Donations for the month of February


We have received a total of $145 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Friday, February 13, 2009
Posts: 148
Forum Stats
896 Members
30 Forums
6329 Topics
49404 Posts

Max Online: 93 @ Friday, February 10, 2017 4:43 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13923
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 4283
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2772
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2289
John_C 2063
gotribe 1780
Top Posters (30 Days)
JesusFan 148
Pilgrim 102
John_C 19
Tom 17
Robin 11
chestnutmare 7
Mckinley 5
Greg Bowman 3
Greg Gordon 3
Meta4 3
Recent Posts
As though it had never been!
by chestnutmare
08:25 AM
Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation?
by JesusFan
Saturday, February 18, 2017 2:38 PM
Looking unto Jesus
by chestnutmare
Saturday, February 18, 2017 11:20 AM
Main differences between Biblical theolgy and Systematic?
by JesusFan
Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:29 AM
What about the New Calvinists?
by JesusFan
Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:26 AM
What about New Covenant theology?
by Robin
Friday, February 17, 2017 7:49 PM
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#53156 - Friday, February 17, 2017 6:51 AM Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation?
JesusFan Offline
Member

Registered: Thursday, January 26, 2017
Posts: 148
Loc: Macomb Michigan
Held amonf Reformed/calvinists, as in Baptist circles, especially among Independent ones, KJVO popular?

I think that we can use either the Majority/Critical yext for translation, as more into thephilsophy of the translators, such as formal or dynamic?


Edited by JesusFan (Friday, February 17, 2017 6:52 AM)

Top
#53158 - Friday, February 17, 2017 8:05 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: JesusFan]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13923
Loc: NH, USA
Originally Posted By: JesusFan
Held amonf Reformed/calvinists, as in Baptist circles, especially among Independent ones, KJVO popular?

nope

Originally Posted By: JesusFan
I think that we can use either the Majority/Critical yext for translation, as more into thephilsophy of the translators, such as formal or dynamic?

Decades and decades of debates between which is a better textual source; Received Text vs. Wescott Hort/Kurt Aland. I think that this will never be resolved. However, the subject of the method of translation; Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence is an entirely different matter. I stand firmly upon Formal Equivalence which is consistent with the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. LOTS of discussions on that subject here on the Board. grin
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#53159 - Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: Pilgrim]
John_C Offline

Permanent Resident

Registered: Saturday, September 15, 2001
Posts: 2063
Loc: Mississippi Gulf Coast
Of the big 4 back in the 80s, only the NIV used the Dynamic Equivalency. (oh, the 4 - NASB, KJ, NKJ, NIV) I'm not sure about the recent translations except the ESV uses the Formal Equivalency.
_________________________
John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7

Top
#53160 - Friday, February 17, 2017 8:20 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: John_C]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13923
Loc: NH, USA
Don't forget my personal favorite for study (KJV for personal use)... The ASV (TR & Formal Equivalence). grin
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#53166 - Friday, February 17, 2017 10:13 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: Pilgrim]
JesusFan Offline
Member

Registered: Thursday, January 26, 2017
Posts: 148
Loc: Macomb Michigan
Think the HCSB andEsv strovefor "functional equilancy", whatever that means!

Top
#53167 - Friday, February 17, 2017 10:21 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: Pilgrim]
JesusFan Offline
Member

Registered: Thursday, January 26, 2017
Posts: 148
Loc: Macomb Michigan
Wasn't that actually nased on the revised version 1881, so that would be using critical text to update the KJV TR? And is that version even published any more?

I prefer the 1977 Nasb, the update of your version!

Top
#53173 - Friday, February 17, 2017 11:47 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: JesusFan]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13923
Loc: NH, USA
Originally Posted By: JesusFan
Wasn't that actually nased on the revised version 1881, so that would be using critical text to update the KJV TR? And is that version even published any more?

I prefer the 1977 Nasb, the update of your version!

Yes, I should have written Formal Equivalence and Wescott-Hort and Tregelles Greek texts were used for the NT and the Masoretic Text for the OT. I prefer the ASV for study since the NT translation is quite literal from the Greek. That does make it a little less 'readable' according to some critics. But most of those who criticize it like the Good News or some other such versions. giggle

I'm not sure if it is still in print. Nelson Publishing sold the rights and a company named "Star" picked it up for awhile. It is available online, however.
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#53174 - Friday, February 17, 2017 2:46 PM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: Pilgrim]
JesusFan Offline
Member

Registered: Thursday, January 26, 2017
Posts: 148
Loc: Macomb Michigan
One version that you might like is the Web bible. My first bible was the new Living Bible, and glad that was for only a short time, as went into the Nasb....


Edited by JesusFan (Friday, February 17, 2017 2:49 PM)

Top
#53177 - Friday, February 17, 2017 5:48 PM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: JesusFan]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13923
Loc: NH, USA
Originally Posted By: JesusFan
One version that you might like is the Web bible. My first bible was the new Living Bible, and glad that was for only a short time, as went into the Nasb....

I'm not overly pleased with the WEB, e.g., Rom 3:25; 1Jn 2:2; 4:10 they have translated hilasterion as "atoning sacrifice", similar to what the NIV did. Atoning sacrifice totally loses the meaning of hilasterion, which is correctly translated as "propitiation". Propitiation is a word that has a 2-parts in its meaning which is critical to the correct understanding the atonement.

1. to appease the wrath of one who is offended
2. the removing of that which has caused the offense

Thus, when Paul writes:

Quote:
Romans 3:24-25 (ASV) "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;"

Redemption (payment of a ransom from the guilt, punishment, and power of sin) was accomplished by Christ Jesus who was sent to be a propitiation to satisfy God's righteousness/justice thus appeasing His wrath by enduring in Himself the punishment due to those for whom He came to save.
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#53181 - Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:17 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: Pilgrim]
JesusFan Offline
Member

Registered: Thursday, January 26, 2017
Posts: 148
Loc: Macomb Michigan
Hasn't there been a watering down in some translations in regards to this,as wasn't it started in Rsv/Neb version, thatthe term used was changed to less of the wrath of God meaning, like expiation for sins?

Top
#53184 - Saturday, February 18, 2017 10:22 AM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: JesusFan]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13923
Loc: NH, USA
Originally Posted By: JesusFan
Hasn't there been a watering down in some translations in regards to this,as wasn't it started in Rsv/Neb version, thatthe term used was changed to less of the wrath of God meaning, like expiation for sins?

Yes
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#53186 - Saturday, February 18, 2017 2:38 PM Re: Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation? [Re: Pilgrim]
JesusFan Offline
Member

Registered: Thursday, January 26, 2017
Posts: 148
Loc: Macomb Michigan
Dangerous when translations, such as NLT, changed all of the theological terms for modern day use!

Top



Who's Online
1 registered (chestnutmare), 28 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Greg Gordon, Trina Riepe, Dave Sugg, JesusFan, Tony Tersigni
896 Registered Users
Shout Box

February
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 1055570
Westminster Larger Catechism 785017
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 709990
Roman Catholicism and salvation 596215
Double predestination 567323
The importance of going to church 496544
Gospel truth 492008
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 438180
Continuity in Old and NT 382803
Creation 382705