PDA

View Full Version : The worst Bible version



Steven3
Sep 25th 2007, 09:46 AM
Hiyo :)
There's been a little discussion about Bible versions in the polls (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100188) sub-forum, but there's one Bible version that probably is the most popular, and the most influential, and the most cited, which is also the most inaccurate, the most misleading, and sometimes 180į opposite of what the Word of God actually says.



Take for example
"for to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord"I just did a search for the string "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" to see how many times that misquote appears on this board, 197 hits. Then I did a string search for the correct 2Co5:8 "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord", 95 hits and 2Co5:6 "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord", 4 hits. :(

Okay that's probably not a representative example because that's one of the classic 'what we want to be believe' verses and it is rarely quoted correctly even in graveside orations. But how much casual misquoting of the Bible can we do before we invent a new Bible?

There are differences between Bible versions, and none of them is perfect, but these failings are small beans compared to the "translation errors" that happen between the retina and the brain, or between the brain and the tongue (or keyboard).

This book is supposed to be the message of God to us, yet how many of us type with either e-Sword open or a paper Bible next to the keyboard?

Just an observation - a reminder to myself as much as anyone.
God bless :)
Steven

enarchay
Sep 25th 2007, 09:49 AM
What translation are you talking about? It sounds like a paraphrased Bible more than a literal translation.

Steven3
Sep 25th 2007, 10:00 AM
What translation are you talking about? It sounds like a paraphrased Bible more than a literal translation.

That's the point - sorry, it isn't a paper translation it's what we do with the real translations when we pass them through the filters in our heads.

We don't compare well to the Victorians, even colliers and textile workers, who were able to quote the Bible verbatim.

jeffweeder
Sep 25th 2007, 10:07 AM
I' d say the" message bible" was a big mistake.

But yes its meant to well up from within you--
--he who has an ear , let him hear what the SPIRIT is saying to the Churches.
Wasnt the OT misused by the pharisees........
..but he who does not have the Spirit of God cant possibly understand what he was saying anyway.

Steven3
Sep 25th 2007, 11:08 AM
Hi Jeff :)
I' d say the" message bible" was a big mistake.Strangely enough, speaking purely as a commercial translator, I have a lot of respect for Eugene H. Peterson,
http://www.zondervan.com/images/contributor/medium/petersone.jpg
He seems to have a real flair and honesty that you don't get with the often politically-correct committees such as the NIV. A bit of a Tyndale or J.B. Philips figure. But yes you wouldn't use it as a study Bible only a make-you-think paraphrase for cleaning out cobwebs.


But yes its meant to well up from within you--
--he who has an ear , let him hear what the SPIRIT is saying to the Churches.
Wasnt the OT misused by the pharisees........
..but he who does not have the Spirit of God cant possibly understand what he was saying anyway.Amen :)
S.

ravi4u2
Sep 25th 2007, 03:01 PM
Well, I have always liked the 'Ravi Standard Version' the best...:lol:

anglican-cat
Sep 25th 2007, 03:32 PM
The NIV is a bit sad, I used to use it, but as I grew in the faith it fell by the wayside. The English is pleasing to read....but at this stage in my Christian Pilgrimage it is almost like "So what. Yes, it reads well, but is at times is not only inaccurate but misleading!" Not how I want to feel about what I am calling the word of God!:cool:

Vickilynn
Sep 25th 2007, 03:47 PM
Shalom,

The only "worst version" of the Bible is the one that we refuse to read and live out.

Translation errors are rectified by doing studies with several translations. It's not a biggie. :idea: The Holy Spirit can reveal the SPIRIT of the verse if we are open to the truth about what G-d is trying to say to us.

Different versions are fine, just for study purposes, I use several and compare them.

Friend of I AM
Sep 25th 2007, 03:53 PM
Grew up reading/using KJ version. Usually use the NIV at home - and the YLT or the ASV to post scripture in various message boards. I have found that most versions have issues...gotta just have faith in the Holy Spirit in interpreting everything for you...no one's going to get it 100% right.

anglican-cat
Sep 25th 2007, 04:10 PM
Shalom,

The only "worst version" of the Bible is the one that we refuse to read and live out.

Translation errors are rectified by doing studies with several translations. It's not a biggie. :idea: The Holy Spirit can reveal the SPIRIT of the verse if we are open to the truth about what G-d is trying to say to us.

Different versions are fine, just for study purposes, I use several and compare them.
I agee to a point....but this begs an important question, are you saying there are no bad translations? I agree some might have certain weaknesses others do not, but shall I pick up a translation that based upon bias of the translators undermines the Deity of Christ.....and say no Biggie...I can just wait for the Holy Ghost to show me the truth. Is this proper....or is it pressumption?

karenoka27
Sep 25th 2007, 04:23 PM
Hiyo :)
There's been a little discussion about Bible versions in the polls (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100188) sub-forum, but there's one Bible version that probably is the most popular, and the most influential, and the most cited, which is also the most inaccurate, the most misleading, and sometimes 180į opposite of what the Word of God actually says.



Take for exampleI just did a search for the string "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" to see how many times that misquote appears on this board, 197 hits. Then I did a string search for the correct 2Co5:8 "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord", 95 hits and 2Co5:6 "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord", 4 hits. :(

Okay that's probably not a representative example because that's one of the classic 'what we want to be believe' verses and it is rarely quoted correctly even in graveside orations. But how much casual misquoting of the Bible can we do before we invent a new Bible?

There are differences between Bible versions, and none of them is perfect, but these failings are small beans compared to the "translation errors" that happen between the retina and the brain, or between the brain and the tongue (or keyboard).

This book is supposed to be the message of God to us, yet how many of us type with either e-Sword open or a paper Bible next to the keyboard?

Just an observation - a reminder to myself as much as anyone.
God bless :)
Steven

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but I'll give it a try.
2Corinthians 5:8-"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." KJV

2 Corinthians 5:8-"We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." NIV

2 Corinthians 5:8-" 6-8That's why we live with such good cheer. You won't see us drooping our heads or dragging our feet! Cramped conditions here don't get us down. They only remind us of the spacious living conditions ahead. It's what we trust in but don't yet see that keeps us going. Do you suppose a few ruts in the road or rocks in the path are going to stop us? When the time comes, we'll be plenty ready to exchange exile for homecoming." THE MESSAGE

Ok the message is the worst..but other versions whether we say it word for word when we write it out means the same...to be absent from the body "is" to be present with the Lord..or are you saying that isn't true? whether I say I would rather be present with the Lord or prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord...are you saying that the Bible is not clear as to whether or not we will be?

just curious.

Vickilynn
Sep 25th 2007, 04:49 PM
I agee to a point....but this begs an important question, are you saying there are no bad translations?

Shalom AC,

I believe there are better translations than others. However, my faith is not in the words on the page, but the Spirit who wrote the words.

There are "versions" (paraphrases)that I wouldn't touch, but I think most of the translations are decent and have only minor discrepancies, not ones that undermine the Deity of Messiah.

There is a difference between a version (paraphrase) and a translation.

Friend of I AM
Sep 25th 2007, 05:05 PM
Shalom AC,

I believe there are better translations than others. However, my faith is not in the words on the page, but the Spirit who wrote the words.



