Results 1 - 20 of 28
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: waldo700 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | application | Not Specified | waldo700 | 22380 | ||
How do you apply the first nine chapters of I Chronicles? waldo |
||||||
2 | how many books in bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20008 | ||
The Bible is: * B)asic * I )nstructions * B)efore * L)eaving * E)arth - waldo |
||||||
3 | 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. |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 21163 | ||
I was frustrated that there seemed to be so few interested in what Scripture might say. So many come with their own preconceived or pet theologies and I feel we all work too hard at defending our positions -- rather questioning our positions and really challenging them so that we arrive at the truth of Scripture. Also, in defending a position, or conclusion from Scripture, many resort to a simple barrage of verse upon verse upon verse. One would have to be an utter master of the Bible, to the point of being on the level of famous well-known preachers and apologists of the past, in order to counter Scripture upon Scripture, each disconnected from its immediate and broader contexts. It seems firing "prooftexts" at one another is a lot easier than making all the different positions of Scripture harmonize into a single, coherent whole. This requires more than prooftexts; it requires theology. It's not that I would not like to be such a master of Scripture; but when one has a hobby such as this (or any other) forum, can one really take so much time and effort in these conversations: often not to just defend doctrine but merely to protect our ego from embarrassment? Finally, if we really choose to live out the Bible, we need to use our time wisely. And with all the personality problems which come with trying to discuss the Bible, sometimes repeated posting of opinions to a forum seems hardly a godly use of our time. Just my opinion, waldo garcia |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | Why does everything happen in thirds? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 28055 | ||
I'll answer you in two more posts. | ||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||
10 | 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. |
||||||
11 | application | Num 7:6 | waldo700 | 22392 | ||
How do you apply the first nine chapters of I Chronicles? waldo |
||||||
12 | 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 |
||||||
13 | 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 |
||||||
14 | 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 |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
16 | 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 |
||||||
17 | 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 |
||||||
18 | Is NASB the "most literal" in Ps. 2:12? | Ps 2:12 | waldo700 | 28875 | ||
Thanks very much for the info. -- waldo |
||||||
19 | 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 |
||||||
20 | Why does God create after Christ | Jeremiah | waldo700 | 25118 | ||
What do you mean? waldo |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |