|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 27, 2021 0:49:09 GMT
You disagree that the Geneva Bible was preferred by many Christians over the KJV in the 1600s? Well, you're wrong. In the 1600s the Geneva Bible was the preference over the KJV for many Christians. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Geneva Bible. EVERY serious scholar? So...if a scholar doesn't agree, that scholar isn't serious? I'm coming across more scholars that seem to prefer the NRSV. It would be nice if you stopped polluting my thread with irrelevancy. If you're not going to respect the topic and write something in relation to it then your best option would be to shut the fuck up, please! i mean no disrespect but the topic is about the Bible. Mercy was replying to my post. Chillax. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 27, 2021 13:29:27 GMT
You disagree that the Geneva Bible was preferred by many Christians over the KJV in the 1600s? Well, you're wrong. In the 1600s the Geneva Bible was the preference over the KJV for many Christians. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Geneva Bible. EVERY serious scholar? So...if a scholar doesn't agree, that scholar isn't serious? I'm coming across more scholars that seem to prefer the NRSV. That we can agree with 100%. The KJV didn't gain in popularity until the Geneva Bible went out of print. ANY...scholar who disagrees has absolutely no real knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin or how we got the Bible. Absolutely any scholar who takes the Tyndale challenge agrees that William Tyndale was the best English scholar of all time. The Tyndale Bibles are more accurate to the original languages than all other Bible. There, of course, are exceptional cases. Almost any English translation can score points on the Tyndale Bibles. They just cannot produce the type of overall accuracy the Tyndale Bibles produced, especially the 1537 Matthew's Bible. Back then, translating a Bible was something they took very seriously. Obviously they are not true scholars but people who drifted through Seminary or went to a bad liberal Seminary and never learned anything about the original languages. The NRSV is listed as one of the absolute worst translations ever done. In fact, its so bad, that it is not fit for reading or study. Its only good for starting fires in a fire pit. That's all its good for. You cannot have that many translation mistakes in a single translation and take it seriously. I'm friends with many real serious scholars and some of them are translators. Not one of them has wasted their money buying a false Bible like the NRSV. The RSV is by far a better translation. The NRSV joins the ranks of Bibles obedient Christians won't buy, like the NIV'11 (the Obamacare bible), NRSV, NAB and NABRE. These bibles are for the fire pit. They are false translations by scholars who never learned anything about Hebrew or Greek. Check out this website which recommends the NRSV as the "best choice for serious Bible study." web.archive.org/web/20161012024005/http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htmThe first Bible i ever read was RSV. I've never read NRSV in its entirety, but I know of at least two that seem to default to it (when they're not just translating directly from the original languages): Tom Wright and Craig A. Evans. I don't know who you might consider a "legitimate Bible scholar," but in my opinion these are two of the best biblical scholars in the world. Who would be better? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 28, 2021 3:50:09 GMT
That we can agree with 100%. The KJV didn't gain in popularity until the Geneva Bible went out of print. ANY...scholar who disagrees has absolutely no real knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin or how we got the Bible. Absolutely any scholar who takes the Tyndale challenge agrees that William Tyndale was the best English scholar of all time. The Tyndale Bibles are more accurate to the original languages than all other Bible. There, of course, are exceptional cases. Almost any English translation can score points on the Tyndale Bibles. They just cannot produce the type of overall accuracy the Tyndale Bibles produced, especially the 1537 Matthew's Bible. Back then, translating a Bible was something they took very seriously. Obviously they are not true scholars but people who drifted through Seminary or went to a bad liberal Seminary and never learned anything about the original languages. The NRSV is listed as one of the absolute worst translations ever done. In fact, its so bad, that it is not fit for reading or study. Its only good for starting fires in a fire pit. That's all its good for. You cannot have that many translation mistakes in a single translation and take it seriously. I'm friends with many real serious scholars and some of them are translators. Not one of them has wasted their money buying a false Bible like the NRSV. The RSV is by far a better translation. The NRSV joins the ranks of Bibles obedient Christians won't buy, like the NIV'11 (the Obamacare bible), NRSV, NAB and NABRE. These bibles are for the fire pit. They are false translations by scholars who never learned anything about Hebrew or Greek. Check out this website which recommends the NRSV as the "best choice for serious Bible study." web.archive.org/web/20161012024005/http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htmThe first Bible i ever read was RSV. I've never read NRSV in its entirety, but I know of at least two that seem to default to it (when they're not just translating directly from the original languages): Tom Wright and Craig A. Evans. I don't know who you might consider a "legitimate Bible scholar," but in my opinion these are two of the best biblical scholars in the world. Who would be better? William Tyndale is still the best translator in English speaking history. But you need some serious knowledge in Hebrew and Greek as well as Latin to know this. You have to realize that most of these translators today are not very good at all. They graduate from Seminary and make bank by pumping out a translation. Most of these translations aren't very good either. For newer translations the NKJV and MEV are the best. There are a few others that are acceptable as well. Now you can find websites that say this and that, but without the proper knowledge of Hebrew and Greek those websites, sorry to say, have little persuasion on those of us who have been doing this for many years. Now the RSV isn't too bad. Its not as accurate as the KJV, NKJV or MEV. But I'll give it a tie or a close tie with the ESV which is decent and acceptable. But I know some translators and Bishops who have taken the Tyndale challenge. They all come out of it amazed at how well William Tyndale translated the Bible. Give some credit also to Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, and John Rogers; as well as Queen Elizabeth 1st for making an attempt to preserve in the face of a Puritan rebellion which rejected the disciplines of both Martin Luther and William Tyndale. Unfortunately, by 1611, the Puritans would win out and much Biblical knowledge would be lost in translation. Now I personally like the KJV...but that's because I'm a former Anglican lay reader and I understand it. But many people have lost their faith in God due to the poor word selections by the Puritans that did not survive the times. But most all of Tyndale's word selections survived the times. So choosing English words and phrases is just as important to translating than having a full mastery in Hebrew and Greek. I want to be very clear here that I am not saying that the KJV is always inferior to the Matthew's Bible. Its not. This discussion has much in common with the comparison between the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint is the superior text. But the Masoretic Text does score points on the Septuagint. Likewise the KJV does score points on the Mathew's Bible. But word for word, about 7 out of 10 word searches favor the Matthew's Bible (and other Tyndale influenced Bibles) over the KJV. Most English translations today are not based on Hebrew and Greek at all. They are based on another English translation. I hate to be the one to say this but we do not have any scholars alive today that even hold a candle to William Tyndale. If I were a much younger man, I would dedicate my entire life to translating the Bible using everything I have learned about translations. I am convinced that a perfect English translation can be achieved if all knowledge in this field is carefully weighed and considered. But I am too old to do it now. I would die before I finished my work. If only I had known these things when I was still a teen. I could have given the English speaking world the perfect translation. Its possible but nobody has done it yet. William Tyndale has come the closest and he would have done it perfectly had they not executed him. In fact, Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Crowell were also executed. Its like during a war when officers are killed in battle. When they die their knowledge dies with them. Likewise it is the same with Hebrew and Greek and translating it. Too many great scholars were executed in the 16th century and with them we lost the ability to translate the Bible with pinpoint perfect precision. It can be done. But it takes a great deal more discipline that what you're gonna find in the world of scholarship today. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Apr 28, 2021 16:20:25 GMT
The New Testament was definitely not written as a tool of the powers that be. Even when the last book was written in 120 - 150 AD (The Revelation), Christianity was still tiny and powerless, and was still primarily a weird sect of Judaism. Most of the NT is made of personal letters to tiny churches scattered over the massive Roman Empire. If Christianity had evaporated in the 200s or 300s, it's unlikely any of the NT books would have survived to the present day. I would even guess there were other tiny religions in the 000s and 100s that had their own holy books, but since those religions evaporated, the writings were lost. (I'm thinking of Mithraism, but there may have been religions so small or completely eliminated that any record of their existence is lost.)
The first half of the Old Testament (Tanakh) was definitely crafted as a tool of power. The text itself describes 3 main power struggles: first, between the decentralized Hebrew tribes and the centralizing monarchy in Jerusalem; second, between the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which emerged from the briefly-united kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon; third, between the formal religion of the God of Abraham (Proto-Judaism) and other worship within Israel and Judah.
The Tanakh is on the side of the centralizing monarchy in Jerusalem. The tribes are presented as politically weak and ineffective, so much so that the people themselves demanded a king like other nations. (Color me skeptical.) Moreover, the tribes worship the wrong gods in wrong ways, and the only correct religion for the Hebrews is Proto-Judaism: the worship of the God of Abraham (named "Yah" and "El") through the Jerusalem temple. This is a classic example of a centralizing state and church working together to legitimize their authority and create a national nobility and a priest caste.
The Tanakh is also definitely on the side of Judah in the Israel vs. Judah rivalry. The Kingdom of Judah is presented as the rightful successor of the House of David, and though imperfect, also a much better defender of proper worship than Israel. Judah's kings can be good or bad, depending on how much they defer to Proto-Judaism, but Israel's kings are (as far as I remember) all bad, since none of them defer to Proto-Judaism.