100% agree with you here Vicki.

anglican-cat
Sep 25th 2007, 05:06 PM
Shalom AC,

I believe there are better translations than others. However, my faith is not in the words on the page, but the Spirit who wrote the words.

There are "versions" (paraphrases)that I wouldn't touch, but I think most of the translations are decent and have only minor discrepancies, not ones that undermine the Deity of Messiah.

There is a difference between a version (paraphrase) and a translation.
I (with due respect my Sister in Christ) find your stance interesting from one who is part of Jewish Roots, I call it interesting due to the fact that the Jewish people (thankfully) put HUGE stock in keeping the fidelity and faithfulness of the Torah intact. When copies were being made a each "page" was checked and double checked for example one mistake in a letter might allow for a correction if possible.........more than that.....it was burned and start-over time began. We can and should be thankful for this! Look, I have read your posts you strike me as a clear thinker and I have NO wish to even sound like I am trying to insult you, but I must admit, I am glad those careful scribes did not shrug their shoulder and say "Well, at least we got the spirit of the thing!" I hope you see where I am coming from with this. Grace and Peace.

My heart's Desire
Sep 25th 2007, 05:17 PM
I don't care much for paraprased ones at all. However, if a persons reading skill would keep them from reading at all other translations, who would I be to say a paraphrase would not be profitable for them.
It's a fact. :) Different folks like different things for various reasons. I'm a "wordy" person so I really like the word for word translation, but others may enjoy the over all feel of reading such as a paraphrase.

Vickilynn
Sep 25th 2007, 05:19 PM
I (with due respect my Sister in Christ) find your stance interesting from one who is part of Jewish Roots, I call it interesting due to the fact that the Jewish people (thankfully) put HUGE stock in keeping the fidelity and faithfulness of the Torah intact. When copies were being made a each "page" was checked and double checked for example one mistake in a letter might allow for a correction if possible.........more than that.....it was burned and start-over time began. We can and should be thankful for this! Look, I have read your posts you strike me as a clear thinker and I have NO wish to even sound like I am trying to insult you, but I must admit, I am glad those careful scribes did not shrug their shoulder and say "Well, at least we got the spirit of the thing!" I hope you see where I am coming from with this. Grace and Peace.

Shalom AC,

No offense taken. Thank you for your thoughtfulness in your post.

Let me make myself clearer:
I'm not shrugging my shoulders, or diminishing the importance of careful translation. I just think we need to really focus on the fact that we can strain at gnats and swallow camels by getting all uptight about certain translations.

As I said, we should (and I do) study with several translations and if possible, go back to the original languages to get the true picture of the what the verses means. I do this with an Interlinear Bible.

karenoka27
Sep 25th 2007, 05:20 PM
I see I looked to deeply into what the OP was saying...I get so intimidated when I come here..you Bible chat people can be so tough...;) so I thought...and here you are talking lightly about this.

Ok...I love the KJV...like the NKJV will if I have to read the NIV..but dislike more than another version the message...but is that even a translation?

anglican-cat
Sep 25th 2007, 05:27 PM
Shalom AC,

No offense taken. Thank you for your thoughtfulness in your post.

Let me make myself clearer:
I'm not shrugging my shoulders, or diminishing the importance of careful translation. I just think we need to really focus on the fact that we can strain at gnats and swallow camels by getting all uptight about certain translations.

As I said, we should (and I do) study with several translations and if possible, go back to the original languages to get the true picture of the what the verses means. I do this with an Interlinear Bible.
My respect still stands Vicki! I was being a bit Socratic, so long as you speak of finding the spirit of meaning within the context of translation I can more or less agree (I still "lean" more towards a literal primary Bible), but in general I agree with you so long as an idea of playing fast ans loose with the Hebrew and Greek do not come into play. Grace and Peace.

NightWatchman
Sep 26th 2007, 01:41 AM
The NIV is a bit sad, I used to use it, but as I grew in the faith it fell by the wayside. The English is pleasing to read....but at this stage in my Christian Pilgrimage it is almost like "So what. Yes, it reads well, but is at times is not only inaccurate but misleading!" Not how I want to feel about what I am calling the word of God!:cool:
I haven't been misled by the NIV Bible.

In it:
God is holy.
Jesus Christ died for my sins.
Heaven and hell are real places.
God judges all men (and women.)
God's judgment is everlasting.
All people will receive resurrection bodies.
Sin leads to death.

Every Christian doctrine is in it.

I also read the NKJV. I like both.
I don't see the big deal.

THE WORST BIBLE VERSION IS THE UNREAD BIBLE.

Taryn
Sep 26th 2007, 01:49 AM
Well since were on the topic I got to say I only read the KJV. For me I find it better to read but then again that just me.













Taryn :monkeyd::bible::monkeyd::crazy:

anglican-cat
Sep 26th 2007, 01:49 AM
I haven't been misled by the NIV Bible.

In it:
God is holy.
Jesus Christ died for my sins.
Heaven and hell are real places.
God judges all men (and women.)
God's judgment is everlasting.
All people will receive resurrection bodies.
Sin leads to death.

Every Christian doctrine is in it.

I also read the NKJV. I like both.
I don't see the big deal.

THE WORST BIBLE VERSION IS THE UNREAD BIBLE. I am glad you are blessed by the NIV, truly I am! If you cannot see any "big deal" then I will not point out the NIV mistakes and shake your faith in it. For what it is worth the NKJV is a pleasure to read and far more accurate, were I you I would make it my primary. That is up to you. :2cents:

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 01:54 AM
***OK folks... Just a heads up... Most of the Versions threads we have had on the board have become heated. This one seems peaceful enough but should it become heated, it will shut down. OKEY DOKEY???***

There is one other started that will recieve the same caution.

NightWatchman
Sep 26th 2007, 02:08 AM
I am glad you are blessed by the NIV, truly I am! If you cannot see any "big deal" then I will not point out the NIV mistakes and shake your faith in it. For what it is worth the NKJV is a pleasure to read and far more accurate, were I you I would make it my primary. That is up to you. :2cents:

It seems I've been reading the NKJV more often for quite a while.

During my early days of reading through the whole Bible, the NIV proved to be perfect for me, particularly with its virtually endless center column cross-references that link similar Biblical passages.

The NKJV has a different feel, which I look at more often now.

anglican-cat
Sep 26th 2007, 02:15 AM
It seems I've been reading the NKJV more often for quite a while.

During my early days of reading through the whole Bible, the NIV proved to be perfect for me, particularly with its virtually endless center column cross-references that link similar Biblical passages.

The NKJV has a different feel, which I look at more often now.
The NIV was the version I really used early on, as a fellow Christian...I wish the best for my Brothers and Sisters in Christ...part of this would be using a version that best reflects the Word of God....in this case if it were the NIV versus the NKJV I would steer you towards the "New Jimmy"...why? No harder to read but far away more accurate. I am glad you are using it more! Grace and Peace in His Name.:cool:

Saved7
Sep 26th 2007, 02:24 AM
I have a major problem with paraphrased bibles. To me that is not God's word, but a man's interpretation of what God's word means. A translation difference can be a problem but that's where a good concordance comes in, as we are simple humans and should never fully trust the language translations as if it is perfect. But again, a translation is FAR different than an interpretation. Paraphrases are merely men's interpretations, and as has been noted earlier, none of us have it %100, therefore, trusting a paraphrase to get your doctrine is foolish. But if you STUDY from a good translation, and just READ from a paraphrase, just for easy light bible reading, and always compare, then I think the two can be handy together.
I personally prefer to just use my bible and concordance, and maybe a couple of good outside sources, like Josephus' works. They work well together, but above all, seek God on His doctrine.

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 08:57 AM
Er, hi everybody, to echo what the Parson said, this wasn't meant to be a Bible version competition :), I'm guilty too - of having responded on the merits of Eugene H. Peterson, so mea culpa.

The point was that whatever version we use (and most English ones are a lot better than Asian Bible versions, but not always as good as European languages) the value of that version is lost if we reform what we're reading and misquotes become embedded in our thought. Most "bad translations" don't happen on the page (of any version), they happen in the pulpit or in the pews.

That was the point of the OP - reader error is a bigger problem than translator error.
God bless :)
Steven

jiggyfly
Sep 26th 2007, 12:16 PM
I think that those who can only quote the scriptures in whatever translation they use and cannot paraphrase in their own words fail to understand what they are quoting. To explain Father's plan to today's people theres's a need to use language they can understand quoting KJV may sound poetic to us but it's all greek to them (excuse the pun).

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 12:21 PM
I think that those who can only quote the scriptures in whatever translation they use and cannot paraphrase in their own words fail to understand what they are quoting. To explain Father's plan to today's people theres's a need to use language they can understand quoting KJV may sound poetic to us but it's all greek to them (excuse the pun).

True, but it is up to each individual to interpret what the text is actually saying, and that interpretation will influence the paraphrase.

jiggyfly
Sep 26th 2007, 01:19 PM
True, but it is up to each individual to interpret what the text is actually saying, and that interpretation will influence the paraphrase.

I am not sure I understand the point behind your question, but to reaffirm my point if you can not explain the gospel in your own words than you probably should not be trying to express it to someone else.

anglican-cat
Sep 26th 2007, 05:25 PM
***OK folks... Just a heads up... Most of the Versions threads we have had on the board have become heated. This one seems peaceful enough but should it become heated, it will shut down. OKEY DOKEY???***

There is one other started that will recieve the same caution.
Greetings Parson. I wish to state it was/is not my intent to make ANYONE feel bad about their respective versions! I stand by my statement that some are misleading on some points, that said I can at times be "strong" in debate (Irish), anyway I ask you to forgive me if I caused any offence, not my intent. Nice to meet you. I as a newbie have not thus far interacted with the "Mods" as of yet......so greetings!:cool:

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 05:30 PM
Greetings Parson. I wish to state it was/is not my intent to make ANYONE feel bad about their respective versions! I stand by my statement that some are misleading on some points, that said I can at times be "strong" in debate (Irish), anyway I ask you to forgive me if I caused any offence, not my intent. Nice to meet you. I as a newbie have not thus far interacted with the "Mods" as of yet......so greetings!:cool:Not a problem my friend. You didn't. I was just giving everybody a heads up. Shoot, this subject brings fire to my heart too. I have to check myself every time I post in such threads being a mediator who is also a King James man.

anglican-cat
Sep 26th 2007, 05:33 PM
Not a problem my friend. You didn't. I was just giving everybody a heads up. Shoot, this subject brings fire to my heart too. I have to check myself every time I post in such threads being a mediator who is also a King James man. Lol! I use the NASB for Critical text and the great King Jimmy for reading TR based passages!:cool:

messenger1
Sep 26th 2007, 11:16 PM
Did not Peter, james and John quote from the 1 book?

or

did they have a 100 to choose from?

and do not most versions edit

ad-lib?

Take out passages and words -- they see, fit to take out ( at their own discretion, do they do this "editing" too - i might add!!

for instance Matthew 17:21 is "now" taken out by a lot of revised versions

or ... you will "see" this Matthew17:(21 22) ummm -- but what pray tell happened to verse21 ( anyone) know? can anyone tell me?:giveup:where verse 21 vanished too:B

And thisalso: Some versions still distinguish between the "known" and "unknown" tongues from 1st corinthians and chapter fourteen - but most fail to define the difference and catergorize it as all tongues!! But clealy on the day of pentecost .... they spoke in the known languages of the nations present!!

And an "unknown tongue" is uttering mysteries to God "only", as know man understands him -- and he speaketh unto God, and not to me hmmm:help:

All roads don't lead to Rome -- and all bibles are not the same ( clearly this evident )

tgallison
Sep 27th 2007, 03:05 AM
If a translation is 10% accurate a person could be blest or even saved, glory be to God. His word will not come back void. But how about if it is 99% accurate that has to be better yet.

But how about that 1%? I would like to compare one verse, I hope this is all right.

John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 (NIV) No man has ever seen God, but God the one and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

I see two very serious problems.

KJV Begotten
NIV Omitted

There are many sons of God. We shall be called the sons of God.

There is only one begotten Son of God.

Every time begotten is used in KJV, the NIV puts son, except in this case it doesn't put anything.

KJV "--in the bosom of the Father,---"

NIV "--who is at the Father's side,---"

Do you see the problem? If He is in the bosom of the Father they are one.

If He is at the Father's, side they are two.

The one and only God, Jesus, standing along the side of God, the Father.

Anyway you look at it two God's.

Steven3
Sep 27th 2007, 07:10 AM
Hello Parson
Thanks for your moderating :). Question: is there any way as poster of OP I can edit thread title to "Worst Bible version : misread/unread Bible"? (Or perhaps if you agree you could do it?)

With no version being perfect, and most versions being usable (with the aid of study tools) what can readers do to maximize our accuracy in quoting/remembering the Bible, whichever version we use?


Hi T Gallison :)
I'm not defending the NIV on begotten, but I can't see that side or bosom makes that much difference - see how the greek word bosom, lap (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2859&Version=kjv)is used. But again is it really just a "version" issue? Or does it depend on what understanding we bring to the verse?
God bless
Steven

tgallison
Sep 27th 2007, 11:49 AM
Hello Parson
Thanks for your moderating :). Question: is there any way as poster of OP I can edit thread title to "Worst Bible version : misread/unread Bible"? (Or perhaps if you agree you could do it?)

With no version being perfect, and most versions being usable (with the aid of study tools) what can readers do to maximize our accuracy in quoting/remembering the Bible, whichever version we use?


Hi T Gallison :)
I'm not defending the NIV on begotten, but I can't see that side or bosom makes that much difference - see how the greek word bosom, lap (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2859&Version=kjv)is used. But again is it really just a "version" issue? Or does it depend on what understanding we bring to the verse?
God bless
Steven

Hi Steven3 I too have a Strong's Concordance, but most often find the translators of the KJV have done their homework.

The difference between being in the (heart of) Bosom and coming from the loins of, is the difference between God and Satan.

Satan copies everthing of God, but it is usually a poor imitation. Because one is Heavenly, and one earthly.

In the volume of the Book comes understanding comparing scripture with scripture, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

It is always nice to have a word for word tranlation. It is not about ease of reading, but truth. In time the world is going to say Bible! which one are you refering too? We are really at that point today.

