to provide for us in eternity, and that we'll finally begin to comprehend about Him - all these adding to Revelation of His Word - are going to grow by light years in the very near future. I fully expect God has some surpassingly interesting things we'll be able to discover soon. To me it's totally exciting to ponder.
Do we disagree, really?
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 21, 2014 17:30:42 GMT
I think we too often get hung up on certain wording. In my bible study group, it seemed everyone used different versions of bibles and the leader would say (regarding a verse/s) "What does yours say?" and to the next, "What does yours say?" and so on. Everyone had come to the conclusion that the same point was getting through in all versions.
As long as nothing is taken away from the Word or added to it, then any version is fine. Some versions are easier for some people to understand than others. My personal preference is the NKJV.
As far as the word "man" goes, for the most part, people understand it is intended to include women also, as in "mankind". The word "woman" has the word man in it. It is important for those who do not understand to see this. Otherwise, they can misconstrue the meaning and it can be used as an excuse for abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 21, 2014 17:57:28 GMT
Hi SG, Where you've gone deep, so to speak, I'm going to take the simple approach because that's how my peanut brain works best. You seem to be making references to what we'll know in the Millenium, am I correct? If so, then most assuredly we'll have a much deeper understanding because we'll see Him as He is, as Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." That will be wonderful! The reason I started this thread was to point out how, in English at least, as there's also a Chinese version, the interpretation of scripture found in The NET bible seems rather odd at times. I also find it troubling that the "bible scholars" who created it (20 of them at least) didn't want to attach their names to it. Can you imagine a scientist, or group of scientists not wanting their names attached to a particular project? As for having The Holy Spirit guide us in all truth, I can say that the first time I heard a well respected bible teacher quote from "The Message" bible, I was immediately struck by the thought of, "something's not right here". Was that The Holy Spirit speaking to my spirit? I say it was. Yet I'm not suggesting that The Holy Spirit was telling me that The Message bible isn't for everyone, it just wasn't right for me. And that's the same approach I'm taking with The NET bible; I was just curious to know if there were others out there who felt it wasn't the proper source for them either. Update: Compare these verses from The Message bible to the KJV: The Message Bible Romans 10:13 — “Everyone who calls, 'Help, God!' gets help.” KJV Romans 10:13 — “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” As "DPR2014" says below, "Some of these seemingly unimportant words, are in fact important when taken in context." And I agree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 18:06:24 GMT
The Bible, the number 1 selling book of all times! Call me cynical,however,if there were no money to be made,I doubt very little effort would be expended with yet another translation?
So if you're translating a new scripture and you don't change something what have you accomplished?? The Word is supernatural, this dubbing down the scriptures to make it fit society just doesn't set well with me. Some of these seemingly unimportant words, are in fact important when taken in context.
Thank God, they left the original Greek and Hebrew alone !!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 21, 2014 20:31:15 GMT
Yes, LS. The intent of my post was to 1) solicit speculation in this forum about the Eternal Word of God as it exists in Heaven, and 2) offer my supremely high view of the Word of God and its universal extent. I guess the scope of what I said probably exceeded the intent of your thread. Sorry about that. As I myself suggested, I guess I need to get a life.
On topic then, kinda'...: I became very agitated about eight years ago about the political correctness I found in a set of CDs containing the New Testament, being read from the Today's New International Version,(TNIV). One day while at a Christian bookstore I picked up the CD set which was in the mark down bin... I should have left it there. My usual Bible text for the last thirty-plus years has been the NIV, so being familiar with that original wording while listening, those politically correct terms caused my brain to "tilt." ["Tilt" is a term many younger ones here may not recognize as what happens when a player of a a pinball machine used to jar the machine too hard. The machine would simply shut down until someone put another coin in.] The TNIV's strict meaning was changed for user friendliness.
It's not sufficiently satisfying to me that maybe 99.95% or more of the wording was the same as the version I was quite familiar with. It's those softer humanistic spins on the meaning that make fogies like me cringe. Some people have unknowingly passed on counterfeit dollars, but when it comes to the Word of God, counterfeit is too eternally risky to tolerate. Not that the Holy Spirit isn't capable of error correction when a person truly seeks Him...
I haven't examined the NET Bible, and probably won't... Maybe in the Kingdom we can find those twenty, presuming they trust Jesus' death for their salvation, and find out what they were thinking, and how since that time until our conversation with them, they may have changed their minds.
Back on track? Close?
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 21, 2014 22:45:09 GMT
Hi SG, From this last post of yours, it looks as if a few of us misunderstood what you were saying in the first one. I definitely misunderstood and I apologize for that. Apparently we're on the same page, so to speak. And I don't think you took the thread off topic at all ... just one of those forum communication things that was discussed in another thread this morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 21, 2014 23:52:20 GMT
Maybe I should change my screen name from "Still Guessing" to "Still Confusing." :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 22, 2014 1:47:14 GMT
I don't understand ... (puzzled look)  |
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 22, 2014 2:39:54 GMT
But let us keep it plain and simple: how many times have God said to preserve His Word? It is written in the Bible. If God told Israel how every single jot or tittle matters, that also includes us. And only the King James have faithfully preserved God's Word... I hate to break it to you, but that statement is actually grossly inaccurate. You could start simple, and look at the names in the text, many of which were explicitly changed in order to reflect King James' own family: James, Brother of Jesus = real name "Joseph" Mary, mother of Jesus = real name "Miriam" ----- ...or the inclusion of books that weren't inspired: the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha. ----- Or the numerous errors in interpetation: www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors------ Or the inclusion of passages (either verses, or whole chapters(!) that aren't in any other text: www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html...I could go on and on. Point being? KJV is an excellent translation, but it's not inerrant, and isn't inspired. It's just... good. Was God instrumental in its creation? No doubt. ...but is it God's perfect "word-for-word" translation? Nope. Only the original texts can lay claim to that. |
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 22, 2014 4:36:53 GMT
I am aware of the links you posted. As for the Apocrypha, the translators of the King James Bible knew that it wasn't inspired. It was initially included just for its extra-biblical value, not part of the actual Bible.
I can dig up articles from my research to counter those claims about the errors in the KJV. Anyway I won't lie: I am a King James Version only person. I have to say this again: English is not my native tongue (it is technically my third language) yet out of all the English versions of the Bible that I have read, it is the KJV that I find easiest to read and understand. And it has significantly helped me understand the Word of God.
I trust in the King James Bible and if you have read the book's preface or introduction maybe it will change your mind. Still, we can agree to disagree on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 22, 2014 4:43:50 GMT
Oh, I don't disagree with anything you've said in that post, with the exception of the "KJV only" part.
There are several translations that I would consider excellent; none I would consider perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 22, 2014 10:12:25 GMT
Well, I have to agree with that, SG. God's Word, Truth, Revelation and Majesty DOES transcend anything that can be written in any version. I believe if we were to have to stick to one particular version, God would have made sure we knew that. None of who He or the Son is will be lost if we are searching for the Truth. He knows our hearts and will see that we are not deceived. I have a few different versions. The NKJV, the NIV, the NLT and the ISV. I compare them all. Gee, I hope we're not tested by fire at the Bema Seat for what Bible/s we've used. |
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 22, 2014 14:28:52 GMT
So, at the risk of becoming tedious, let me pose once again a call for speculation. It seems the problems among various translations are ones of 1) authenticity -- the precise message God originally intended us to have, and 2) the ongoing maintenance of the message's faithfulness to God's original intent. I posed the question yesterday about whether in the Kingdom everyone might be speaking the exact same language and dialect. That condition would simplify maintaining both objectives. For example, one advantage of employing our earthly Greek language, as I understand the argument, is that very precise shades of meaning were made possible by using precise unique words from the outset to clarify and preserve such shades of meaning. We cannot at this time on earth "enjoy" having only one language, but maybe in Heaven it could become a major contributor to fulfill both the objectives.
One other thought I was asking for speculation about was whether, because of a total lack of evil, the need for precision and faithfulness in message reproduction won't even represent a threat as it does today, thereby eliminating need for today's precision and faithful traceability. For example, you could today, and every morning after you both have awakened, face your spouse and faithfully recite an honestly intended and carefully scripted verbal and physical ritual greeting without ever varying in content or delivery. But wouldn't it be more satisfying to smile, hug, and kiss him or her, so passing along that equally precise but more meaningful and certainly more enjoyable message? Heaven will be a safe environment where distortion of the truth is simply a non-problem. So any intended, precise, and genuine scripting of truth may not then and there serve the same function as a faithful undistorted Bible serves for us here and now. The message will continue to be written on our hearts. Precision and faithfulness fears or concerns will be secondary or even non-existent.
