Posted on 09/22/2013 6:08:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The KJB is still THE Bible.
Don't believe me check Heb.3:16 with Deut.1:35-38 and see that both Caleb and Joshua did not rebel, as correctly stated the KJB and wrongly stated by every Modern version, in contradiction to their own Old Testament readings!
Yes, it says that people could have vernacular Bibles with the approval of the Church.
They all say the same thing. I see no difference.
RE: Accurate? Yeah, I think so with the caveat that it is quite literal in translating the Greek.
Sadly, I have to disagree with you here.
If by “accurate” you mean that it transmits the INTENT of the Apostle John ( that Jesus Christ is truly God (not a created being who is a lesser god ) ), then the NWT has to be an Aryan-like translation.
As for the Greek, well I have to sadly conclude too that the NWT translators are INCONSISTENT in their translation.
For instance, in John 8:54. The NWT translates it thusly :
“It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God”
theos hemon estin
God of you he is
or
He is your God.
Theos is a singular predicate occurring before the verb “is”, and is not preceded by an article. “He [subject] is [verb] your [pronoun] God [predicate].”
So, the NWT again correctly translates “God” with a big “G” (and not with an article “a” in front of it ).
Yet, in John 1:1c, things change.
The NWT translates it as “the Word was a god”
The Greek states clearly:
theos en ho logos
God was the Word
Theos is a singular predicate occurring before the verb “was”, and is not preceded by the article. “The Word [subject] was [verb] God [predicate]”.
Hence, the NWT is totally inconsistent.
John uses the term “God” (not a god) to describe the Word. The NWT distorts the intent.
Accurate? Sorry, no.
KJV was what I memorized verses in as a child, for whatever reason any other translation seems off as far as favorite verses. It’s the poetry.
Up until recently I read the NIV as the KJV and NKJV are just too cumbersome to read on a regular basis, may be the over 50 thing. I’ve been look around lately and like the NET Bible, NASB, HCSB, and the ESV.
The ESV has some translation issues which I found put-offing, but I like the fact that it’s a free app, in a good format on my tablet and even has pop-up cross references. If it weren’t for the important translations/words they seem to leave out it would be my go-to Bible. I like how it flows, though. Just bought a NET Bible with all the translator notes, that was a mistake, as they overwhelm the Word.
Does anyone else have a problem with a Bible not capitalizing the pronouns referring to God and Jesus, or is it just me?
It's not just you. In fact, it's my one big issue with the ESV.
I bounce back and forth between the ESV and NASB. I am looking forward to the release of a Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible in the ESV next month.
The Scofield refers to the notes, I have a NIV and NKJV with Scofield notes, so it’s not just KJV.
Like the other person that answered you, I’m starting to get away from a Bible with notes that tell me what to think/feel/believe, it’s okay if they explain, but Scofield did more than that.
I just gave you an example in Heb.3:16!
The KJB comes from an entirely different Greek Text than do most of the modern bibles such as the NIV, ESV and NASB.
“Theos is a singular predicate occurring before the verb “was”, and is not preceded by the article. “The Word [subject] was [verb] God [predicate]”.
The same structure occurs in John 4:19 “...prophet you are..” (singular predicate occurring before the verb “was”, and is not preceded by the article) and this is translated as “..you are A prophet...” by many translators such as the NAB. It is not the NWT that is being inconsistent.
In John 8:54 the definite article is not needed as “the father of me” is definite and equated with “God of you”.
The NWT is thus shown to be accurate and consistent.
DISAGREE.
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.” Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.” That wouldn’t make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
“In beginning was the word...”
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
“and the word was with the God...”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
“and God was the word.” — Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
the correct English translation is “...and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.”
This is because if there is only one definite article (”ho”=”the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (”subject”) form (”theos” and “logos”), then the noun with the definite article (”ho”=”the”) is the subject.
In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause. Therefore, “...the Word was God” is the correct translation, not “God was the Word.”
But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses ( of which I suspect you are a member of) maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.
Hence, I must sadly conclude that the NWT is NOT A GOOD TRANSLATION of the Greek text. Most every other translation ( Catholic and Protestant ) are the accurate translations.
Of course the Greek isn’t saying, “a god” or “a God” since koine Greek has no indefinite article ‘a’.
As to whether it makes sense to translate John 1:1c as “a god” depends upon your understanding of how the term “god” is used by John and the rest of the NT writers.
“the correct English translation is “...and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.”
Who translates the latter?
“But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses ( of which I suspect you are a member of) maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.”
Since Jesus said that even humans in their flawed state may properly be termed “gods” I find no problem if Jesus be called “a god”.
If you wish to analyze John 1:1 in the English translations according to a Trinitarian viewpoint I’ll be happy to do so.
“
The real trick is to allow God the Holy Spirit to teach us what Scripture means as we breath it in, instead of us by habit of a scarred soul, reading our meaning into Scripture.
RE: Who translates the latter?
The same question applies to you too? The question is not “who” translates, but which translation is CONSISTENT with the Greek and the INTENT of John’s gospel — which is to present Jesus Christ as GOD ( Jehovah ) incarnate.
RE: Since Jesus said that even humans in their flawed state may properly be termed “gods” I find no problem if Jesus be called “a god”.
OK, let’s look at what Jesus is referring to when he uses that term — gods for flawed humans.
Let’s start with a look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34. The Hebrew word translated “gods” in Psalm 82:6 is Elohim. It usually refers to the one true God, but it does have other uses.
Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.” It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.
This use of the word “gods” to refer to humans is rare, but it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God’s words and would therefore be God’s representative to the king. The Hebrew word Elohim is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.
The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.
Now, let’s look at how Jesus uses this passage. Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The unbelieving Jews respond by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?
That’s what Jesus is referring to. It has nothing to do with the first chapter of John.
However, to say that John 1:1c DIMINISHES the Diety of Jesus Christ into Him being created is to overlook the intent of the apostle — which is to tell the world that GOD HIMSELF (not those little “gods’ being referred to in the passage of Psalms ) became a man in the person of Jesus Christ.
Yes, they DO say the same thing. Hint: look at the context of the chapters 3-6.
Hebrews 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
16 For some when they heard, provoked him to anger: howbeit, not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
English Standard Version (ESV)
16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
New International Version (NIV)
16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?
Unless you can read minds of persons writing long ago you can only perceive intent from they wrote and is available to us. And just what that intent was is a matter of how one views the entirety of what John wrote.
“The same question applies to you too? The question is not “who” translates, but which translation is CONSISTENT with the Greek and the INTENT of John’s gospel — which is to present Jesus Christ as GOD ( Jehovah ) incarnate.”
I simply must ask: Who of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, etc., etc. views the Son, Jesus, as being the same as the Father, Jehovah? Or does the Father, Jehovah, become the Son, Jesus, by incarnation?
Did John? since you speak to his “intent”?
“
RE: Unless you can read minds of persons writing long ago you can only perceive intent from they wrote and is available to us. And just what that intent was is a matter of how one views the entirety of what John wrote.
You can KNOW John’s intent not only from one verse in the Bible but from the OVERALL tenor of his gospel. You can also know the intent of what John wrote by comparing his intent to the other gospels.
For instance, why would he record that Thomas told Jesus after he realized that he resurrected “MY LORD AND MY GOD”?
Why did John record that when he said, “I and the Father are one.”
The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
YES, the Jews understood what Jesus was trying to tell them.
In another instance, John records that “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”
If John’s intent was to repudiate that idea, I would expect him to say so.
Why did Luke for instance note that Jesus’ disciples WORSHIP HIM (Luke 24:52) when he knew very well that the Jews are all commanded to worship no one but God?
Hence, John’s INTENT is INDEED to show that Jesus is Jehovah incarnate.
And why was John’s ( and the other gospel’s ) intent this?
SIMPLE, to show the Jews that GOD HIMSELF has come as a person to save them. HE is their Messiah come in the flesh.
THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US as John said in the first chapter of his gospel.
RE: I simply must ask: Who of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, etc., etc. views the Son, Jesus, as being the same as the Father, Jehovah? Or does the Father, Jehovah, become the Son, Jesus, by incarnation?
Let’s explain what Christians ( Catholics, Protestants. Orthodox ) believe.
We believe that GOD IS ONE.
God is one Being (the one and only divine Being). This divine Being exists as three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. These three persons in the Godhead are distinct.
Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons in the Godhead to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind.
Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. It is simply explaining what SCRIPTURES ITSELF has taught. we can apprehend it but we, as finite beings cannot fully comprehend it.
You can ask ANY knowledgeable and devout Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox that and they will give you the same answer I just gave.
Where’s the Douay-Rheims in this ranking? Surely there must be some mistake.
RE: Where’s the Douay-Rheims in this ranking? Surely there must be some mistake.
This list talks about the most read/most popular, not the best translation.
The Douay-Rheims reads practically word-for-word with the King James having been based upon it, excepting those passages touching specifically upon areas of Catholic doctrine.
I don’t disagree. I was just answering your previous question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.