God did not make the Bible easy to understand for a reason. It was so you would come to him for understanding. His Spirit for truth.

The Parson
Sep 27th 2007, 04:16 PM
Hello Parson
Thanks for your moderating :). Question: is there any way as poster of OP I can edit thread title to "Worst Bible version : misread/unread Bible"? (Or perhaps if you agree you could do it?)

With no version being perfect, and most versions being usable (with the aid of study tools) what can readers do to maximize our accuracy in quoting/remembering the Bible, whichever version we use?


Hi T Gallison :)
I'm not defending the NIV on begotten, but I can't see that side or bosom makes that much difference - see how the greek word bosom, lap (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2859&Version=kjv)is used. But again is it really just a "version" issue? Or does it depend on what understanding we bring to the verse?
God bless
StevenI can change the title for you if you wish. But really isn't a version issue how beit some versions may lean either to the far left or the far right. It is however a manuscript issue.

third hero
Sep 27th 2007, 08:08 PM
The NRSV is by far the worst. A church I went to had a bible study, and we used the New Oxford Study Bible and the commentary found on the bottom of the pages was pure blasphemy. Saying things like Archeology disproves that the Bible's version of the Battle at Jericho was accurate, and then went on to give an alternative account based on their own beliefs, and not the Bible. Purely corrupt, and dispicable. I can not stand the NRSV, becasue the translators were, at least in my mind, heretics.

punk
Sep 27th 2007, 09:09 PM
If a translation is 10% accurate a person could be blest or even saved, glory be to God. His word will not come back void. But how about if it is 99% accurate that has to be better yet.

But how about that 1%? I would like to compare one verse, I hope this is all right.

John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 (NIV) No man has ever seen God, but God the one and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

I see two very serious problems.

KJV Begotten
NIV Omitted



Actually it isn't omitted in the NIV.

Where the KJV renders the Greek "only begotten", the NIV renders it as "one and only". Both of these are attempts to translate "monogenetos", which while literally "only-begotten" really means "unique", or "one and only". The "only" doesn't by itself correspond to any Greek word.




KJV "--in the bosom of the Father,---"

NIV "--who is at the Father's side,---"

Do you see the problem? If He is in the bosom of the Father they are one.

If He is at the Father's, side they are two.

The one and only God, Jesus, standing along the side of God, the Father.

Anyway you look at it two God's.

This is just a case of you misunderstanding the usage of "in" in the KJV. In this context it has no context of "within" or "inside" and really just means "at". Prepositions are pretty fluid in their meanings.

In this case "in the bosom of" is an expression referring to the position of a person at a meal (remembering people reclined on the floor and had no chairs).

enarchay
Sep 27th 2007, 09:12 PM
Actually it isn't omitted in the NIV.

Where the KJV renders the Greek "only begotten", the NIV renders it as "one and only". Both of these are attempts to translate "monogenetos", which while literally "only-begotten" really means "unique", or "one and only". The "only" doesn't by itself correspond to any Greek word.

Yes. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort translates monogenes "unique one" in John 3:16, for example. Later I'll look at this word in the LXX to see how it is used. While monogenes, as you pointed out, literally means "only born," that may not be how the word was understood in the first century. To interpret a word based purely on its root is called the root fallacy.

FoG
Sep 27th 2007, 10:52 PM
I was raised learning and always hearing the KJV. My parents and Sunday school teachers had me memorizing scriptures from that version. Now when I read other versions I can recognize places where words have been changed. It used to bother me a little because I new those words were supposed to be there. I purchased a parallel bible with the KJV and Amplified version. I absolutely love this bible. I also own just about every version there is because I love to compare them to the KJV. I am enjoying my NASB, but like I said, I have to have the KJV beside it so I can make sure no one is trying to pull wool over my eyes. :lol:

I am not trying to say that other versions are bad. I am just used to the KJV.

tgallison
Sep 28th 2007, 12:54 AM
Actually it isn't omitted in the NIV.

Where the KJV renders the Greek "only begotten", the NIV renders it as "one and only". Both of these are attempts to translate "monogenetos", which while literally "only-begotten" really means "unique", or "one and only". The "only" doesn't by itself correspond to any Greek word.



This is just a case of you misunderstanding the usage of "in" in the KJV. In this context it has no context of "within" or "inside" and really just means "at". Prepositions are pretty fluid in their meanings.

In this case "in the bosom of" is an expression referring to the position of a person at a meal (remembering people reclined on the floor and had no chairs).


punk

I am a little slow so you have to walk me through this slow.

John 1:18 NIV "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at God's side, has made him known."

Would you please explain this verse to me, because it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense???

TrustGzus
Sep 28th 2007, 01:40 AM
punk

I am a little slow so you have to walk me through this slow.

John 1:18 NIV "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at God's side, has made him known."

Would you please explain this verse to me, because it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense???Greetings tgallison,

The Greek word is μονογενὴς. The NIV does not omit it. The NIV simply translated it differently than the KJV and others.

The KJV translates μονογενὴς as only begotten.
The NIV translates μονογενὴς as one and only.

Greek scholars have more recently concluded that μονογενὴς carries the idea of uniqueness rather than begotten. Thus, the NIV translation. Many others are similar in recent decades . . .

18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.
CEV

18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
ESV

18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
GNT

18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father’s side, has revealed him.
ISV


18 No one has ever actually seen God, but, of course, his only Son has, for he is the companion of the Father and has told us all about him.
The Living Bible



18 No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.
The Message


18 No one has ever seen God. But God the only Son is very close to the Father, and he has shown us what God is like.
NCV



18 No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
NLT




18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
NRSV


18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
RSV


18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
TNIV

Now I grant that some of those are paraphrases, but some are very respected translations that are more formal than functional in translation. None of those mention the idea of begotten. Why? Because only begotten would not be μονογενὴς, but μονογέννητος .

Other than the NASB, I know of no translation that uses the word begotten after 1901. And even the NASB has a footnote for the same word at John 3:16 stating an alternate translation of unique, only one of His kind. I hope that helps make sense of the differences and demonstrates that there isn't bad intentions on either side of the issue.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Sep 28th 2007, 01:46 AM
In reply to the OP, Steven 3, you state that sometimes we can state 180 degrees of what the original text does. I agree. You then take 2 Corinthians 5:8 and give some states demonstrating the replacement of and with is. Now I'm not for sloppy quoting. However, do you see this as a 180 degree example? How would you interpret 2 Corinthians 5:8 differently with the misquote?

Just curious.

Grace & peace,

Joe

stacie1872
Sep 28th 2007, 04:32 AM
I have been told, and i'm not sure whether or not it's true, that the only Bible that isn't copyrighted is the KJV. The rest make money off of their bibles.

It's interesting that i came across this thread. it was never a big deal to me which Bible was used (although the KJV is my preference)- until i was at bible study the other night. My group was reading out of the NIV. They were reading the story of shadrach meshach and abednego.... I was taken by surprise by how the verse read in the niv, which also states the same thing in the english standard version. I've always thought that it was Jesus that was seen in the fire with them? And, I've been told, that most bible scholars also believe this to be true. This, to me, is a huge difference in translation. I just wonder if there are alot of other biggies like this in the different translations?