As you might expect, the Tanakh sides with Proto-Judaism over other worship. The Prophets describe the struggle of Proto-Judaism to assert its authority over all worship among Israel and Judah. Later on, as the united kingdom under the House of David fractures, Proto-Judaism begins to lose political power and patronage, and the Tanakh describes the struggle of Proto-Judaism against royal religious tolerance and also against the observance of other rites and worship by royals and commoners.
To sum, the Tanakh definitely was built as a tool of power, to legitimize centralized rule and worship in Jerusalem with a unified Hebrew monarchy and a unified Proto-Jewish religion. The NT was primarily written as a series of letters among a small cult that, improbably, became the most powerful religion on Earth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2021 16:32:16 GMT
Welcome back!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2021 16:42:52 GMT
The New Testament was definitely not written as a tool of the powers that be. Even when the last book was written in 120 - 150 AD (The Revelation), Christianity was still tiny and powerless, and was still primarily a weird sect of Judaism. Most of the NT is made of personal letters to tiny churches scattered over the massive Roman Empire. If Christianity had evaporated in the 200s or 300s, it's unlikely any of the NT books would have survived to the present day. I would even guess there were other tiny religions in the 000s and 100s that had their own holy books, but since those religions evaporated, the writings were lost. (I'm thinking of Mithraism, but there may have been religions so small or completely eliminated that any record of their existence is lost.)
... That may not have been the initial intent (then again who really knows what was in the minds of the people who initially concocted this new religion but that was definitely the effect. A few centuries later the Christian empire had become one of the largest and most oppressive empires ever to exist. If it wasn't the intent and was of divine inspiration then maybe "god" is a little in over his head and should stick to small tribes because he's not very good when it comes to nations. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 28, 2021 17:03:45 GMT
Check out this website which recommends the NRSV as the "best choice for serious Bible study." web.archive.org/web/20161012024005/http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htmThe first Bible i ever read was RSV. I've never read NRSV in its entirety, but I know of at least two that seem to default to it (when they're not just translating directly from the original languages): Tom Wright and Craig A. Evans. I don't know who you might consider a "legitimate Bible scholar," but in my opinion these are two of the best biblical scholars in the world. Who would be better? You have to realize that most of these translators today are not very good at all. They graduate from Seminary and make bank by pumping out a translation. How much money do translators make? ESV betrays the tone (like the KJV). That is hardly "decent." Really, eh? Based on what? Does biblical knowledge come out of the text? Or does it somehow inform the translation from "outside the text"? Do you have examples of some of those poor word selections that have cost some people their faith? Are you suggesting that the LXX, a translation from the Hebrew, is superior to a document which is the original Hebrew text (that has, for the most part, been corroborated by the DSS)? Well, now, that's just straight up not true. What would lead you to believe that? There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Anyone that has done any translation work in any context would understand this. What is it that they had that today's translators don't, that you could have had if you had but started earlier? So...Tom Wright, Craig Evans, et. al., are simply not disciplined enough scholars? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 28, 2021 23:21:25 GMT
You have to realize that most of these translators today are not very good at all. They graduate from Seminary and make bank by pumping out a translation. How much money do translators make? ESV betrays the tone (like the KJV). That is hardly "decent." Really, eh? Based on what? Does biblical knowledge come out of the text? Or does it somehow inform the translation from "outside the text"? Do you have examples of some of those poor word selections that have cost some people their faith? Are you suggesting that the LXX, a translation from the Hebrew, is superior to a document which is the original Hebrew text (that has, for the most part, been corroborated by the DSS)? Well, now, that's just straight up not true. What would lead you to believe that? There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Anyone that has done any translation work in any context would understand this. What is it that they had that today's translators don't, that you could have had if you had but started earlier? So...Tom Wright, Craig Evans, et. al., are simply not disciplined enough scholars? I don't know as that depends on how well a translation sells. The ESV smokes blows and bulldozes the NRSV. I admit there are some unpleasant renderings and omissions from the ESV. But check your NRSV because that translation is worse. You're not gonna find a better English translation that the 1537 Matthew's Bible. So naturally the ESV falls short. However, the ESV corrects the mistake in translation regarding the Hebrew word raqiya. Instead of firmament it uses the proper expanse. That's one of the first things I check in a modern translation. Based on the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and the ability to select the proper English words and phrases. Tyndale was a real scholar, a high churchman. Translators do not have Tyndale's training. We always think the new is better than the old. That is until you study things like this where you realize that most translators are not properly trained but are just posers being held up by a degree that they didn't deserve. As I said before, most all English translators today just make a translation based on another English translation and if you know what to look for you can spot it right away. I could post several examples. But lets focus on one that tends to cause apostasy. Isaiah 45:7, KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." This rending came from the 1560 Geneva Bible: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." So God creates evil? The modern reader freaks out and loses faith over this one. Now I understand that the word selection of evil applied is meant to express calamity, trouble, disaster. This was a way to express those things back in the 16th century. Though as time moved on and the English language changed, word definitions and their applications also changed. The proper rendering here would be trouble, or calamity or disaster. For what is the opposite of peace other than trouble. The Hebrew agrees. Now lets see how the Tyndale Bibles rendered the verse. 1535 Coverdale Bible, "It is I yt created the light and darcknes, I make peace and trouble: Yee euen I the LORDE do all these thinges." 1537 Matthew's Bible, "It is I that created the lyght and darcknes, I make peace & trouble yee euen I the Lorde do all these thinges." 1539 Great Bible, "It is I that created the lyght & darcknes. I make peace and trouble: yee, euen I the Lorde do all these thinges." 1568 Bishop's Bible, "It is I that created light and darknesse, I make peace and trouble: yea euen I the Lorde do all these thinges" The word trouble applied here is a good word selection that better captures the meaning. This is also the intended meaning in the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV. But as you can see, a poor word selection here just didn't survive the times whereas Coverdale and Tyndale application of trouble survived the times. So all translations quoted here are saying the same thing. But the Geneva and KJV rendering of evil has become obsolete is modern use. We rarely ever use the word evil to describe trouble, calamity and disaster. We use the the word disaster the most. But trouble still survives. So God isn't creating evil in the verse. He is sending trouble, calamity, and disaster to who quarrel with their Maker (Isa.45:9). The DSS agrees much more often with the LXX than is does the MT. That is a fact. The LXX was translated from much older Hebrew manuscripts which is why the DSS, Samaritan Pentateuch, New Testament and Josephus quote the LXX much more often than the MT. Also keep in mind that the MT was translated 1000 years after the LXX and it was translated from corrupt Hebrew manuscripts that are refuted by the DSS and LXX. Jesus and His Apostles also quoted more often from the LXX than they did the MT. This is because the LXX is the closest thing we have to the original Hebrew (besides the DSS). Its totally true. 100% true. And the more you understand translating the more you'll see this reality. Look, I have spent a great deal of time around Hebrew, Greek and Latin. I have many friends who are serious scholars. When you understand the world of translations like I and other serious scholars then you can see my point. But you will not see or learn anything as long as you're caught up in the woke culture. Yeah, I know that. That's what I said. Don't skim read. But I also said that a perfect translation is possible but only if one has all the facts. If I were a younger man I would do it myself. i know the correct path to take to make it happen. Discipline, humility, accountability. They also knew Hebrew, Greek, Latin as well as German and French. They were fluent in several languages and took their tasks in the most serious manner. Today's translators have the tools but not the knowledge to use them nor the discipline to do it right nor do they feel accountable to God for what they do. For the most part (with some exceptions, of course), new Bible translations s just a way to make money, pay off student loans etc. Again, when you know what to look for you'll see that many translations are merely based on other translations. Even some lexicons are based on translations like the KJV. The BDB is such an example of a Hebrew lexicon which follows the English of the KJV more than it does the Hebrew. What translation did they take part in? Are These scholars approved by conservative Christians or are they woke culture posers like Senator Raphael Warlock and others like him? The names only sound familiar so until I know their status with the Christian body I can't say. But I do know that they are nowhere near as disciplined as William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer or Thomas Cromwell. They were serious scholars. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2021 2:34:22 GMT
How much money do translators make? ESV betrays the tone (like the KJV). That is hardly "decent." Really, eh? Based on what? Does biblical knowledge come out of the text? Or does it somehow inform the translation from "outside the text"? Do you have examples of some of those poor word selections that have cost some people their faith? Are you suggesting that the LXX, a translation from the Hebrew, is superior to a document which is the original Hebrew text (that has, for the most part, been corroborated by the DSS)? Well, now, that's just straight up not true. What would lead you to believe that? There's no such thing as a perfect translation. Anyone that has done any translation work in any context would understand this. What is it that they had that today's translators don't, that you could have had if you had but started earlier? So...Tom Wright, Craig Evans, et. al., are simply not disciplined enough scholars? I don't know as that depends on how well a translation sells. The ESV smokes blows and bulldozes the NRSV. I admit there are some unpleasant renderings and omissions from the ESV. But check your NRSV because that translation is worse. You're not gonna find a better English translation that the 1537 Matthew's Bible. So naturally the ESV falls short. However, the ESV corrects the mistake in translation regarding the Hebrew word raqiya. Instead of firmament it uses the proper expanse. That's one of the first things I check in a modern translation. THAT'S IT!? That's you're one criterion for evaluating a translation? I've been reading a commentary by F.F. Bruce. Heard of him? No slouch. Guess what translation he defaults to? What other significant mistakes are in the NRSV besides the "firmament"? You kind of just bypassed or ignored the question. "Based on the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek." Okay, you're suggesting that Tyndale had more knowledge of Hebrew and Greek than today's scholars, who have more resources to work with (specifically, more extant ancient texts, particularly extra-biblical texts against which definitions and word usages can be compared). You might want to double check on Craig A. Evans, who is familiar with more dead languages than people can read and speak today's language--in addition to Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, ancient Syriac, Coptic, etc. But although that error is in the KJV's translation, it's not in any of the translations I use. So...I'm with you on the criticism of the KJV, but what about all the other translations that you dismiss? Are people losing their faith because of mistranslations in those cases? That Jesus and disciples used the common language translation of their day (which is appropriate, just as it is today), does not make the DSS "more accurate." The usage of the DSS by Jesus and his disciples certainly legitimizes it, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of its translation. That's completely unrelated to your claim. Prove it. Provide examples of translations that were copied off other translations. Not the KJV. We know that was in part translated from the Vulgate. Other translations. Not paraphrases. Actual translations. You made the claim. Give examples. Wiat, there's no such thing as a perfect translation (which you acknowledge), but given enough time, you could produce one? Explain. So...today's translators and scholars have no discipline, humility, and accountability/ That's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? "Their names only sound familiar..." Good Lord, google is your friend. You claim to be some kind of serious scholar and you HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF DRs. N.T. WRIGHT AND CRAIG A. EVANS?!This conversation is worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 29, 2021 3:57:33 GMT
I don't know as that depends on how well a translation sells. The ESV smokes blows and bulldozes the NRSV. I admit there are some unpleasant renderings and omissions from the ESV. But check your NRSV because that translation is worse. You're not gonna find a better English translation that the 1537 Matthew's Bible. So naturally the ESV falls short. However, the ESV corrects the mistake in translation regarding the Hebrew word raqiya. Instead of firmament it uses the proper expanse. That's one of the first things I check in a modern translation. THAT'S IT!? That's you're one criterion for evaluating a translation? I've been reading a commentary by F.F. Bruce. Heard of him? No slouch. Guess what translation he defaults to? What other significant mistakes are in the NRSV besides the "firmament"? You kind of just bypassed or ignored the question. "Based on the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek." Okay, you're suggesting that Tyndale had more knowledge of Hebrew and Greek than today's scholars, who have more resources to work with (specifically, more extant ancient texts, particularly extra-biblical texts against which definitions and word usages can be compared). You might want to double check on Craig A. Evans, who is familiar with more dead languages than people can read and speak today's language--in addition to Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, ancient Syriac, Coptic, etc. But although that error is in the KJV's translation, it's not in any of the translations I use. So...I'm with you on the criticism of the KJV, but what about all the other translations that you dismiss? Are people losing their faith because of mistranslations in those cases? That Jesus and disciples used the common language translation of their day (which is appropriate, just as it is today), does not make the DSS "more accurate." The usage of the DSS by Jesus and his disciples certainly legitimizes it, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of its translation. That's completely unrelated to your claim. Prove it. Provide examples of translations that were copied off other translations. Not the KJV. We know that was in part translated from the Vulgate. Other translations. Not paraphrases. Actual translations. You made the claim. Give examples. Wiat, there's no such thing as a perfect translation (which you acknowledge), but given enough time, you could produce one? Explain. So...today's translators and scholars have no discipline, humility, and accountability/ That's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? "Their names only sound familiar..." Good Lord, google is your friend. You claim to be some kind of serious scholar and you HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF DRs. N.T. WRIGHT AND CRAIG A. EVANS?!This conversation is worthless. You're right. This conversation is worthless. You do not know your subject. You pretend to know it but if you truly knew Hebrew and Greek we'd agreed on all points. You obviously follow liberal theology which is why you defend a translation (NRSV) that ALL honest scholars regard as complete trash. Absolutely nobody who has seriously studied Hebrew and Greek agrees with you. You are a liberal which means all your thoughts are wrong and nothing you believe to be true is true. There is no truth in liberal scholarship. None. The early church would condemn the NRSV as a heretical piece of trash. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2021 12:04:23 GMT