I had a few other jumbled and wild confusing thoughts expressed yesterday as well. There's certainly no need for anyone here to speculate. It's simply what's on my heart about what we can all expect soon. These kinds of suppositions actually dominate my off duty thought life, and I'm curious to know whether others here are similarly afflicted...
Still off topic a little, i.e., not about The NET per se, and maybe tedious, but hopefully still on point?
ybiC,
SG aka MWS aka Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 22, 2014 22:14:22 GMT
StillGuessing, I think in the Kingdom everyone will be talking Hebrew.
In heaven we will be totally honest in our speech and our physical actions. We will have no fear of being deceived, and that will be wonderful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 23, 2014 0:03:43 GMT
I posed the question yesterday about whether in the Kingdom everyone might be speaking the exact same language and dialect. That condition would simplify maintaining both objectives. For example, one advantage of employing our earthly Greek language, as I understand the argument, is that very precise shades of meaning were made possible by using precise unique words from the outset to clarify and preserve such shades of meaning. We cannot at this time on earth "enjoy" having only one language, but maybe in Heaven it could become a major contributor to fulfill both the objectives. I think that's entirely on point- I've wondered about language in the Kingdom myself, and I've always felt that having one, unified language would be something that Antichrist would attempt to create - a return to Babel of sorts. I think he'll know that in order to accomplish his goals, a worldwide language would be something hugely beneficial. While I don't see Antichrist reaping the benefit of that ideal (7 years isn't long enough), I can certainly see the Kingdom doing so... though regardless of whether the Lord Jesus reaps the benefits of Antichrist's lust for power, I suspect that all who return with Him at the end of the tribulation will speak one language (or perhaps have the ability to speak many languages natively). I've often wondered whether Adam had the ability to speak many languages, too... whether at Babel, perhaps the "confusion" was in taking away understanding, and not in giving new languages at all. |
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 23, 2014 0:23:01 GMT
I've often thought we (the church) will speak a heavenly language that we will all understand but will be able to also understand and speak all 'earthly' languages. On that note, will we even need to speak in heaven? Will we be able to communicate with eachother through thought and immediately understand?
If we don't speak that's going to be hard for me because I'm quite chatty sometimes. Key word - "sometimes". There's nothing worse than people talking AT you, is there? ..or when people won't shut up and you're trying to concentrate on something and need quiet time. That drives me nuts! I often just like quiet time.
|
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 23, 2014 7:09:14 GMT
I've wondered about language in the Kingdom myself, and I've always felt that having one, unified language would be something that Antichrist would attempt to create - a return to Babel of sorts. I think he'll know that in order to accomplish his goals, a worldwide language would be something hugely beneficial. Do you suppose, Benjamin, (or anybody), that the English language, having become the closest language to a single global earth language, was brought about either 1) by God's gracious providence providing the commercial "blessings" that have come to many peoples by it's usage, or 2) by Satan's ancient unrelenting destructiveness, perhaps conveniently co-opted for Satan's evil purposes? Sir Francis Bacon's ideas for evolving this New Atlantis society, for example, require the evil elite global power structure be able to communicate as they desire to as many dupes as possible, in order to coerce and control them. I thought of this because I agree with your suggestion that seven years would be quite inadequate to create a global language. However, the Apostle Paul testified that the spirit of Antichrist was already at work during the first century AD. I wonder if Satan and his third of the angels who left, kept using their original tongue (presuming tongues have relevance in their communication) or maybe a better choice of words: 'symbolic language,' or whether instead they might have worked after the fall to evolve their own occult language. I'm not asking for the answer, just musing about ancient possibilities and angelic or spiritual motivations and capabilities in their communicating... Jesus testified, for example, "When Satan lies he speaks his native language." Perhaps Satan largely re-coded the meanings of originally communicated symbols or words. |
|