God Bless
stacie

24Then King Nebuchadnezzar was(AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AK)) astonished and rose up(AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AL)) in haste. He declared to his(AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AM)) counselors, "Did we not cast three men(AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AN)) bound into the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." 25He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound,(AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AO)) walking in the midst of the fire, and they(AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AP)) are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AQ)) a son of the gods." (English Standard Version)

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods (NIV)

25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. (KJV)

enarchay
Sep 28th 2007, 07:20 AM
punk

I am a little slow so you have to walk me through this slow.

John 1:18 NIV "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at God's side, has made him known."

Would you please explain this verse to me, because it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense???

This is apparently based on two of the oldest Greek manuscripts, p66 and p75, which read monogenes theos, literally "only-born God." For more info click here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/john1.18.html).

enarchay
Sep 28th 2007, 07:54 AM
24Then King Nebuchadnezzar was(AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AK)) astonished and rose up(AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AL)) in haste. He declared to his(AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AM)) counselors, "Did we not cast three men(AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AN)) bound into the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." 25He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound,(AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AO)) walking in the midst of the fire, and they(AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AP)) are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AQ)) a son of the gods." (English Standard Version)

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods (NIV)

25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. (KJV)

Almost all respectable translations I have looked at thus far render it "son of the gods." This must have to do with the Aramaic from which the Hebrew is derived. I searched the web and surprisingly found hardly any info on the subject. I was able to find this statement: "'Bar elohim' of Dan. 3:25 would then be a late singular formation from an Aramaic plural, 'bere elohim,' equivalent to the Hebrew 'bene elohim.' ... This has recently been confirmed in a striking way via Textual Criticism." I'm not exactly sure if that is right, though.

In the LXX, theou is used in the singular, however.

Steven3
Sep 28th 2007, 09:49 AM
Almost all respectable translations I have looked at thus far render it "son of the gods." This must have to do with the Aramaic from which the Hebrew is derived. I searched the web and surprisingly found hardly any info on the subject. I was able to find this statement: "'Bar elohim' of Dan. 3:25 would then be a late singular formation from an Aramaic plural, 'bere elohim,' equivalent to the Hebrew 'bene elohim.' ... This has recently been confirmed in a striking way via Textual Criticism." I'm not exactly sure if that is right, though.

In the LXX, theou is used in the singular, however.

:dunno:
Elohim "God/god/gods" is one of many nouns in Hebrew that has the same -im or -oth form in singular and plural, so when it occurs like this without a verb, adjective or pronoun it is impossible to tell whether it is singular or plural.

But, seeing as Nebuchadnezzar wasn't a monotheist at this point in Daniel, plural is more likely.

tgallison
Sep 28th 2007, 02:39 PM
Greetings tgallison,

The Greek word is μονογενὴς. The NIV does not omit it. The NIV simply translated it differently than the KJV and others.

The KJV translates μονογενὴς as only begotten.
The NIV translates μονογενὴς as one and only.

Greek scholars have more recently concluded that μονογενὴς carries the idea of uniqueness rather than begotten. Thus, the NIV translation. Many others are similar in recent decades . . .

18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.
CEV

18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Fatherís side, he has made him known.
ESV

18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Fatherís side, he has made him known.
GNT

18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Fatherís side, has revealed him.
ISV


18 No one has ever actually seen God, but, of course, his only Son has, for he is the companion of the Father and has told us all about him.
The Living Bible



18 No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.
The Message


18 No one has ever seen God. But God the only Son is very close to the Father, and he has shown us what God is like.
NCV



18 No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who himself God, is near to the Fatherís heart. He has revealed God to us.
NLT




18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Fatherís heart, who has made him known.
NRSV


18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
RSV


18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
TNIV

Now I grant that some of those are paraphrases, but some are very respected translations that are more formal than functional in translation. None of those mention the idea of begotten. Why? Because only begotten would not be μονογενὴς, but μονογέννητος .

Other than the NASB, I know of no translation that uses the word begotten after 1901. And even the NASB has a footnote for the same word at John 3:16 stating an alternate translation of unique, only one of His kind. I hope that helps make sense of the differences and demonstrates that there isn't bad intentions on either side of the issue.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe


Joe Hi

I thought these new translations were for clarity. We could argue all day over the meaning of one word, due to the different texts they were translated from. Also the varation in the word meanings. It really boils down to, who do you trust. A better method than one word, is line for line precept for precept, to determine the meaning of Scripture.

When it is written the Son of God or only Son of God, how does that distinquish from the sons of God, found in Genesis, found in Job, and the New Testament. We become a son of God by adoption.

If you say, only Son, it is a paradox. We see more than I mentioned in the Bible.

If you say Son, then it could be one of many.

When you say only begotten Son, it brings clarity.

If you read John 1:18 in the NIV, how do you know the Son is even there? The word Son is not used. "God has made God known." So much for clarity.

It has been said that the prepositions are fluid. If you do an analytical study of the prepositions in the NIV you will find that the prepositions and conjunctions have been rearranged merely to have a Bible that looks different than the KJV. This goes along with sentence structure, and placement of sentence. Even at the cost of meaning.

Saying the preposition's are fluid, is sort of like saying our Constitution is a living breathing organism. It can change at man's whim.

Since the NIV is not a word for word translation, and it doesn't make clearer the Scriptures, and has only brought dissention, why is it here?

tgallison
Sep 28th 2007, 02:59 PM
I have been told, and i'm not sure whether or not it's true, that the only Bible that isn't copyrighted is the KJV. The rest make money off of their bibles.

It's interesting that i came across this thread. it was never a big deal to me which Bible was used (although the KJV is my preference)- until i was at bible study the other night. My group was reading out of the NIV. They were reading the story of shadrach meshach and abednego.... I was taken by surprise by how the verse read in the niv, which also states the same thing in the english standard version. I've always thought that it was Jesus that was seen in the fire with them? And, I've been told, that most bible scholars also believe this to be true. This, to me, is a huge difference in translation. I just wonder if there are alot of other biggies like this in the different translations?


God Bless
stacie

24Then King Nebuchadnezzar was(AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AK)) astonished and rose up(AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AL)) in haste. He declared to his(AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AM)) counselors, "Did we not cast three men(AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AN)) bound into the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." 25He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound,(AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AO)) walking in the midst of the fire, and they(AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AP)) are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AQ)) a son of the gods." (English Standard Version)

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods (NIV)

25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. (KJV)


stacie


Nebuchadnezzar states that they were servants of the most high God in the next verse. He knew their God was singular. We can only speculate whether or not he meant God or gods. But I doubt if anyone will disagree, that it was the Son of God in the furnace. So which translation is clearer?

punk
Sep 28th 2007, 05:28 PM
punk

I am a little slow so you have to walk me through this slow.

John 1:18 NIV "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at God's side, has made him known."

Would you please explain this verse to me, because it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense???

Well I would have translated it more along the lines of:

"No man has ever seen God, but the unique God who is at God's side has made him known."

or:

"No man has ever seen God, but the one and only God who is at God's side has made hiim known."

punk
Sep 28th 2007, 05:30 PM
Joe Hi

I thought these new translations were for clarity. We could argue all day over the meaning of one word, due to the different texts they were translated from. Also the varation in the word meanings. It really boils down to, who do you trust. A better method than one word, is line for line precept for precept, to determine the meaning of Scripture.

