Results 1181 - 1200 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1181 | please include specific scripture. | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 34160 | ||
Good morning SRN If you speak of those who were religious but in actuality had political or monetary motives, then I might agree. My reading of early American history would indicate that those who came to this world to spread the gospel had good relationships with Native Americans. Steve |
||||||
1182 | ESV opinion poll | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 33836 | ||
Makarios, I greatly cherish my ESV. Pronoun usage and idiomatic phrases from an originating language really add depth. They give understanding to the writer's history and culture. I remember, when taking French in high school, the instructor telling us about idioms, but I always sought to find the literal meaning of the phrase. But I don't mind a little work to figure all that out. :-) Steve |
||||||
1183 | ESV opinion poll | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 33835 | ||
Hank My apologies for not identifying the source. His name is Wayne Leman. He and his wife Elena were first asked to begin translation work in the Cheyenne language back in 1975 (according to his web page http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/personal.htm). I'm not sure of their formal relationships to translation organizations. They are mentioned as part of both Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL International (formerly Summer Institute of Linguistics). The Lemans have written several books and articles concerning translation (esp. Cheyenne), but I have not found any reference to academic background. Steve |
||||||
1184 | ESV opinion poll | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 33786 | ||
Here's another note explaining his thoughts: Quote I really do not want to sound ungrateful or a perfectionist (altho I am actually am a perfectionist in recovery), but there is no single English Bible version with which I am totally satisfied. But let me balance that statement out by saying there are several English versions which I like and find very valuable. I would be content to have any single one of them with me if I were stranded on an island and didn't know how long I would be there. What I look for most in an English Bible is: -accuracy -standard, grammatical English -natural enough wordings that not only my head but also my heart is moved by the translation The version that currently moves me the most is The Message. However, it is not as accurate as I would prefer, altho, IMO, it's not, overall, an inaccurate translation. It just takes some liberties with the original text that I prefer it not have taken. For standard, grammatical, natural English, I like the CEV the best, but it, also, falls down a bit in terms of accuracy. For accuracy, these days I tend to go first to the NET Bible (that is a recent shift for me from going first to the NRSV). And I very much appreciate its copious footnotes. Now, if we could just get better quality English in the NET Bible, English which sounds like every sentence was written by a native speaker of English, and if the English were written in a way that it moved my soul, then I would have my ideal Bible. I also like the NLT. If I had to settle on only one single version, I think I would pick the NLT. It has, for me, a decent balance of the things I look for in an English version. Today my wife and I checked the passage in Luke 16 which we've been struggling with in our Cheyenne translation, in several English versions, and of all the versions, the NLT came out best, in our opinion, for how it rendered Luke 16:10-13. The Message had what we call "extraneous material" (content which we aren't really sure was intended in the Greek text). Surprisingly (to us), the CEV didn't do very well for this passage. The NLT shone. I look forward to NLT 2.0 Endquote I don't agree with him in different areas. I think retaining the Hebrew and Greek idioms, as well as the masculine pronouns, adds to the richness of the Scriptures. But that's why I'm not a translator. :-) Steve |
||||||
1185 | ESV opinion poll | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 33694 | ||
Hank, The following is a message he posted to the CBMW website in reaction to their denunciation of TNIV. Quote Randy Stinson accuses the TNIV: "Another example is found in John 11:25. Jesus in the TNIV says "Anyone who believesin me will live, even though they die." Again the plural "they" is substituted for the generic "he." Not only does this convolute the personal nature of the relationship between a person and Christ, but it betrays the fact that Jesus himselfused the generic "he" even though he was speaking to a woman (Martha)." My Greek New Testament has no generic "he" in John 11:25. Where does Randy find a generic "he"? There is no generic "he" in the Greek language. Greek verbs are not inflected for gender. Let's be honest, folks! Let's not be driven by any ideology, whether it be be that of the male representation camp or feminists. Let's simply translate the Bible accurately. A concerned Bible translator myself. There are a number of linguistic inaccuracies on your CBMW website about the TNIV. One of them is confusing English grammatical number of "they" and "them" with referential number. If you would do a careful linguistic analyis of current English, you would discover that many English speakers use "they" as a generic pronoun, referentially number-indifferent, just as "they" has functioned that way in the past in English and impersonal pronouns and "they" pronouns so function in other languages. Please, please, dear brother and sisters, do not accuse your fellow Christians of things which they have not done. Let's be accurate when we speak about the Greek language of the NT. And let's be accurate when we speak about English. Let's not impose our own views of English on those who may speak a different dialect. There is no single correct way to speak English. I happen to be currently critiquing a gender-new gender-noninclusive Bible translation. By that I mean the team that is translating is dead-set against translating gender references in the Bible according to modern social movements. But even this team, due to their scholarly honesty, has to translate truly gender-inclusive referential meaning in the Greek with English which is gender-inclusive. And this is allowed for by the Colorado guidelines. The matter of he/they is not based on solid descriptive linguistic analysis. It is based on the opinions of those who speak a form of English which I was taught, also, but which has changed over the years, just as all languages change. And PLEASE do not keep accusing me or anyone else of being a willing or unaware participant in any feminist movement. You're simply wrong and falsely reading our minds and hearts, if you do that. I beg of you to remove all inaccuracies from recent posts about the TNIV. It's not a perfect translation. And for sure the ESV isn't (it is a very poor translation, with many lexical ungrammaticalities). Let's try to listen to each other, rather than practicing mind-reading and divining motives. And, most of all, let's have accuracy as our highest goal in translation, not accuracy as defined by our own ideologies (including those of Wayne Grudem) but accuracy based on the how the original biblical language really work. Let's not confuse important linguistic issues like grammatical categories with referential semantic categories. I would encourage each of you who want to criticize another English version to first absorb one or two good textbooks on linguistics and Bible translation. By doing so, there can be more genuine discussion about the issues and alot less confusing smoke. Endquote Steve |
||||||
1186 | ESV opinion poll | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 33682 | ||
Hank, Just to follow up on this comment--I mentioned your remarks to a Bible translation list and received this response: Quote The main concern I have with the ESV is the poor quality of its English. I am an English editor and believe that English Bibles should be written in grammatical, good quality standard English. Grammar includes following not only the syntactic rules of English but also the lexical rules of English. The ESV, like most other FE [Functional Equivalent] translations, breaks many lexical rules of English, making the translation sound like it was not written by a native speaker of English, giving the translation a foreign sound. Also there are a quite a few passages where non-English syntax is used, syntax which is borrowed by the Biblical languages. Whenever unnatural syntax or lexical combinations appear in a translation, it makes it more difficult for the users of that translation to accurately understand the meaning the translators intended them to understand. And it also reinforces the widespread stereotype that the Bible is kind of a strange book, not normal, not meant to communicate in Koine English (equivalent to Koine Greek). I'll give some specific examples to support my claims about the poor quality English in the ESV: 1 Kings 2:10 "David slept with his fathers": this is inaccurate in standard English; David did not sleep with his father. Instead, David died and was buried with his fathers. The ESV literally translates a Hebraic idiom here. It is almost never possible to literally translate an idiom from one language to another and accurately communicate the original meaning in the process." Endquote [There were other examples] I've known this gentleman long enough to know he insists common vernacular is to be preferred over beauty because the Bible is written that way (at least in the Greek). His motivation is a translation for the Cheyenne nation in Oklahoma. Steve |
||||||
1187 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 33536 | ||
What Ben is describing is Amyraldism. Moises Amyraut had a different thought on the order of divine decrees which allowed for a hypothetical universal atonement. Steve |
||||||
1188 | Does the Bible ever lie? | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 33364 | ||
Good morning What I said was that the Bible does not lie. Scripture accurately and truthfully reports all information God deems pertinent. This information includes lies, murders, thefts, immoralities coveting, and various other sins. The Bible also gives us God's teaching on His view of these things and how to avoid and correct them. Steve |
