|
Forums118
Topics9,228
Posts196,141
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: take the NIV quiz
#16772
12/10/05 06:28 PM
12/10/05 06:28 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
John H., is this what it is all about? That's dangerous.
|
|
|
Re: take the NIV quiz
#16773
12/11/05 03:42 AM
12/11/05 03:42 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
From John H quote:
The modern versions water down a number of teachings vital to Adventism. That's a fact.
Aah, Christianity itself suffers, not just our church, though it's enlightening as to which denomination notices.
From Darius
quote:
John H., is this what it is all about? That's dangerous.
You mean that Adventists feel themselves threatened by modern translations, or that doctrines are affected per se? The former is surely less dangerous than the latter.
|
|
|
Re: take the NIV quiz
#16774
12/11/05 04:03 AM
12/11/05 04:03 AM
|
|
|
Quote from above: "The modern versions water down a number of teachings vital to Adventism. That's a fact."
Perhaps you would like to rephrase that to: "Many modern versions water down a number of teachings vital to Adventism"
Of course the NIV is one of the worst -- it is borderline on being a paraphrase instead of a translation in some areas.
But there are other modern translations which are overall better, though of course none are perfect.
And don't forget, the old KJV does Adventist theology some serious injustice on at least 1 critical text in Leviticus 16 where the proper noun "Azazel" got mistranslated as "scapegoat". I've written about this in more detail here in the past, but do not have my references at the moment.
But at any rate, the imperfections of the KJV are also fact.
|
|
|
Re: take the NIV quiz
#16775
12/11/05 08:41 AM
12/11/05 08:41 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
The imperfections of KJV... Now that would be interesting as for balancing things a bit. This is almost at the point of "the KJV is the original bible written by the very hand of God and therefore beyond any reproach"... One should maybe learn the anicent languages to read it and not even then would the reader be safe, one would still have to choose between different manuscript traditions both in OT and NT.
/Thomas
|
|
|
Re: take the NIV quiz
#16776
12/11/05 04:29 PM
12/11/05 04:29 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
The imperfections of KJV... Now that would be interesting as for balancing things a bit. This is almost at the point of "the KJV is the original bible written by the very hand of God and therefore beyond any reproach"... One should maybe learn the anicent languages to read it and not even then would the reader be safe, one would still have to choose between different manuscript traditions both in OT and NT.
Yes, the scapegoat and Azazel, but, by using Biblical definitions even this fails to be a problem. Secular definitions have merely avoided the issue, as have other churches, calling the scapegoat the sin bearer.
The biggest problem with the KJV is its range of obsolete English words dotted around, and its adherence to the Received Text.... ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) But, the 21st Century KJV has solved the first one, if one wants what could be called the Biblical English as well; the Modified KJV also exists, tho' it has updated the verb form as well. Yes, I browsed before selecting the New Authorised Version: it is the 21st Century KJV but, like the 1611 edition, with the Apochrapha between the Testaments - the Protestant way of excluding it from the canon. The RC Douay Reimes Bible of 1614 odd had the Apochrapha spread throughout the Old Testament in its chronological order, as RC Bibles continue to do today.
The original languages are very useful for deeper and stronger Bible study, when one recognises the Spirit's leading in our church's past - carefully examining our teachings. I've read very detailed studies by others - not a language scholar myself. The NT MS are popular or unpopular; the OT MS are Masoretic Hebrew or Greek Septuagent: not very much to choose from, fortunately.
Translation comparison today is useful also for the difference wording, but the Biblical English of the KJV is also the best quality English of all the translations.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
