Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 97
Joined: April 2013
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,297
Posts53,252
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,045
Tom 4,047
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 24
Tom 12
Robin 5
Johan 3
Readin 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
The Nick-name Calvinism
by Pilgrim - Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:06 PM
NeoCalvinism
by Tom - Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:18 PM
Natural Theology
by Anthony C. - Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:47 AM
Wilderness Wealth
by NetChaplain - Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:57 AM
Your opinion please
by Johan - Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:03 AM
True of False
by NetChaplain - Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:26 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Wes #21299 Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:44 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Wes said:
Don't get upset Joe. Just remember we still have the authorized version and if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul it should be good enough for you and me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> good 'ol King Jimmy, surely thou jestest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

And for those who are wondering about older Bible translations ...... (look at the spelling, word order, etc.):

Quote
1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"

Geneva (1560): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Last edited by J_Edwards; Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:15 PM.

Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #21300 Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
If my memory is correct, the initial Reformation Study Bible (the New Geneva Study Bible) was slated to use the NIV translation, but because of some legal snags, they changed to the NKJV.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
J_Edwards #21301 Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:09 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
J_Edwards said:

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> good 'ol King Jimmy, surely thou jestest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

I thought that was rather obvious when I wrote that Paul approved it. [Linked Image]


Quote
J. Edwards wrote:

And for those who are wondering about older Bible translations ...... (look at the spelling, word order, etc.):

Quote
1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"

Geneva (1560): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

The spelling and word order didn't make them inaccuate though. It just made them hard to read. Isn't that what motivates the scholars today to draft newer versions? The problem with the scholars today is that they seem to spend more time making it more readable by interpreting the text and offering their commentary rather than faithfully translating from the original language. This is where our paraphrase versions come from. I know that you can read some greek so you know the difficulties in translating from the original language to english and putting the sentence structure in order.

I have a copy of the orginal 1599 Geneva Bible. Just like you noted above it's rather hard to read. However mine even reads a little different that your quote above from the 1560 version.

Quote
"For God fo loueth the world, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whofoeuer beleeueth in him, fhould not perifh, but haue euerlafing life." (1599)


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
John_C #21302 Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
John_C said:
If my memory is correct, the initial Reformation Study Bible (the New Geneva Study Bible) was slated to use the NIV translation, but because of some legal snags, they changed to the NKJV.

I've heard the same thing. Apparently Zondervan didn't want to publish it. I'm really glad they didn't and Thomas Nelson did because I love my New Geneva Study Bible and I'm quite pleased with the NKJV.


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Wes #21303 Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 85
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 85
Quote
Wes said:
Quote
John_C said:
If my memory is correct, the initial Reformation Study Bible (the New Geneva Study Bible) was slated to use the NIV translation, but because of some legal snags, they changed to the NKJV.

I've heard the same thing. Apparently Zondervan didn't want to publish it. I'm really glad they didn't and Thomas Nelson did because I love my New Geneva Study Bible and I'm quite pleased with the NKJV.

As I recall hearing the group that originally backed the NGSB has a license from Zondervan to print a NIV Bible but went out of business. The group that picked up sponsoring the effort did not.


Soli Deo Gloria
John Schultz
[Linked Image]
J_Edwards #21304 Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:52 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Joe

I think I must be missing something. I have before me both the NASB and the KJV. The NASB reads "forever" and the KJV reads "for ever". Isn't this the same as the example you gave from the ESV that reads "forever"?

I feel a little silly asking this because I know you posted this for a reason, but I have looked and looked and still don't see your point.

I would rather risk looking silly than be silly by not asking.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/moron.gif" alt="" /> Besides I am among friends, am I not?

Tom

Tom #21305 Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:37 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Tom said:
Joe

I think I must be missing something. I have before me both the NASB and the KJV. The NASB reads "forever" and the KJV reads "for ever". Isn't this the same as the example you gave from the ESV that reads "forever"?

I feel a little silly asking this because I know you posted this for a reason, but I have looked and looked and still don't see your point.

I would rather risk looking silly than be silly by not asking.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/moron.gif" alt="" /> Besides I am among friends, am I not?

Tom
Tom,

Many translations use the word "forever," that is the problem—people are use to it....., however it does not give you the fuller picture of what the author is conveying. "Length of days" or "through all the days" is more literal. Now, think about it for a moment. You are preaching and use the phrase "through all days." However, when do those days begin, when do they end? Does this mean ONLY my days upon earth, or does it mean all my days on earth and heaven, or....Then comes the questions are there literal days in heaven? If not, then what type of days is Psalms 23 speaking of? It is “important” to understand the Hebrew use of "days" (look it up in TWOT, BDB, or HALOT and follow their word studies). Questions, questions, questions at the funeral, etc.

One of the most important features of this phrase is that while it does speak of the future it also brings you “back” to Genesis 1 where God created “day” (not “only” forward like in our normal thinking of “forever”). Thus, it brings you back to the perfect creation, the Adamic Covenant (Hos 6:7), etc. Moreover, the word “forever” is more futuristic in its usage and honestly hard for anyone to actually conceive of in their mind, since they have no reference point to it…… We can philosophize concerning the term, however never "fully" experience "forever", however a day is something we have experienced and thus “I shall dwell in the house of the LORD through all days." As you can see much of Hebrew is very picturistic—theology and words you experience (truly a beautiful language). Moreover, God gave us the literal translation for a reason.... Thus, in summary, there are several questions that could arise from the literal translation (and that should arise from the translation to help us better understand the text), however for the sake of simplicity the term "forever" is used and thus you miss part of the meaning of the terms...... easy right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #21306 Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:49 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Joe

I understood that part, but what I didn't understand is why you didn't say the same thing about all English Bibles.
Yet you said you recommend only the AV and the NASB, which also use "forever".

Tom

Tom #21307 Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Tom said:
Joe

I understood that part, but what I didn't understand is why you didn't say the same thing about all English Bibles.
Yet you said you recommend only the AV and the NASB, which also use "forever".

Tom
Tom,

I was using the "recent" ESV as a singular example of Bible translation "in general today." The "exact" same reasoning was not necessarily used to obtain other translations, though they may use the same term (some didn't even discuss it, some see forever = length of days and see no conflict at all, etc). The ESV story was readily on my mind (a Tremper Longman OT class) and moreover, labeled as an example. The point of the post and the example was to demonstrate what I consider a non-biblical attitude in Bible Translation today. IMO the ASV and the NASB are still closest to the originals.... though they even miss it at times...


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Wes #21308 Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:45 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Just bought the whole TNIV yesterday in hardback. Started in Genesis and am going to read the whole thing through. So, I am reserving judgement.
Re: NGSB. I was under the impression they originally wanted to do it in the NAS but ran into snags, and then got stuck into the NKJ(which is an excellent trans).
I just hope when the ESV one comes out in March, the PRINT won't be so abominable.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 113 guests, and 20 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
S M T W T F S
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 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,294,203 Gospel truth