Bible version

[fastfredy0]

In other words, as you progress, keep your tongue-in-cheek. Don't take your knowledge and understanding too seriously

You make it sound like learning Greek is a semi-waste of time unless you plan to master it.
Aside: Greek is greek to me (pun intended)

 

[makesends]

You make it sound like learning Greek is a semi-waste of time unless you plan to master it.
Aside: Greek is greek to me (pun intended)

Not at all. I just have a problem with people who seem to think we can know precisely what the Greek meant by having taken a course. I also have a problem with most anyone taking themselves too seriously.

 

[fastfredy0]

Not at all. I just have a problem with people who seem to think we can know precisely what the Greek meant by having taken a course.

Exactly. An even the experts only know so much. For example, almost no one when I came to Texas knew what pop was. They call it soda. I assume the same applies to the Greek. Or 40 years ago "gay" meant "cheerful" and now it means homosexual. Language is perpetually changing and add to that that some words don't have equivalents in English. I'm sure translators know a lot more than I, but I have cause to have some doubt to some degree; but I don't have enough background to quantify the degree of skewed interpretation from 100% truth.
I know the bible as originally written is perfect ... but now ... hopefully it's 99% accurate given our limitation. (Note: all percentages are wild guess and I believe anything I read in the English versions which is not to say they are perfect. Example: John 5:4 only found in 2 English versions)

Aside: To a degree I don't know what I'm talking about...James White might laugh at my propositions

Oh, and then there's the issue that God has to "dumb down" most things so we can understand.

 

[Blue Heron]

Not to discourage you, but there are some common teachings concerning the Greek, that are designed for the infrequent user, but not for the proficient professor. Thus what has happened is that some become proficient in generalities that don't necessarily apply where they seem to, to such a person.

Your wording is unclear to me. What "common teachings" do you have in mind? I'm working on trying to memorize which word endings go with which tense and mood and so forth. (In learning languages, I find that I'm good at the conceptual parts and bad at the memorization parts, sigh. I understand what "imperative" and "subjunctive" mean, but darned if I can remember all those verb endings.) I don't think grammatical elements are controversial teachings.

 

[makesends]

Exactly. An even the experts only know so much. For example, almost no one when I came to Texas knew what pop was. They call it soda. I assume the same applies to the Greek. Or 40 years ago "gay" meant "cheerful" and now it means homosexual. Language is perpetually changing and add to that that some words don't have equivalents in English. I'm sure translators know a lot more than I, but I have cause to have some doubt to some degree; but I don't have enough background to quantify the degree of skewed interpretation from 100% truth.
I know the bible as originally written is perfect ... but now ... hopefully it's 99% accurate given our limitation. (Note: all percentages are wild guess and I believe anything I read in the English versions which is not to say they are perfect. Example: John 5:4 only found in 2 English versions)

Ha. Even 20 years ago, "gay" had begun to mean something like, "weird", or "off", in high-schoolers' lingo.

Aside: To a degree I don't know what I'm talking about...James White might laugh at my propositions

Oh, and then there's the issue that God has to "dumb down" most things so we can understand.

I'm thinking God does an awful lot of anthropomorphisms for the sake of our understanding. But, ironically, I like to think they are accurate —it is just we who see them from our temporal state, which makes them anthropomorphisms.

 

[Papa Smurf]

My go-to Bible is the NASB 95', though I use many different translations when I study. I think that we are VERY blessed to have access to them all, translations and paraphrases, that is (save Bibles like the JW's New World Translation, of course, and a couple of others that are problematic, at best ).

 

[Blue Heron]

Not at all. I just have a problem with people who seem to think we can know precisely what the Greek meant by having taken a course. I also have a problem with most anyone taking themselves too seriously.

Obviously, it takes years to become fluent in a language, even if you immerse yourself in the language by living in a foreign country surrounded by native speakers of that language. Beyond the language itself, there's all sorts of knowledge about the language's culture that has to be learned. Ancient languages are extra-hard, because there are no longer any native speakers, and the ancient culture no longer exists.

Still, that shouldn't prevent a person from starting to study new languages.

(I suppose I'm inspired a bit by my daughter, who's a linguist. Having acquired a solid mastery of German and French, she's moved on to studying Mandarin and Hebrew. Languages take work, but they're not impossible.)

 

[fastfredy0]

I'm thinking God does an awful lot of anthropomorphisms for the sake of our understanding.

Yeah, but anthropomorphisms are by definition somewhat inaccurate; but who understands a transcendent One.
... and don't get me started on parables which Christ Himself said He used to hide the truth from people. If He doesn't explain them in scripture I just throw up my hands to some degree and move on.
Parables are great though for those the are looking for meaning to fit their opinions.
When I read once that long ago the theologians had to find meaning in every part of a parable and now the guidance is to find one emphasis; well, I about give up. (End of complaining) *giggle* ... and since God wrote them the issue is 100% me ... *smile*

 

[fastfredy0]

Still, that shouldn't prevent a person from starting to study new languages.

(I suppose I'm inspired a bit by my daughter, who's a linguist. Having acquired a solid mastery of German and French, she's moved on to studying Mandarin and Hebrew. Languages take work, but they're not impossible.)

Heck, I can't handle English yet. *smile*

 

[Carbon]

Obviously, it takes years to become fluent in a language, even if you immerse yourself in the language by living in a foreign country surrounded by native speakers of that language. Beyond the language itself, there's all sorts of knowledge about the language's culture that has to be learned. Ancient languages are extra-hard, because there are no longer any native speakers, and the ancient culture no longer exists.

Still, that shouldn't prevent a person from starting to study new languages.

(I suppose I'm inspired a bit by my daughter, who's a linguist. Having acquired a solid mastery of German and French, she's moved on to studying Mandarin and Hebrew. Languages take work, but they're not impossible.)

Amen

 

[makesends]

Obviously, it takes years to become fluent in a language, even if you immerse yourself in the language by living in a foreign country surrounded by native speakers of that language. Beyond the language itself, there's all sorts of knowledge about the language's culture that has to be learned. Ancient languages are extra-hard, because there are no longer any native speakers, and the ancient culture no longer exists.

Still, that shouldn't prevent a person from starting to study new languages.

(I suppose I'm inspired a bit by my daughter, who's a linguist. Having acquired a solid mastery of German and French, she's moved on to studying Mandarin and Hebrew. Languages take work, but they're not impossible.)

I haven't been implying there's no point in learning what one can. I'm only saying, don't take oneself to understand more than one does. Don't in any case take oneself too seriously.

 

[makesends]

Yeah, but anthropomorphisms are by definition somewhat inaccurate; but who understands a transcendent One.
... and don't get me started on parables which Christ Himself said He used to hide the truth from people. If He doesn't explain them in scripture I just throw up my hands to some degree and move on.
Parables are great though for those the are looking for meaning to fit their opinions.
When I read once that long ago the theologians had to find meaning in every part of a parable and now the guidance is to find one emphasis; well, I about give up. (End of complaining) *giggle* ... and since God wrote them the issue is 100% me ... *smile*

I'm suggesting that they are anthropomorphisms for our sake —seen as such from our point-of-view. But not at all inaccurate, being as how WE are not THE REAL "father", possessing of the real "arm" of the Lord, etc etc. The only inaccuracy is because of our necessarily truncated understanding.

 

[fastfredy0]

I'm suggesting that they are anthropomorphisms for our sake —seen as such from our point-of-view. But not at all inaccurate, being as how WE are not THE REAL "father", possessing of the real "arm" of the Lord, etc etc. The only inaccuracy is because of our necessarily truncated understanding.