When it is written the Son of God or only Son of God, how does that distinquish from the sons of God, found in Genesis, found in Job, and the New Testament. We become a son of God by adoption.

If you say, only Son, it is a paradox. We see more than I mentioned in the Bible.

If you say Son, then it could be one of many.

When you say only begotten Son, it brings clarity.

If you read John 1:18 in the NIV, how do you know the Son is even there? The word Son is not used. "God has made God known." So much for clarity.

It has been said that the prepositions are fluid. If you do an analytical study of the prepositions in the NIV you will find that the prepositions and conjunctions have been rearranged merely to have a Bible that looks different than the KJV. This goes along with sentence structure, and placement of sentence. Even at the cost of meaning.

Saying the preposition's are fluid, is sort of like saying our Constitution is a living breathing organism. It can change at man's whim.

Since the NIV is not a word for word translation, and it doesn't make clearer the Scriptures, and has only brought dissention, why is it here?

The passage isn't any clearer in the KJV. It is just that familiarity causes you to overlook that it is in fact quite odd.

The passage is odd in Greek, so a good translation should render it odd in English.

anglican-cat
Sep 28th 2007, 05:39 PM
I have been told, and i'm not sure whether or not it's true, that the only Bible that isn't copyrighted is the KJV. The rest make money off of their bibles.

It's interesting that i came across this thread. it was never a big deal to me which Bible was used (although the KJV is my preference)- until i was at bible study the other night. My group was reading out of the NIV. They were reading the story of shadrach meshach and abednego.... I was taken by surprise by how the verse read in the niv, which also states the same thing in the english standard version. I've always thought that it was Jesus that was seen in the fire with them? And, I've been told, that most bible scholars also believe this to be true. This, to me, is a huge difference in translation. I just wonder if there are alot of other biggies like this in the different translations?

God Bless
stacie

24Then King Nebuchadnezzar was(AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AK)) astonished and rose up(AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AL)) in haste. He declared to his(AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AM)) counselors, "Did we not cast three men(AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21832AN)) bound into the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." 25He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound,(AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AO)) walking in the midst of the fire, and they(AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AP)) are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=47#cen-ESV-21833AQ)) a son of the gods." (English Standard Version)

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods (NIV)

25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. (KJV)Regarding Copyright and the KJV. The KJV has The Crown Copyright Privilage in the UK. It is overseen by the Church of England and the official Royal Printer is Cambridge University Press. The extent of this is of course limited to the UK....but yes....in a technical sense it does enjoy a copyright and a rather lofty one at that. Grace and Peace.:cool:

Teke
Sep 28th 2007, 06:49 PM
Well I would have translated it more along the lines of:

"No man has ever seen God, but the unique God who is at God's side has made him known."

or:

"No man has ever seen God, but the one and only God who is at God's side has made hiim known."

A better Protestant translation would be:
"No man has ever seen God (meaning literally with their eyes): God only is the begotten exegesis of God" :P

"Which is" = He Who is, like "was" in verse 1. "hath declared" is the Greek exegeomai= to lead the way, make known by expounding, in English "exegesis."

Meaning God came to feed (as in milk from the breast, hence the reference to 'bosom', which is also related to essence ie. light of light) them Himself with His truth.

I know, some won't agree with this, as they only relate "exegesis" with scripture. But God's exegesis (explanation, revealing) of Himself to us is Christ.

anglican-cat
Sep 28th 2007, 06:57 PM
A better Protestant translation would be:
"No man has ever seen God (meaning literally with their eyes): God only is the begotten exegesis of God" :P

"Which is" = He Who is, like "was" in verse 1. "hath declared" is the Greek exegeomai= to lead the way, make known by expounding, in English "exegesis."

Meaning God came to feed (as in milk from the breast, hence the reference to 'bosom', which is also related to essence ie. light of light) them Himself with His truth.

I know, some won't agree with this, as they only relate "exegesis" with scripture. But God's exegesis (explanation, revealing) of Himself to us is Christ.I like that! For those of us who are sacramentalist this is why we place so much stock in the mystery of the Holy Communion.

Steven3
Sep 28th 2007, 07:23 PM
:hmm:
These fairly minor textual issues are still the 0.1% of Bible error which comes from textual issues, not the 99.9% which comes from human misreading.

While the "-begotten" bit is somewhat inferred, the phrase "only begotten" of a son has nothing unusual about it - it is used of Jephtha's daugther in the LXX, and here it is in Herodotus

Histories, Book VII 221.1 Not the least proof I have of this is the fact that Leonidas publicly dismissed the seer who attended the expedition, for fear that he might die with them. This was Megistias the Acarnanian, said to be descended from Melampus, the one who told from the sacrifices what was going to happen to them. He was dismissed but did not leave; instead he sent away his only-begotten son who was also with the army.

It is however extremely unusual, in fact unheard of, to be used of God. That would be monos only not monogenes only(-begotten). as John 5:44 του μονου θεου.

In John 1:18 different versions of NIV do different things. Some follow the TR in this verse and footnote the Metzger-Aland-Aland recommendation. Others follow Metzger-Aland-Aland and footnote the TR. This verse is also interesting in that it is the only one, to the best of my recollection, where Carlos Martini, the Vatican's man on the NA-24 committee, requested that he go on the record as dissenting from the other 3 members decision. It's actually noted in the UBS textual handbook.

Another problem is whether the mss in question even have "Son" or "God" written in full anyway? In many mss θεος is abbreviated to θς and υιος to υς. It doesn't take much copyist error to write θς rather than υς.

Anyway, it's a verse with variant reading - so any decent version with have both options, it doesn't matter much which is the footnote.
God bless
Steven

Steven3
Sep 28th 2007, 07:31 PM
If you read John 1:18 in the NIV, how do you know the Son is even there? By the little number [1] next to "God" and the footnote at the bottom of the page :) Same with ESV. :)

enarchay
Sep 28th 2007, 10:14 PM
requested that he go on the record as dissenting from the other 3 members decision. It's actually noted in the UBS textual handbook.

I have a Greek-English version of the UBS4, but no handbook. Can you get the UBS textual handbook online?

enarchay
Sep 29th 2007, 12:51 PM
Almost all respectable translations I have looked at thus far render it "son of the gods." This must have to do with the Aramaic from which the Hebrew is derived. I searched the web and surprisingly found hardly any info on the subject. I was able to find this statement: "'Bar elohim' of Dan. 3:25 would then be a late singular formation from an Aramaic plural, 'bere elohim,' equivalent to the Hebrew 'bene elohim.' ... This has recently been confirmed in a striking way via Textual Criticism." I'm not exactly sure if that is right, though.

In the LXX, theou is used in the singular, however.

I asked my friend who can read Hebrew pretty well and he said:

The plural אלהים (elohim) with singular meaning (when accompanied by singular verbs) in Hebrew does not carry over into its Aramaic counterpart... and the passage in question occurs in the sections of Daniel (2:4b-7:28) which are written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The clause in question בר־אלהין (barelahin) places 'son' in construct with the plural absolute form of אלהא (elaha), the Aramaic word for 'god'. When in the plural, it is referring to a plurality... the grammatical issues surrounding elohim in Hebrew simply do not apply in Aramaic and any translation that renders elahin in the singular as if it were the Hebrew elohim referring to a singular deity does so erroneously. Aramaic references to God (singular) are always in singular forms... see Daniel 2:18-20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Daniel+2%3A18-20); 3:26; 6:5 etc.

Steven3
Sep 30th 2007, 04:11 PM
the passage in question occurs in the sections of Daniel (2:4b-7:28) which are written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.duh! :) thanks very much for pointing that out!

Metzger's Textual Commentary is available in both formats from Amazon:

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/11IwqzTobHL._OU01_SS160_.jpghttp://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21BMC4VD9QL._AA150_.jpg

Have a good and happy time everyone.
God bless
Bye for now.
Steven

TrustGzus
Sep 30th 2007, 09:32 PM
Greetings tgallison,
I thought these new translations were for clarity. We could argue all day over the meaning of one word, due to the different texts they were translated from. Also the varation in the word meanings. It really boils down to, who do you trust. A better method than one word, is line for line precept for precept, to determine the meaning of Scripture.Some of those versions are paraphrases. So those are definitely for clarity. But the ESV is one that's not one of clarity. Neither is the RSV or NRSV. I agree with you that one should look at a greater context. However, I'm wondering about an aspect of my post that you didn't respond to. I supplied the Greek word that would be translated only begotten. That word is μονογέννητος. That is not the word used in any manuscript of John. If God wanted the text to read only begotten, then He could have used that word and the debate would be over. But God didn't choose that word. My personal opinion is that begotten has become a tradition and some struggle to part with it because it so easily flows from our mouths. Traditions are hard to part with. I grew up Roman Catholic and had lots of tradition in my life. Tradition isn't bad if the tradition is correct. But if a tradition isn't correct, then it should be abandoned. Unfortunately, Catholics aren't the only ones with traditions. I've discovered over 20 years of being a Protestant that we have them too. For us it can be harder to admit it because we tend to like to point out traditional errors the Catholics have and don't like to admit to our own. I've abandoned several Protestant traditions over the last several years myself. I probably still adhere to other traditions that are erroneous that my eyes haven't opened to yet.
When it is written the Son of God or only Son of God, how does that distinquish from the sons of God, found in Genesis, found in Job, and the New Testament. We become a son of God by adoption.Review what I wrote. The word means unique or one of a kind. That distinguishes Jesus from Genesis 6 and from you and me, the adopted ones.
If you read John 1:18 in the NIV, how do you know the Son is even there? The word Son is not used. "God has made God known." So much for clarity.Son isn't in the Greek manuscripts that the NIV used (nor the NASB, ESV and every other major translation today except for the NKJV). Just as God isn't in the manuscripts used by the KJV and NKJV.

This now is a different type of translation problem. The issue of whether the text should read only begotten or one and only or some other rendering is a translational issue. The Greek reads the same. It's simply a question of how to translate the word μονογενὴς .

But the difference between the English rendering being Son or God is a textual issue. The Greek words are different.

Here's the Greek the KJV translated . . .
18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο
Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) : With morphology. 2002 (Jn 1:18). Bellingham: Logos Research Systems.That word should be translated son. Here's what the NIV (and others) translated from . . .
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε∑ μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993, c1979). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (Jn 1:18). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.


And that should be translated God. Which is correct? I have no doubt that what the NIV and other modern translations go with is correct. Why? Because the textual evidence is overwhelming.

First of all both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have θεὸς. Those are the earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament. Both date from the 300's. But if that weren't enough, as another member already posted, p66 and p75 have θεὸς. The letter "p" stands for papyrus. These are the oldest manuscripts in existence. P66 is from around 200. P75 is also from the early 200's. Once Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have an early papyrus or two to back them up, it's hard to justify any other reading without giving the appearance of bias and/or blind faith.
Since the NIV is not a word for word translation, and it doesn't make clearer the Scriptures, and has only brought dissention, why is it here?Because the English language is constantly evolving, we will regularly need new translations. Plus, word-for-word isn't always the best. The KJV isn't always word-for-word. Plus, you don't want John 1:18 word-for-word translated. If it was translated that way it would read more like
God no one has seen ever yet only born God the one being in the lap of the father that one explained.Even the New American Standard isn't that stiff.

Grace & peace to you, tgallison.

Joe

enarchay
Sep 30th 2007, 09:55 PM
That word is μονογέννητος. That is not the word used in any manuscript of John. If God wanted the text to read only begotten, then He could have used that word and the debate would be over. ... The word means unique or one of a kind. That distinguishes Jesus from Genesis 6 and from you and me, the adopted ones.Son isn't in the Greek manuscripts that the NIV used (nor the NASB, ESV and every other major translation today except for the NKJV). Just as God isn't in the manuscripts used by the KJV and NKJV.


But the word literally means "only-born." I have not yet looked at the word in the LXX, but I plan to, and when I do, I'll make a post.


The Greek reads the same. It's simply a question of how to translate the word μονογενὴς .

Yes.


But the difference between the English rendering being Son or God is a textual issue. The Greek words are different.

It comes down to the question of whether we should trust two of our oldest sources or the majority of the sources copied later. Is it more likely the text would have originally read theos and later copied as uihos or the vice versa?


First of all both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have θεὸς. Those are the earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament. Both date from the 300's.

Never noticed this. Any idea where I can get a look at these texts? I have The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (though I can't fluently read Greek yet :B) but I can't remember if those are included in the work.


But if that weren't enough, as another member already posted, p66 and p75 have θεὸς. The letter "p" stands for papyrus. These are the oldest manuscripts in existence. P66 is from around 200. P75 is also from the early 200's.

I'm not sure if the view that older is always better is necessarily the soundest view when it comes to textual criticism. While it may be true in many cases, I'm not sure it should be true in all cases. But then again, I'm not a scholar. I think, dare I say, we must consider from where the earliest manuscripts were circulated. We also must put ourselves in the perspective of a scribe.

Thank you for your well thought out post and considerations of the ancient sources. Let us continue this thread with these questions in mind.

TrustGzus
Oct 1st 2007, 04:17 AM
Greetings enarchay,
But the word literally means "only-born." I have not yet looked at the word in the LXX, but I plan to, and when I do, I'll make a post.It does not literally mean only-born. Scholars used to think this because they used to think it was a compound word formed from (using Strong's #'s here for everyone to look up) μόνος (G3668) meaning only and from γεννάω (G1164) meaning beget. But Greek scholars no longer believe this. They claim that the second part of this compound word is from γένος (G1169) meaning class or kind.

Check out Hebrews 11:17 where it is used of Isaac. In that passage, the KJV, NKJV, and NASB translate it only begotten. The problem is that Isaac wasn't Abraham's only begotten son. Ishmael was also begotten of Abraham. However, Isaac was Abraham's unique son or one of a kind. He was the only one born of a promise. His birth was the only miraculous one. He wasn't the only begotten one, but he was the unique, one of a kind son.

