Results 1 - 15 of 15
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: waldo700 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28875 | ||
Thanks very much for the info. -- waldo |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | 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. |
||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||
10 | 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. |
||||||
11 | 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 |
||||||
12 | ___-trib satisfactory? | Revelation | waldo700 | 20429 | ||
I would indeed agree with you concerning the fact that there IS a chronology to something like the seven trumpets, (and probably other prophetic passages as well). It's just that -- and perhaps you will agree with this -- I think the overall point of all such passages is not the chronology per se, or to give us an order of events to occur; but rather, the overall point is that of God's judgment applied to the reprobate and His grace applied to the elect in increasing measure until the glorious appearance of the Lord Jesus. Especially in Revelation, the point is that the "re-creation" mirrors the creation of Gen. 1. Seven days (Gen 1) ends with seven scrolls, seven trumpets and seven bowls. In Gen. 1, the 7th day is the day of rest; and in Revelation, the seventh item is that which unfolds into the next higher event, (that being the next grouping of seven). The last event, the culmination of all previous "types" of the Sabbath is the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus. In sum, in this sense there are definitely "chronologies" or "chronological orders" to things in prophecy. But their purpose is not to give us a roadmap across the ages of history; their purpose is to give us a sense of increasing wonder at the holy and climactic and ultimate revelation of the appearance of Christ. This revelation is not merely repeated in different ways for emphasis, but it is repeated in different ways which grow in intensity with each repetition. Christ's appearance is to be to us like the swelling of the greatest of sunrises. (Son-rises). Regards, waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||
13 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20252 | ||
THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION Much discussion centers on which translations are preferred and why. It is also mentioned that you should pick a translation based on the purpose for which you will use it -- reading, studying, memorization, and so on. Ultimately, the issue of dynamic vs. formal equivalence is brought in -- ("thought-for-thought" vs. "word-for-word" translation). This was the issue at the time the NIV was released in 1984 and, at that time, it seemed that dynamic equivalence was very acceptable and did not at all qualify a translation to be called a paraphrase. Nowadays, however, it seems that dynamic equivalence is confused with the "thought-for-thought" terminology used by paraphrase versions and, so, dynamic equivalence is in many cases regarded AS A paraphrases, (although dyn. equiv. translations like the NIV, while playing loose with formal aspects, translates the text quite well, as a matter of fact). New bible translations these days try to distance themselves from the others by creating new terminology. They say we are not stiff and rigid like the formal equivalents and we are not a paraphrase like the dynamic equivalents (as though "dynamic equivalence" ever was meant to be synonymous with "paraphrase"). The new translations claim to be different: "our translation," they say, "follows the principle of 'natural equivalent,' 'optimal equivalent,' 'essentially literal,' and similar terms." It sounds a lot like a bunch of public relations hype. They can't ALL have stumbled on to that perfect middle-of-the-road third translational option that is neither too strict or too loose! What I'm trying to get to is that I seldom hear much about the PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION. Rather than hear about the individual versions -- for we can usually figure out which category they fall into -- I would like to hear more discussion about which is the better translational approach. Before we discuss "which" Bible translation as best, we should first understand which "philosophy of translation" is best. Since each word of the autographs were "inspired" by God, should we seek to translate in a word-for-word fashion, even following the grammatic structure as much as possible? (Maybe we should all be reading Young's Literal Translation.) On the downside, this word-for-word approach ignores the fact that different languages have different syntax, grammatical forms, and structural patterns -- (and not only that, but strict translation can sometimes communicate something different into the receptor language than what was intended in the original language). If Paul had written in English, perhaps even he would not have put the phrases in the same order that we translate them based on the literal translation of Greek. On the other hand, the further we move away from the God-given structure in Greek, the more of the translators' interpretive skills have to come into play -- no matter how much he tries to stay true to the original. The same goes for trying to communicate to today's American the same thoughts that we "assume" would have been put into the minds of the ancient Greek upon hearing the Scripture. To me, it seems to be an insoluble dilemma, although it would seem best to err on the side of caution. Go with the most literal and then, just as we exegete a passage for meaning -- we must exegete our way across from the stiffness of the literal rendering in English to what would have been more surely meant and intended for the audience. In other words, maybe the "interpretive" work is for all of us and not for those who do the translating, (although you would think that the "experts" who translate would be better qualified to employ interpretive skills than the laity; so maybe a slightly more "dynamic" version WOULD be better!?). Personally, I am often disappointed by the strange readability of the NASB and often find that I'm getting closer to the "sense" of the words through the NIV, although I know that the NASB is one of the most, if not the most, strict, literal translation there is in English. If anyone else has thought about things from this perspective I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Regards, waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||
14 | Is there a 3rd option to Calvin/Arminian | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20145 | ||
SIR PENT: "If the answers are no, then possibly these discussions are really not that important. If the answers are yes, then what are these significant differences?" My Response: Christianity is a religion of both faith and practice. The so-called "practical" aspect cannot be separated from correct "belief" about God and Christ. Sound "belief" is in itself a "practical" thing. On the flip side, making a "practical" difference in the world around us is only spiritually valuable insofar as it gives evidence of the "belief" we have within us. To evaluate the worth of these "discussions" -- (Calvinist vs. Arminian) -- on the basis of the so-called "practical" difference they make is to assume that only the pragmatic things in life are what matter. A Christian can never maintain that ONLY the pragmatic things matter. Both the doctrinal and the pragmatic are important. Equally important is that the pragmatic always flows FROM our doctrine and not the other way around. We should not formulate our doctrine from practical, daily-life experiences. Doctrine should only come from Scripture; and practice should only come from doctrine/faith. We can see Paul thinking along similar lines in that most of his letters begin with doctrinal sections which are then followed by practical applications of that doctrine. |
||||||
15 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | waldo700 | 19657 | ||
Sounds good to me. My only question would be about the way we are to become right with God. Would it be by following His instruction or by the imputed righteousness of Christ applied to us? I bring this up because of your statement: "instruction in righteousness is now given in the example of Jesus' life, in the gospels and epistles, and in God's law written upon our hearts" I hope you do not mean to say that we are made right with God by the exercise of our own righteousness, do you? Other than that, I don't see anything offensive about your statement at all. In fact, I found it to be a very good statement and quite a refreshing, clear perspective on the Bible! -- waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||