Results 1 - 20 of 28
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: waldo700 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Verdict on the ESV: An opinion poll.. | Ps 119:105 | waldo700 | 32537 | ||
I have been perplexed on what to make my "translation of choice" for a long time. I used to love reading the NIV, it was my favorite. But as I became more interested in studying and memorizing, I found that I had to go with the NASB although I did not like the renderings as much. (I found the rendings of the NIV more meaningful while still maintaining accuracy.) Anyway, I got very excited about the ESV. It is readable and it seems to be fairly accurate, (though I am no scholar in the original languages; I have compared certain passages with the Greek and Hebrew in my BibleWorks program. The ESV seems to do a good job. I got stuck however as I realized that, as a study tool and as a memorization version, the ESV does not use italics to indicate which words have been "added" to the translation, as the NASB does. So, while I prefer the readability of the the ESV in many ways and even in some of its renderings, I'm a little gun-shy about depending on it: even its own P.R. materials say that it's only "essentially" literal and admit that the NASB is "strictly" literal, (which I suppose is some kind of putdown)... And, also, there's still that issue about the lack of italicizing the "additions". Oh, one other thing: since it's so new, I'd hate to depend on it, memorize it, and then find out that in twenty years it's out of print. It could be a fad that vanishes, while I don't think that's likely with the NASB. Any thoughts in response to these comments? Thanks, waldo700 |
||||||
2 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28875 | ||
Thanks very much for the info. -- waldo |
||||||
3 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28870 | ||
Thanks for bringing this great info to my attention! It certainly fills out the detail I just read in Tim Moran's post. I thank you all for digging this stuff out. It provides some good background info and I find it quite thought-provoking. Regards, waldo |
||||||
4 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28868 | ||
I love it! This is exactly why I was asking. I wanted to know what nitty-gritty was going on "behind-the-textual-scenes," as it were. This is quite a great answer and I appreciate very much your finding it and posting it. Because of the problems of translating it, these details bring in some confusion, but in another way, there is more clarity in that we can at least get some idea of the many possible meanings this command might have. It also adds some dimension to the command because of the possible nuances and definitely highlights Jesus' Kingship in a special way. Is "Derek Kidner's Tyndale Old Testament Commentary on Psalms 1-72, published by Inter-Varsity Press" a book that you own, or something that one can find on the net? Anyway, thanks once again. Very cool answer. -- waldo |
||||||
5 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28862 | ||
Found at http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/trans/index.htm and in other promotional material: "Updated New American Standard Bible The Most Literal is Now More Readable" YOUR QUOTE: "When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader, a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom.... There are a few exceptions to this procedure." BACK TO ME: Anyway, I guess this is, as they say, one of the "few exceptions to this procedure," -- which kind of makes it sound arbitrary since I would think "Kiss the Son" would be perfectly acceptable to the modern reader and not call for any change unless there were a strong textual reason for one. But that's okay with me: I was just curious about it. -- waldo |
||||||
6 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28811 | ||
Thank you for your note. I have seen that chart. I wonder where the new ESV would fall on that chart. They call it "essentially literal," although their promo material even acknowledges that the NASB is "strictly" literal. -- waldo |
||||||
7 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28809 | ||
YOU: Answer: The translators of the NASB never claimed to give the absolute literal translation of every word in the text of the Bible. ME: The NASB is generally touted as the most literal translation out there. YOU: The NASB translators' note for "Do homage" at Psalm 2:12 reads: "Lit[eral] 'Kiss': some ancient versions read 'Do homage purely,' or 'Lay hold of instruction.'" This being so, what is your problem with the NASB translation of this verse? ME: Since the translators' note itself says the word is LITERALLY "Kiss" and the Hebrew says "kiss" and all the other versions say "kiss," it seemed odd that "the most literal translation" would go with what "some ancient versions" said. The weight seems to fall on the side of the word "kiss." Btw, this is not a huge problem. But I am very interested in how these decisions are made and why translations differ. It is fascinating and educational. YOU: Also, no offense intended, but why on earth do people keep asking the Forum why certain versions translate certain verses as they do? Wouldn't it be better to write the publishers and ask them? How are we Forum members to know why a certain word was translated a certain way in a certain translation? ME: I didn't realize there was an abundance of these types of questions. It seems to me that writing the publishers would probably not help. Publishers are business people. They are not necessarily privvy to these choices. Anyway, that's my sense of things; but I have to admit I have not tried writing the publishers. The people who would know are people who read the Bible a lot, study it, examine it against the original languages, and perhaps understand the reasons, in general, behind textual choices, even particular choices like this one. While most forum members may not know the answer to this question, it seems to me that some of them might know or have an interesting contribution to make about it. And it also could open conversation. It seems appropriate to this forum; but I could be wrong. You might be underestimating the abilities to answer questions of some of those on forum; or maybe I'm wrong about that too. -- waldo |
||||||
8 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28779 | ||
Concerning Psalm 2:12, any Greek or Hebrew experts out there? Why on earth does the NASB translate this "Do homage to the Son," while every other translation uses "Kiss the Son," and the Hebrew word here -- as far as I can tell from my lexicons -- is the word for "kiss"? I know that some ancient manuscripts use "do homage" but the Hebrew word still seems to be "kiss." I thought the NASB was the "most literal"; in this case, though, it does not seem to be. ????? waldo |