It is used in nine verses in the Septuagint:
Tobit 3:15
Tobit 6:15
Tobit 8:17
Judges 11:34
Psalm 24:16
Psalm 34:17
Psalm 21:21 (I know our English Bibles do not have this many verses, but my Septuagint does)
Psalms of Solomon 18:4
Wisdom of Solomon 7:22
It comes down to the question of whether we should trust two of our oldest sources or the majority of the sources copied later. Is it more likely the text would have originally read theos and later copied as uihos or the vice versa?A good question to ask, but how would you attempt to rationally answer it? And it's not two of our oldest sources. I listed four. I could have listed many more.
Never noticed this. Any idea where I can get a look at these texts? I have The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (though I can't fluently read Greek yet :B) but I can't remember if those are included in the work. I have no idea where you could physically look at these unless you go to Switzerland. Even then, I don't know what access they allow. They are large. P66 has 104 leaves. P75 has 102. You can get the manuscript details from picking up the UBS 4th and the Nestle-Aland 27th. They list the manuscript evidences, i.e. what manuscripts contain which readings. By the way, since papyri are older than the codices, want to know how many read son? Zero.
I'm not sure if the view that older is always better is necessarily the soundest view when it comes to textual criticism. While it may be true in many cases, I'm not sure it should be true in all cases. But then again, I'm not a scholar. I think, dare I say, we must consider from where the earliest manuscripts were circulated. We also must put ourselves in the perspective of a scribe. Putting ourselves in the shoes of the scribes can truly help us come up with valid ideas of why texts might have differences. To go against older manuscripts, one should have really solid evidence.

If you want to find out details of Jewish camps in Nazi Germany and you had the chance to interview the great-grandson of a Jewish captive, but from another family you could interview the son of a Jewish captive, which would you be more likely to want to interview? Chances are the great-grandson never had a conversation with his great-grandfather. So he's heard it from someone else who heard it from his ancestor. But the son would have heard from the man directly. Which would most likely be more reliable? It's similar to the telephone game. The closer to the source we go, the better.

I really don't see where they were circulated has any relevance. KJV-only advocates make these kind of arguments stating that supposed Antiochan strands are pure but Alexandrian strands are not. How do they come to that conclusion? Athanasius, the great defended of the Trinity, was bishop of Alexandria. Nestorius, the founder of the Nestorian heresy was from Antioch. So were the Nicolaitans originally. So I don't see where geography gets us in the textual discussions.
Thank you for your well thought out post and considerations of the ancient sources. Let us continue this thread with these questions in mind.You're welcome. And thank you, enarchay for reputation from the previous post. I hope this post helps move us along to sound conclusions.

tgallison
Oct 1st 2007, 01:17 PM
Greetings tgallison,Some of those versions are paraphrases. So those are definitely for clarity. But the ESV is one that's not one of clarity. Neither is the RSV or NRSV. I agree with you that one should look at a greater context. However, I'm wondering about an aspect of my post that you didn't respond to. I supplied the Greek word that would be translated only begotten. That word is μονογέννητος. That is not the word used in any manuscript of John. If God wanted the text to read only begotten, then He could have used that word and the debate would be over. But God didn't choose that word. My personal opinion is that begotten has become a tradition and some struggle to part with it because it so easily flows from our mouths. Traditions are hard to part with. I grew up Roman Catholic and had lots of tradition in my life. Tradition isn't bad if the tradition is correct. But if a tradition isn't correct, then it should be abandoned. Unfortunately, Catholics aren't the only ones with traditions. I've discovered over 20 years of being a Protestant that we have them too. For us it can be harder to admit it because we tend to like to point out traditional errors the Catholics have and don't like to admit to our own. I've abandoned several Protestant traditions over the last several years myself. I probably still adhere to other traditions that are erroneous that my eyes haven't opened to yet.Review what I wrote. The word means unique or one of a kind. That distinguishes Jesus from Genesis 6 and from you and me, the adopted ones.Son isn't in the Greek manuscripts that the NIV used (nor the NASB, ESV and every other major translation today except for the NKJV). Just as God isn't in the manuscripts used by the KJV and NKJV.

This now is a different type of translation problem. The issue of whether the text should read only begotten or one and only or some other rendering is a translational issue. The Greek reads the same. It's simply a question of how to translate the word μονογενὴς .

But the difference between the English rendering being Son or God is a textual issue. The Greek words are different.

Here's the Greek the KJV translated . . . That word should be translated son. Here's what the NIV (and others) translated from . . . And that should be translated God. Which is correct? I have no doubt that what the NIV and other modern translations go with is correct. Why? Because the textual evidence is overwhelming.

First of all both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have θεὸς. Those are the earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament. Both date from the 300's. But if that weren't enough, as another member already posted, p66 and p75 have θεὸς. The letter "p" stands for papyrus. These are the oldest manuscripts in existence. P66 is from around 200. P75 is also from the early 200's. Once Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have an early papyrus or two to back them up, it's hard to justify any other reading without giving the appearance of bias and/or blind faith.Because the English language is constantly evolving, we will regularly need new translations. Plus, word-for-word isn't always the best. The KJV isn't always word-for-word. Plus, you don't want John 1:18 word-for-word translated. If it was translated that way it would read more like Even the New American Standard isn't that stiff.

Grace & peace to you, tgallison.

Joe


Hi Joe

If the NIV had used the word unique son, then clairty wouldn't have been an issue with the NIV.

What is the best way to win a battle? Is it not divide and conquer?

I believe Satan has won a battle.

Let me ask you a question. One of the most profound statements in the Bible. found in Job 33:6 "Behold, I am ----------- in God's stead:---." is not found in the texts available as far as I can ascertain. Do you know if it is found anywhere other than the KJV.

enarchay
Oct 1st 2007, 02:15 PM
Greetings enarchay, It does not literally mean only-born. Scholars used to think this because they used to think it was a compound word formed from (using Strong's #'s here for everyone to look up) μόνος (G3668) meaning only and from γεννάω (G1164) meaning beget. But Greek scholars no longer believe this. They claim that the second part of this compound word is from γένος (G1169) meaning class or kind.

Ah! I see. Thanks.


I listed four.

Yeah, I wasn't aware of those other sources.


I have no idea where you could physically look at these unless you go to Switzerland.

Hasn't anyone copied these texts and compiled them into a published book?


P66 has 104 leaves. P75 has 102.

I have these texts. Are they equivalent to the codexes you mentioned?


You can get the manuscript details from picking up the UBS 4th and the Nestle-Aland 27th.

Yeah, I have an interlinear version of those texts but not the raw Greek. Any idea where I can buy just the Greek with the textual notes and so on?


By the way, since papyri are older than the codices, want to know how many read son? Zero.

Are you sure? I've only heard that p66 and p75 had theos instead of uihos.


I really don't see where they were circulated has any relevance. KJV-only advocates make these kind of arguments stating that supposed Antiochan strands are pure but Alexandrian strands are not. How do they come to that conclusion? Athanasius, the great defended of the Trinity, was bishop of Alexandria. Nestorius, the founder of the Nestorian heresy was from Antioch. So were the Nicolaitans originally. So I don't see where geography gets us in the textual discussions.You're welcome.

Alright, good points.

It's nice to not be the only non-KJV-only poster on this site.


And thank you, enarchay for reputation from the previous post. I hope this post helps move us along to sound conclusions.

No problem. Let's stay in touch on the forum or through e-mail. You bring up some interesting points.