THAT'S IT!? That's you're one criterion for evaluating a translation? I've been reading a commentary by F.F. Bruce. Heard of him? No slouch. Guess what translation he defaults to? What other significant mistakes are in the NRSV besides the "firmament"? You kind of just bypassed or ignored the question. "Based on the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek." Okay, you're suggesting that Tyndale had more knowledge of Hebrew and Greek than today's scholars, who have more resources to work with (specifically, more extant ancient texts, particularly extra-biblical texts against which definitions and word usages can be compared). You might want to double check on Craig A. Evans, who is familiar with more dead languages than people can read and speak today's language--in addition to Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, ancient Syriac, Coptic, etc. But although that error is in the KJV's translation, it's not in any of the translations I use. So...I'm with you on the criticism of the KJV, but what about all the other translations that you dismiss? Are people losing their faith because of mistranslations in those cases? That Jesus and disciples used the common language translation of their day (which is appropriate, just as it is today), does not make the DSS "more accurate." The usage of the DSS by Jesus and his disciples certainly legitimizes it, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of its translation. That's completely unrelated to your claim. Prove it. Provide examples of translations that were copied off other translations. Not the KJV. We know that was in part translated from the Vulgate. Other translations. Not paraphrases. Actual translations. You made the claim. Give examples. Wiat, there's no such thing as a perfect translation (which you acknowledge), but given enough time, you could produce one? Explain. So...today's translators and scholars have no discipline, humility, and accountability/ That's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? "Their names only sound familiar..." Good Lord, google is your friend. You claim to be some kind of serious scholar and you HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF DRs. N.T. WRIGHT AND CRAIG A. EVANS?!This conversation is worthless. You're right. This conversation is worthless. You do not know your subject. You pretend to know it but if you truly knew Hebrew and Greek we'd agreed on all points. You obviously follow liberal theology which is why you defend a translation (NRSV) that ALL honest scholars regard as complete trash. Absolutely nobody who has seriously studied Hebrew and Greek agrees with you. You are a liberal which means all your thoughts are wrong and nothing you believe to be true is true. There is no truth in liberal scholarship. None. The early church would condemn the NRSV as a heretical piece of trash. Who would you recommend as a legitimate scholar? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2021 19:13:53 GMT
THAT'S IT!? That's you're one criterion for evaluating a translation? I've been reading a commentary by F.F. Bruce. Heard of him? No slouch. Guess what translation he defaults to? What other significant mistakes are in the NRSV besides the "firmament"? You kind of just bypassed or ignored the question. "Based on the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek." Okay, you're suggesting that Tyndale had more knowledge of Hebrew and Greek than today's scholars, who have more resources to work with (specifically, more extant ancient texts, particularly extra-biblical texts against which definitions and word usages can be compared). You might want to double check on Craig A. Evans, who is familiar with more dead languages than people can read and speak today's language--in addition to Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, ancient Syriac, Coptic, etc. But although that error is in the KJV's translation, it's not in any of the translations I use. So...I'm with you on the criticism of the KJV, but what about all the other translations that you dismiss? Are people losing their faith because of mistranslations in those cases? That Jesus and disciples used the common language translation of their day (which is appropriate, just as it is today), does not make the DSS "more accurate." The usage of the DSS by Jesus and his disciples certainly legitimizes it, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of its translation. That's completely unrelated to your claim. Prove it. Provide examples of translations that were copied off other translations. Not the KJV. We know that was in part translated from the Vulgate. Other translations. Not paraphrases. Actual translations. You made the claim. Give examples. Wiat, there's no such thing as a perfect translation (which you acknowledge), but given enough time, you could produce one? Explain. So...today's translators and scholars have no discipline, humility, and accountability/ That's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? "Their names only sound familiar..." Good Lord, google is your friend. You claim to be some kind of serious scholar and you HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF DRs. N.T. WRIGHT AND CRAIG A. EVANS?!This conversation is worthless. You're right. This conversation is worthless. You do not know your subject. You pretend to know it but if you truly knew Hebrew and Greek we'd agreed on all points. You obviously follow liberal theology which is why you defend a translation (NRSV) that ALL honest scholars regard as complete trash. Absolutely nobody who has seriously studied Hebrew and Greek agrees with you. You are a liberal which means all your thoughts are wrong and nothing you believe to be true is true. There is no truth in liberal scholarship. None. The early church would condemn the NRSV as a heretical piece of trash. Also, how would you differentiate between "liberal" and "conservative"? Do you mean that politically? Theologically? What are some specific examples of "liberal doctrines" compared to "conservative doctrines"? What are some examples of liberal theologians vs. sound conservative theologians? Because it's weird...I consider myself quite conservative theologically, and mostly lean on theologians and biblical scholars that most people think are quite conservative theologically. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 0:04:23 GMT
You're right. This conversation is worthless. You do not know your subject. You pretend to know it but if you truly knew Hebrew and Greek we'd agreed on all points. You obviously follow liberal theology which is why you defend a translation (NRSV) that ALL honest scholars regard as complete trash. Absolutely nobody who has seriously studied Hebrew and Greek agrees with you. You are a liberal which means all your thoughts are wrong and nothing you believe to be true is true. There is no truth in liberal scholarship. None. The early church would condemn the NRSV as a heretical piece of trash. Who would you recommend as a legitimate scholar? i go by the early Church or reformers like Martin Luther and William Tyndale. I do not put any stake in modern scholarship. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 0:10:34 GMT
You're right. This conversation is worthless. You do not know your subject. You pretend to know it but if you truly knew Hebrew and Greek we'd agreed on all points. You obviously follow liberal theology which is why you defend a translation (NRSV) that ALL honest scholars regard as complete trash. Absolutely nobody who has seriously studied Hebrew and Greek agrees with you. You are a liberal which means all your thoughts are wrong and nothing you believe to be true is true. There is no truth in liberal scholarship. None. The early church would condemn the NRSV as a heretical piece of trash. Also, how would you differentiate between "liberal" and "conservative"? Do you mean that politically? Theologically? What are some specific examples of "liberal doctrines" compared to "conservative doctrines"? What are some examples of liberal theologians vs. sound conservative theologians? Because it's weird...I consider myself quite conservative theologically, and mostly lean on theologians and biblical scholars that most people think are quite conservative theologically. if you disagree with creation and the Flood that automatically makes you liberal. A liberal scholar is anyone who deviates from sound doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., ancient Christianity). A liberal scholar cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage much past the 19th century. Though in some cases, where liberals can trace their ecclesiastical knowledge back to the 2nd century, their roots lead to Gnosticism (i.e., the occult). A conservative scholar can trace his ecclesiastical lineage back down to the 1st century, back to the Apostles in the New Testament without any gaps in their ecclesiastical timeline. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 19:06:28 GMT
Also, how would you differentiate between "liberal" and "conservative"? Do you mean that politically? Theologically? What are some specific examples of "liberal doctrines" compared to "conservative doctrines"? What are some examples of liberal theologians vs. sound conservative theologians? Because it's weird...I consider myself quite conservative theologically, and mostly lean on theologians and biblical scholars that most people think are quite conservative theologically. if you disagree with creation and the Flood that automatically makes you liberal. A liberal scholar is anyone who deviates from sound doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., ancient Christianity). A liberal scholar cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage much past the 19th century. Though in some cases, where liberals can trace their ecclesiastical knowledge back to the 2nd century, their roots lead to Gnosticism (i.e., the occult). A conservative scholar can trace his ecclesiastical lineage back down to the 1st century, back to the Apostles in the New Testament without any gaps in their ecclesiastical timeline. What if you disagree with the nature of Creation or the Flood? Or does some have to assent to your interpretation of Creation and the Flood? Who decides what is sound doctrine or orthodoxy? What is your list? If you are defaulting to scholars from the 1400s-1600s, aren't you actually accepting an early modern theological lens that was demonstrably not used by the earliest Christians? Consider, for example, some of the debates between John Piper and N.T. Wright, in which Wright accuses Piper of defaulting to 1500s theological frameworks, whereas Wright himself aims for 1st-century theological frameworks (particularly in terms of their ideas on "justification"). Who would you side with there? Most would say Piper is "more conservative" than Wright, but Wright goes "further back"—yes, avoiding 2nd-century Gnostics and going right back to the earliest texts and interpretations, and taking into account the cultural contexts in which the literary texts were written (because how can you interpret correctly while ignoring the cultural contexts?). So which is truly "conservative" and which is more "liberal"? Shoot, though, but Wright is a "modern scholar," so even though he isn't coloured by the immediate cultural influences that informed Luther's work, Luther is "more conservative" than Wright? You would go with Piper (who might lean on Luther and Calvin) over Wright (who would lean mostly on Paul and the Gospel writers, as well as other New Testament authors and early Church Fathers)? |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Apr 30, 2021 22:34:36 GMT
Also, how would you differentiate between "liberal" and "conservative"? Do you mean that politically? Theologically? What are some specific examples of "liberal doctrines" compared to "conservative doctrines"? What are some examples of liberal theologians vs. sound conservative theologians? Because it's weird...I consider myself quite conservative theologically, and mostly lean on theologians and biblical scholars that most people think are quite conservative theologically. if you disagree with creation and the Flood that automatically makes you liberal. A liberal scholar is anyone who deviates from sound doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., ancient Christianity). Jehovah's Witnesses do not adhere to orthodox Christianity; they are no one's idea of liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 23:08:59 GMT
if you disagree with creation and the Flood that automatically makes you liberal. A liberal scholar is anyone who deviates from sound doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., ancient Christianity). Jehovah's Witnesses do not adhere to orthodox Christianity; they are no one's idea of liberal. JWs are very liberal since (a) their beliefs are not Biblical, and (b) they cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage back to the 1st century. In fact, their ecclesiastical lineage is only traced back to the 19th century which makes them extremely radically liberal! God cannot change. His teachings cannot change. Therefore in theology ministers are to conserve those teachings in obedience to Christ. Liberal theology deviates from God's commands in this respect because it seeks to change theology, or to reform it. A reformed theology is only good if the object is to get back to orthodox theology as in the case with Martin Luther. But any teachings that deviate from orthodox theology without any Scriptural support or a general consensus of the early church would be a change in theology and thus liberal in a bad sense, theologically speaking. Case and point: the Nazis changed the theology of the German churches to fit their new political ideals. This change was very liberal theologically because it deviated from the clear words of Scripture and from the general consensus of the early church (or in the case of Naziism the full consensus of the early church opposed them). To preserve the truth of God is a minister's duty. To preserve is an act of conservation. Wildlife conservationists do what? They conserve...preserve...wildlife from danger that may cause serious harm to their population or even extinction. This is also what it means to be a conservative scholar. The conservative scholar is simply being true to God by being true to the texts. The liberal just wants to change theology to fit fad and fashion. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 23:24:07 GMT
if you disagree with creation and the Flood that automatically makes you liberal. A liberal scholar is anyone who deviates from sound doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., ancient Christianity). Jehovah's Witnesses do not adhere to orthodox Christianity; they are no one's idea of liberal. What hasn't been established is whether FEZILLA is talking about "theologically conservative/liberal" or "politically conservative/liberal." There are overlaps, but they're not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 23:25:53 GMT
Jehovah's Witnesses do not adhere to orthodox Christianity; they are no one's idea of liberal. JWs are very liberal since (a) their beliefs are not Biblical, and (b) they cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage back to the 1st century. In fact, their ecclesiastical lineage is only traced back to the 19th century which makes them extremely radically liberal! God cannot change. His teachings cannot change. Therefore in theology ministers are to conserve those teachings in obedience to Christ. Liberal theology deviates from God's commands in this respect because it seeks to change theology, or to reform it. A reformed theology is only good if the object is to get back to orthodox theology as in the case with Martin Luther. But any teachings that deviate from orthodox theology without any Scriptural support or a general consensus of the early church would be a change in theology and thus liberal in a bad sense, theologically speaking. Case and point: the Nazis changed the theology of the German churches to fit their new political ideals. This change was very liberal theologically because it deviated from the clear words of Scripture and from the general consensus of the early church (or in the case of Naziism the full consensus of the early church opposed them). To preserve the truth of God is a minister's duty. To preserve is an act of conservation. Wildlife conservationists do what? They conserve...preserve...wildlife from danger that may cause serious harm to their population or even extinction. This is also what it means to be a conservative scholar. The conservative scholar is simply being true to God by being true to the texts. The liberal just wants to change theology to fit fad and fashion. And yet Luther does deviate from first century theology in his application of scripture to 16th-century issues. This is what Wright demonstrates (compellingly, I think). |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Apr 30, 2021 23:31:36 GMT
Jehovah's Witnesses do not adhere to orthodox Christianity; they are no one's idea of liberal. JWs are very liberal since (a) their beliefs are not Biblical, and (b) they cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage back to the 1st century. In fact, their ecclesiastical lineage is only traced back to the 19th century which makes them extremely radically liberal! You're free to use your own definition of "liberal", but you won't get much understanding out of it. Classical orthodox vs. Mainline Protestant has a very different set of differences than Classical orthodox vs. Jehovah's Witnesses. Calling both sets of differences "conservative vs. liberal" doesn't tell us anything useful about the differences. Moreover, it implies that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mainline Protestant have deeply-shared theologies and practices, which they do not.
You've collapsed all the Christian and nearly-Christian sects you don't like into "liberal". That just isn't clear thinking.
|
|