||||||
1189 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | srbaegon | 32905 | ||
Care for your 18 cents change? I agree completely. I was disappointed to find someone I respect (Dr. John Armstrong) recommending it. I wondered if he had read it before making his comments. Steve |
||||||
1190 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | srbaegon | 32900 | ||
Hi Joe I'm afraid there is probably is enough market. It could be they are trying to pull from those who may see NRSV "as less than desirable" but don't want to change because there's nothing else out there with such inclusive language. BTW, NRSV is widely popular in the old "mainstream" denominations (i.e. Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran) which have liberal leanings. It's market is small but solid. Steve |
||||||
1191 | Church discipline | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 32607 | ||
Hello Wonderer I will state emphatically (Joe will certainly agree) that 1 Cor 5 explicitly states that we must confront sin in fellow church members whether it's open or not. Steve |
||||||
1192 | Why do we keep curses in our lives? | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 31982 | ||
Yes, sickness is a fruit of sin. No question. However, conversely, sickness cannot be considered evidence of sin (Job 2:7-10; James 5:14-15). Steve |
||||||
1193 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | srbaegon | 30306 | ||
Context........................... To place things in context, Luke 15 has three parables which speak of lost things (sheep, coin, son) which were found. The point is that in each case there was something which was no longer in the place it belonged (lost), someone searched (shepherd; woman; God or prodigal, however you see it), was found, and lastly rejoicing over what was found. To be consistent you would need to be able to apply life/death/life to the first two parables. Steve |
||||||
1194 | Adam and Christ? | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 29538 | ||
Thank you................................ Thanks for clarifying. I maintain that Jesus Christ, being God in the flesh, could never have sinned. If He had the capacity to sin, He would have ceased to be God. The importance of the verse you mentioned is that He experienced what we do every day, and because He went through them, He is the perfect representative of man to God. We have assurance His intercessory work is accomplished. Steve |
||||||
1195 | Adam and Christ? | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 29389 | ||
Question and Comment................. Would you explain a bit more of what you mean by "He inhabited a body, apart from the first creation, for this body was without original sin"? Also, Jesus could not sin, and therefore not have a choice to fall. He is God. Steve |
||||||
1196 | Leviticus 19 talks about not marking you | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 29369 | ||
Hi ArtS I'll preface my remarks by letting you know I don't care about tattoos either way. I would say these verses (Lev 19) stand on their own without reference "for the dead". However, I will add that, as Ed stated, God wanted His people to be set apart. He did not want them practicing things the nations around them practice. They were to be different. Christians are to be the same way (Rom 12:1-2). How does that relate to a tattoo today? We live under grace and not law. If I may take Paul's admonition somewhat out of context-- All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. - 1 Cor 6:12 You need to decide for yourself if it is appropriate and whether they are to remain or be removed. Ask yourself, "What is (was) my motive?" Act accordingly. Steve |
||||||
1197 | "Jehovah Rophe - our Lord and Healer"??? | Ex 15:26 | srbaegon | 29045 | ||
Partial agreement..................... I understand, now, how you were using "Spirit." There is no disagreement that "God is spirit," however I would still shy away from using it the way you have for fear of confusion (mine being a case in point). Lastly, let's not blaspheme either direction. :-) We'll both stay on a better path. Steve |
||||||
1198 | God's Lovingkindness to Israel | Hosea | srbaegon | 29024 | ||
God's love.................................... I especially enjoy chapter 11 of this book because it shows God's intense love for His people. "I loved him...I led them...bent down to feed them" "How can I give you up?" "How can I surrender you?" Too wonderful for words! Steve |
||||||
1199 | "Jehovah Rophe - our Lord and Healer"??? | Ex 15:26 | srbaegon | 29018 | ||
Correction................................. You said "He is the Son of Man but also the Holy Spirit, God with us." That's not quite correct. Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit inasmuch as neither of them is the Father. Steve |
||||||
1200 | What type of tree was Aaron's rod from? | Num 17:8 | srbaegon | 27653 | ||
Saving face.................................. I suppose one could assume it was almond, but technically speaking, we don't know for sure...or should I just admit to not reading entire verse when I did a search? :-( Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Next > Last [64] >> |