|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 23, 2014 7:34:22 GMT
That's a good question - and it's one that I can really only answer with a precedent:
I'd suggest that the rise of Greek as a 'universal' language of sorts in the 1st Century AD was very much at God's initiation, in order to facilitate the spread of the gospel. As for English...? While I think any scenario is possible, the spread of the English language has taken literally hundreds of years. Is Satan that patient? I don't know - though I think Shakespeare described him well. This particular quote isn't actually regarding Satan, but I've always considered it apt:
"a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more... full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
This is the enemy. He "struts and frets his hour upon the stage", "roaming to and fro in the earth", but is "full of sound and fury", "roaring like a lion, seeking whom he may devour"... but in the end, what is he? ...dust in the wind, "signifying nothing". His end is assured, his doom secured.
With that in mind, rightly or wrongly, I view Satan not as someone whose patience allows for long-term plans (after all, he tried to cut off the bloodline of the Messiah time after time after time), but whose whole person is "full of sound and fury". He knows his time is limited, so he rants and rails, raging, angry, furious... but impatient. I can't see him spending a thousand years developing a language when trying to shed the blood of innocents would get the job done in a much shorter time frame.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 23, 2014 15:46:05 GMT
I believe every situation that exists everywhere and has existed from the beginning of the universe into eternity future is under my Father's sovereign control and will bring Him Glory. My mind blows, Benjamin, contemplating time. Since I started just a few years ago to focus more of my attention on the end times I have concluded that even six thousand years is only on the order of 100 generations, more of less -- an awesomely short time relative to the ages of heavenly bodies. So I also speculate that the beginning of Lucifer and those angels that rebelled with him might have been scores or even thousands of times longer ago than the earth was made habitable for fleshly beings made in the image of God. I say that to provide context for my assumption that Satan is and has indeed been for a very long-term scheming, plotting, dividing, and destroying things, employing a form of patience or at least relentlessness. Within the context of a few thousand years more or less, while all the time despite setbacks such as the chief one -- the Resurrection -- Satan pursues his evil destructive plan and vain dreams. This enemy of ours may only be a strutting and fretting actor on some universal stage that we ourselves by the Grace of God are witnessing as the plot plays out, but our personal losses and suffering from those mere struts and frets have occasionally, and thank God only briefly, led me and some of my friends and family to simply want to be gone. I'm thinking that if Satan and his minions really "signify nothing," it is only a relative term when they are contrasted to our Father, His Son, and His Holy Spirit -- the Almighty. Rather than being relatively insignificant, the existence and influence of evil in any form, and in the form of Satan and his minions specifically, serves the purpose and glory of The Almighty. I believe these formidable beings have been allowed to exist and to rebel primarily in order to continue to serve the Almighty's entirely loving but often inscrutable plans and purposes. I guess the thing that blows my mind even more than considering eternity and the expanse of the universe, is how and why the Almighty concerns Himself with my hairs, that little bird out there, and my puny peeping thoughts, aspirations, and affections. Why?? Why? ? I don't know!!! Oh, how I Love Him! I may have veered off topic a bit, LS. What were we talking about? Oh yeah -- a universal precise and non-distortable language that's now being and likely to continue to be used in the heavenly realms, whatever they may truly be like. Maybe Benjamin should set this thread off limits for further input by StillGuessing. PS - Shiloh, you said, "If we don't speak that's going to be hard for me because I'm quite chatty sometimes. Key word - "sometimes." --> Well, Jesus had a body, and yours will be glorified as His is. Jesus may not have been chatty, but He both had and used His voice. Your friends then will surely want to continue to chat, even though it might be about significantly different things. I wonder about the continued presence of air, and if such as we find there will work the same way with those glorified vocal cords we'll have. Also with our lungs... Boring!!
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 23, 2014 17:46:42 GMT
Actually, StillGuessing ...
And I know mine ... which is why I've bowed out of this conversation. But please keep it up as I'm enjoying everyone's input
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 23, 2014 17:58:11 GMT
Oh man, Jim! Don't you just love it when Hal Holbrooke gets blown up in that car at the end of Magnum Force instead of succeeding in framing Harry Callahan? JUSTICE!!! That must be the gut level theme that stirs me. I hate violence. And I also try to observe the Callahan Principle.
PS - I honestly don't want to be a thread killer, Jim.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 23, 2014 18:34:32 GMT
You're not a thread killer at all, SG. The way I see it, all significant points have been made about bible translations and now we're discussing language in the Millenium, a topic I've often wondered about myself. I'm just curious to read the thoughts of others regarding language in the Millineum.
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 23, 2014 18:37:17 GMT
StillGuessing, you are over my head, but I did think of something as I read your post and that was this. You made me realize how long of a time the fallen angels were around, in comparison to the 6,000. years of man. I had never really seen what a small envelope of time, man's existence, was, to them.
|
|
|
Post by MyWhiteStone on Feb 23, 2014 21:02:18 GMT
Thanks, Liz. I think that we all have had to place limits on our imaginations because our God's reality is truly limitless. 6,000 years (mankind's duration) and 8,000 miles (mankind's globe's diameter) are tiny specs in time and space -- and yet God still cares about our individual feelings and these comparative microseconds of each of our lives' duration.
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 25, 2014 2:36:28 GMT
Oh yes I agree there are other excellent English translations apart from the KJV but I believe not one of the modern translations are part of the group.
Anyway, about the NET translators; I think they wanted to be anonymous because they do not want to get the credit for translating the NET - I get the impression that they want GOD to get the all credit and not them. If this is true then it is a humble act.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 25, 2014 3:30:00 GMT
Looks like we were both wrong. Although not named in the first "Beta Edition" (2001), they were named in the 2005 "First Edition". What troubles me is that three of the people (or more?) who endorsed this book have ties to, or history with, DTS. Here's the story (it's a lengthy review of The Net bible, the part that troubles me is found in the first several paragraphs): Bible Research > English Versions > 21st Century > NET
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 25, 2014 4:22:06 GMT
Lengthy text, I will try to read it. Curious though, what is with DTS?
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 25, 2014 4:30:46 GMT
Eben, as far as I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with DTS. The problem, as you'll notice in the first several paragraphs of the review, is the initial non-transparency; the fact that all but one of the scholars were either teachers or doctoral students at DTS. Then, when you have endorsers who are in some way connected with DTS, without initially saying that the scholars are from DTS, well, I think you can see the problem with that. And it's not only me, as the reviewer seems to suggest that he has problems with the non-transparency as well.
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 25, 2014 4:41:43 GMT
Eben, as far as I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with DTS. The problem, as you'll notice in the first several paragraphs of the review... Ah I see. Also this raises a red flag for me: The Dynamic Equivalence method never sits well with me because it essentially erodes the effectiveness of the Bible's message. Also this... The NIV is already a very bad version so this implies the NET is worse.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 25, 2014 4:47:04 GMT
Yes!
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 25, 2014 4:55:27 GMT
*facepalm A bit off topic, there is a certain debate where one of the debaters lost his voice: click on this link. If there happens to be another debate about Bible versions, most likely the same thing would happen..
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 26, 2014 1:18:02 GMT
Eben, as far as I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with DTS. The problem, as you'll notice in the first several paragraphs of the review... Ah I see. Also this raises a red flag for me: The Dynamic Equivalence method never sits well with me because it essentially erodes the effectiveness of the Bible's message. Also this... The NIV is already a very bad version so this implies the NET is worse. I grew up on the NIV - mostly because the churches I was in (Baptist, then Presbyterian) used it. These days I use NKJV, but for my mind...? The more literal, the better. I don't need someone else making up my mind for me about what the Bible says. If the Bible says "gird up your loins", then let me be enough of a Berean to find out for myself what that means... don't tell me to "prepare your mind for action". Bah~!
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 26, 2014 1:50:52 GMT
Yeah. What Benjamin said. I use the NKJV version too. Cracking up at the Clint Eastwood clip. We have all of those movies. However, I also have the NIV version...is it that bad? I usually try to compare to see if it's saying the same thing as my NKJV, but not always.
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 26, 2014 3:00:50 GMT
I use online resources a lot these days too. One of my favourites is "E-Sword", which is a free application with numerous translations available, instant lookup by either passage reference, textual reference, even a single word throughout, etc. - it has maps and images and illustrations, too, along with an extensive library of Christian texts.
Often, if I'm interested in more detail from a passage, I'll use that - or something online - to find out what the text is REALLY getting at. I'm no great Hebrew or Greek scholar, but I also like the interlinear functions of software, either online or in E-Sword - I find that helpful too.
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 26, 2014 5:46:16 GMT
I do have to agree with that and don't you think much is lost in translation as far as what the real meaning of passages are? I find that to be true and that leads to misunderstanding of scripture verses. That also leads to taking Scripture out of context. But, many people will take one verse whereas they don't take the whole chapter or book, or who the audience was into play either. That's where we all need to rightly divide the Word. I have to be honest. I wouldn't have ever been able to do that without teachers who taught how to rightly divide the Word.
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 26, 2014 7:55:51 GMT
I guess that really depends on the translation, ultimately. Dynamic equivalence is a real issue, because it moves the responsibility for the understanding of God's Word from the reader to the translator. Scripture itself says often "let the reader understand" - how are they to do that if the work of understanding is already done for them, imposing someone else's thought and interpretation on the text? It's poor. Very poor... and it assumes that people aren't willing to read deeply to understand God's Word.
Well, frankly, if you're not willing to spend time in God's Word in order to understand it, then your heart isn't in the right place to begin with.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't make every effort to make God's Word ACCESSIBLE, linguistically, but assuming the responsibility for interpretation takes that one step too far. It's quite possible to be simple, without compromising the literal truth of Scripture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 16:19:15 GMT
Before leaving this post,I would like to make my position clear. There is no error in the KJV! This translation was completed without pride or prejudice, but with fear and trembling to ensure accuracy.Man's intellect will never compare to the Word of God. The original Ole English version is hard to read, but check out the history of this particular translation and you will be amazed at the time,study and sacrifice it took to do so.
I think this translation was not only inspired, but God driven......
John 3:16( from the original 1611 KJV)¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
I got the jest of that!
|
|
Becka
Numbers' Donkey
Spurgeon Addict
Posts: 169
|
Post by Becka on Feb 26, 2014 17:04:54 GMT
Okay, I have NO idea how this thread went so long under my radar! First of all, Bible translation absolutely matters. When you study the Good Book rather than read it for leisure, you notice, as Spurgeon says, "Every page is as gold leaf!" There are no idle words in Scripture. In Hermaneutics, which is a fancy word for the way we interpret the Bible, Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible is 66 separate books written over 1500 years, so it's not "cheating" to find a meaning to a word or verse elsewhere in the Bible.
With that said, this is why versions like The Message are such an abomination to me. When you study themes in the Bible, you find them EVERYWHERE. Gardens, myrrh, apples, gold, honey, wine, I mean the list goes on. When you begin to tweak the wording to be more "culturally appropriate", you are diluting Hermaneutics and erasing these glorious rabbit trails. In other words, the Bible is like a book in 3D. When you delete the rabbit trails of wisdom that criss-cross all over the place, it no longer has depth, it's just another book on the shelf. It dulls the Sword of the Spirit. In fact, it's no longer a sword, it's... an envelope opener.
Now, translations vary here and there, and there are definitely better translations than others. KJV, NASB, and ESV have been translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. They're the closest you'll find. John MacArthur HATES the NIV, but I don't know much about that translation to comment. It's funny, through my natural course of study, the Lord has been steering me away from that translation in favor of the others. I bought a Restoration Study Bible which is an amazing translation. Basically, it's KJV with the name YAHWEH finally replaced where the upper-case LORD is found in the text.
THAT is something that is "wrong" with KJV - in keeping with Jewish tradition of never speaking God's name for fear of breaking the 3rd Commandment, the KJV translators went with LORD in all caps rather than what it actually is, YAHWEH, the tetragrammaton, YHWH. (Never call God Jehovah in my presence unless you want to be smacked. LOL That would be like... calling me Betty. It's not His name. His name is Yahweh.) Oddly enough, the KJV translators "missed" one. You can see the shortened version of Yahweh, which is YAH, in Psalm 68:4.
|
|
Becka
Numbers' Donkey
Spurgeon Addict
Posts: 169
|
Post by Becka on Feb 26, 2014 17:14:21 GMT
The reason why restoring YAHWEH for the upper-case LORD is important is because Scripture talks about "the name of the Lord" EVERYWHERE. This was one of the original dilutions of Scripture. Why does God do all this stuff "for His name's sake" when nowhere in the Bible it says His name? The closest we get to "His name" is I AM. Restoring Yahweh's name is also the best way to see Christ's deity. The NT writers often referred back to Isaiah and the prophets - all of whom used YHWH - and then applied those verses to CHRIST. There is no ambiguity about who Christ is when God's name is restored.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 17:19:51 GMT
I have always found that if you cry out, Oh God, he will answer!
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 26, 2014 20:36:57 GMT
Before leaving this post,I would like to make my position clear. There is no error in the KJV! This translation was completed without pride or prejudice, but with fear and trembling to ensure accuracy. Umm... There are HEAPS of errors in the KJV. It's a good translation, but it's just that: good. Not inerrant. www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 26, 2014 22:28:28 GMT
First of all, I must clarify that when I stated that I am an KJV-only person - it actually means it is the only version that I read. Becka may be right that there are other perfect English translations out there. But ALL versions that use Dynamic Equivalence is unacceptable and should not even be used. Again, I politely disagree with you Benjamin. And in defense of the King Jame Version: bible-truth.org/KjvDefensePage.htmlIt was never the intention of the KJV translation to modernise the word of God - change what they feel is more relevant in their times. Their intention was to make the Bible accessible to the masses which the Holy Roman empire refused to do so. I agree with dpr2014 and the explanation is simple: the KJV translators translated the Bible word-for-word as a result preserving the scriptures ( keeping the word of God intact) hence it is a perfect and complete English translation. I also agree with Becka and she is on point. Dilution of the word of God removes the multi-layered messages buried within the verses; changing the words is like removing the key to access deeper meanings. And yes, the double-edged sword has become a mail-opener... a butter knife. Yes Shiloh, the NIV is probably one of the worst translations - add to that the main publisher of the NIV also publishes satanic bibles (ugh). It was my first so-called bible when I first got saved. Looking back I must say the KJV is far easier to understand and far richer in its message than the NIV. You can browse some stuff here and decide for yourself: www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Feb 26, 2014 22:33:56 GMT
...even that site admits that the KJV isn't inerrant.
If the KJV has "very few minor shortcomings", it's not inerrant.
I'm not suggesting that modern translations are better, and I'm certainly not advocating the NIV, or any other text that uses dynamic equivalence. I'm not talking about comparing texts, I'm talking purely and simply about the claim that the KJV is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.
...only the autographs (original texts) can claim that.
|
|
eben
Exodus Traveller
Posts: 42
|
Post by eben on Feb 26, 2014 22:59:45 GMT
Well the word of God is inerrant and the KJV has perfectly translated the scriptures so it is inerrant. I do not believe it needs to be improved. It has served Christianity well for over four hundred years and it has served me well too. I am aware though that there are those who are even more passionate on the KJV than me and that they choose the KJV edition with the original spellings of the words. Also, it is not a coincidence that KJV was created prior to the English language becoming the international standard.
|
|
Becka
Numbers' Donkey
Spurgeon Addict
Posts: 169
|
Post by Becka on Feb 27, 2014 2:19:50 GMT
I am not a die-hard KJV only fan, but I have found it's the "go to" translation I... well, go to, because first of all, it's public domain, so I can quote it in my work at length without infringing copyrights, and my Restoration Study Bible (that replaces Yahweh's name; the one I study and write notes in) is a KJV. Not to mention that most of my memorized Scripture is... yup, KJV. But if I want more modern speech or I don't quite understand the KJV language, I crack open the ESV.
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 27, 2014 2:57:08 GMT
Well, I'm certainly not going to argue anyones point here. I use my NKJV all the time but sometimes compare to see if the NIV is giving the same message. Here's my point. The apostles didn't have a bible. If someone believes in the basics of Scripture, meaning the Holy Trinity, Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary and is the only begotten Son of God, HE came here as a man and was crucified for our sins, died for us, was buried and rose again on the 3rd day and is Lord and Saviour of all.....if someone asks Jesus into their heart and to be Lord and Saviour of their life and they recognize HE is the only way...the straight and narrow path, then I believe they are saved. What about those who were recently found from a lost tribe deep in the jungles of Africa. They didn't know the difference between the KJV, NIV, etc. Yet, they rejoiced and accepted Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. They knew only the basics that were taught to them. I often think we get too hung up on the semantics with such things and I refuse to do that. I'm not about to fret over the issue of me standing before the Lord and Him asking me what version of the Bible I used. I'll leave that to other people. "Lest ye be as little children..." comes to mind and I'm not talking about intentionally and willfully choosing to be ignorant either. If our heart is right and for the Lord, the Holy Spirit will guide us.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 27, 2014 3:44:03 GMT
Shiloh, Becka expressed my view on predestination better than I ever could, and in like manner, you've expressed my view on this matter perfectly. So thank you.
|
|