Completely agree except to say any anthropomorphism is inaccurate to some extent or it would be univocal instead of analogical. I.E. God doesn't have an arm
(splitting hairs to some degree)

 

[Deleted member 6]

My go-to Bible is the NASB 95', though I use many different translations when I study. I think that we are VERY blessed to have access to them all, translations and paraphrases, that is (save Bibles like the JW's New World Translation, of course, and a couple of others that are problematic, at best ).

The NASBU was my go to bible for quite a while, but I recently switched to the ESV. But the NASBU is a rock solid version and I highly recommend it to any and everyone.

 

[David1701]

NRSV for when I'm reading in church or for detailed study. REB for reading long passages on my own, because I like its literary style. My Greek is still at a beginner level, but I try to work with my Greek NT as much as I can -- practice makes perfect!

Those are both Liberal translations, especially the REB.

 

[David1701]

The NASBU was my go to bible for quite a while, but I recently switched to the ESV. But the NASBU is a rock solid version and I highly recommend it to any and everyone.

The NASB makes Jesus out to be a liar. It also has many other problems.

John 7:8-10 (NASB)
8 Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.” 9 Now having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.

10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as though in secret.

---Sound translations correctly show that Jesus told the truth.

John 7:8-10 (NKJV)
8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.

The Heavenly Scholar
10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

 

[Blue Heron]

Those are both Liberal translations, especially the REB.

I don't mind. I'm fairly Liberal myself.

I am, however, curious about what you mean. The study notes in my NRSV and REB study Bibles are from a Liberal perspective, but I don't see that bias in the translated text itself. Do you just mean that they use gender-inclusive language, or do you have something else in mind?

 

[David1701]

I don't mind. I'm fairly Liberal myself.

I am, however, curious about what you mean. The study notes in my NRSV and REB study Bibles are from a Liberal perspective, but I don't see that bias in the translated text itself. Do you just mean that they use gender-inclusive language, or do you have something else in mind?

I mean that the translations themselves, especially the REB, are full of Liberal bias (Liberals usually being defined by what they refuse to believe, e.g. the deity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, his miracles, his virgin birth, etc., although they don't all disbelieve the same things).

 

[Blue Heron]

I mean that the translations themselves, especially the REB, are full of Liberal bias (Liberals usually being defined by what they refuse to believe, e.g. the deity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, his miracles, his virgin birth, etc., although they don't all disbelieve the same things).

Hmm. In that case, I'm not seeing it. The REB includes John 1 and Colossians 1-2, the resurrection stories, the miracle stories, and the Annunciation, all presented in a pretty straightforward way. I don't see anything in the translation that denies the doctrines you've listed. Maybe you can be more specific.

 

[David1701]

Hmm. In that case, I'm not seeing it. The REB includes John 1 and Colossians 1-2, the resurrection stories, the miracle stories, and the Annunciation, all presented in a pretty straightforward way. I don't see anything in the translation that denies the doctrines you've listed. Maybe you can be more specific.

As is often the case, it is not a blatant denial of important doctrines that is presented (that would be too obvious), but a more subtle undermining of them. Verses are often worded to remove, weaken, or make ambiguous, clear references to vital doctrines.

I don't have a REB and it's not so easy to find an online version; however, here are a few examples of what I mean.

Rom. 9:5 (REB) The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever! Amen.

The above is worded to remove the interpretation that the Messiah is God. Compare this with Evangelical translations.

Rom. 9:5 (KJV) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom. 9:5 (ESV) To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

In these, there is clear testimony to Christ as God.

Rom. 9:33 (REB) mentioned in scripture: Here I lay in Zion a stone to trip over, a rock to stumble against; but he who has faith in it will not be put to shame.

Faith in "it"??? Clearly "it" is not supposed to refer to the Lord here. What "it" is supposed to refer to, is anyone's guess!

Rom. 9:33 (KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom. 9:33 (ESV)
as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

These are obviously referring to a person, not an "it", in whom to believe.

There are many, many such examples, throughout the REB. It has a clear bias against the deity of Christ (and other vital doctrines).