||||||
9 | replies from persons or "bots"? | 1 Cor 15:10 | waldo700 | 28127 | ||
Hank, Does this also mean that we are a house which will not stand? -- waldo |
||||||
10 | Why does everything happen in thirds? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 28055 | ||
I'll answer you in two more posts. | ||||||
11 | displaying things of jesus | Ex 20:4 | waldo700 | 26836 | ||
I do not see in the Bible the idea that "following the law" is a "retreat back" or a move "away from the path of faith and grace." Paul teaches that the faith and grace given is IN ORDER THAT we can follow the Law. Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. |
||||||
12 | Why does God create after Christ | Jeremiah | waldo700 | 25118 | ||
What do you mean? waldo |
||||||
13 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | waldo700 | 24957 | ||
Whatever happened to using a good literal translation as a GUIDE to refer back to the original Greek and Hebrew? A translation is only the English version of what the original authors originally wrote as they were originally moved by the Holy Spirit. If someone wants to really study a topic, shouldn't they be referring back to the original languages? regards, waldo garcia |
||||||
14 | Do you think 2 Tim. 3:5 is nations too? | 2 Tim 3:5 | waldo700 | 24738 | ||
I'm not sure I see your point in relation to the original question or my response. You seem to be very concerned about how we respond "as a nation" to these issues. But I do not see how this text demonstrates that Paul had anything other in mind than the sin of individuals. I also do not see the Bible anywhere being terribly concerned with the sins of a collective nation as a whole; except that Israel symbolically represents Christ and the pagan nations symbolicaly represent Satan. Thus, the Bible, in how it addresses nations, is actually preaching the gospel to us, not speaking of social reform. "If my people will turn from their wicked ways..." (1 Chronicles 7:14) is a picture of the first Adam -- sinful Israel -- being urged toward righteousness -- the righteousness which Christ lived for us as the second Adam. All though you are speaking about our sins as a nation, I get the sense that your main point is that the USA is doing something wrong by destroying terrorists worldwide, as if this were somehow evil. But the government is given to us, graciously by God, to act as a restraint on evil. See these verses: Rom 13:4b But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it [the government, the governing authorities, v. 1] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Rom 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. Fearing the commands of God, and following our conscience, we should respectfully submit and even be supportive when our government brandishes the sword against those who commit evil. This is a godly -- and biblical -- attitude. |
||||||
15 | displaying things of jesus | Ex 20:4 | waldo700 | 24639 | ||
They think it is breaking the second commandment: Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. Ex 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, Ex 20:6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. -- waldo garcia |
||||||
16 | Do you think 2 Tim. 3:5 is nations too? | 2 Tim 3:5 | waldo700 | 24619 | ||
I think we should consider what Paul was thinking when he wrote these words. It is hard to see that he would have had nations in mind. True, that if you get enough sinners together, they will make up a nation and so ultimately, cumulatively, and collectively this list of sins could characterize a nation. That is just an interesting way to look at it, but there does not seem to be anything in the text (that I can see) indicating that Paul was thinking of anything other than individuals. If that is so, we cannot really apply this verse and say we ought to turn away from this nation or that nation. We need to start by thinking of the church and turning from those individuals who would be living in sin but professing to be Christians. We should also protect the church from those outside of the church and especially from those who seek to destroy it explicitly. But that would be the application of some other verse perhaps, not this one. waldo garcia |
||||||
17 | Where to find a Bible comparisons chart. | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 22533 | ||
I don't know which one you were looking at before, but here is one: http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm waldo700 |
||||||
18 | application | Not Specified | waldo700 | 22380 | ||
How do you apply the first nine chapters of I Chronicles? waldo |
||||||
19 | application | Num 7:6 | waldo700 | 22392 | ||
How do you apply the first nine chapters of I Chronicles? waldo |
||||||
20 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 21176 | ||
One more thought: I think the purpose of the forum overall is a bit ill-defined by Lockman. They wanted an online "study" Bible, but has really become a place of debate about ideas. It is hardly a place where I could come to look at Scripture itself and find the best of Orthodox Christian teaching on a passage, (all views fairly presented, since that's really what a Study Bible is). And I believe there is a lack of leadership. There does not really seem to be anyone leading the thing or giving it direction. It's anarchy -- itself an unbiblical way to approach fellowship. As for your idea on people being responsible for individual books of the Bible: I think it is an idea with a lot of merit; but it might be hard to implement -- hard to obtain the commitment required to make it work. That's because, for many, this is a hobby (I mean the forum, not Christianity) and what you are suggesting would require a lot of work and commitment. However, I still think it is an idea with a lot of merit and I would have more to say if the idea were expanded and further developed, so we could all see what it really looked like in practice. Too bad Lockman can't put some moderators in here to evaluate such an idea and perhaps implement it in an orderly fashion... or if the moderators are well-trained, to lead the studies themselves. Another solution is to start your own forum, which is fairly easy to do. For instance, I have a forum at http://forums.delphi.com/choosecalvinism/start and many other Christians have forums on http://forums.delphi.com/ as well. Maybe there could be a forum there for the fellowship of those who hang out at the Lockman Study Bible Forum, too. ??? waldo garcia |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |