The Study and Interpret the Bible

[Jim B]

Yes of course.
And why, ? It because that statement is subversive. Its designed to subvert a person's faith in the word of God.
Surely, as smart as you think you are, this has not escaped your IQ, Jim B?
Or has it.

Look at it like this..

The Devil says....>"hath God SAID"?

And we have a BIBLE, as GOD's Word.

So, then the Devil says..>"you can't trust that, as all the translations are not perfect".
And of course the DEVIL does not try to PROVE THAT statement, as He and his ministers are only after the DAMAGE they can do with it.

See it yet?

Now, what you need to do, when you run into these bible correctors, is.......

Listen for what ive shown you, and then listen for one more thing..
They will CORRECT the "imperfect BIBLE" with the "original GREEK".
And SHAZAM.......there is no ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT. = they lied again.
(Devil's are like that".
See, there are about 30 Koine Greek Texts, and about 3-4 are used to make bibles, unless a new bible society sort of makes a hybrid, out of whatever they want, and they call it a bible.

The bible corrector is just that.......a corrector. He is upon his own Self Righteous Throne, seated above the Word of God, castigating it.

Nonsense!

a) You wrote: The Devil says....>"hath God SAID"? The devil doesn't speak 17th century Englyshe! If he spoke English, he would say "did God say?"
b) Claiming that it's designed to subvert a person's faith in the word of God is ridiculous.
c) Saying that "all the translations are not perfect" is simply a statement of fact.
d) Saying that "there are about 30 Koine Greek Texts, and about 3-4 are used to make bibles" is ridiculous. There are thousands of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek Bible texts and other texts from the Biblical period that are used to create modern Bibles.

Here is part of the introduction of the NET Bible, my favorite translation (with my emphases)...

"The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives."

"More people from more countries have used and reviewed the NET BIBLE during its production than any Bible translation in history."

"Bible readers are often not aware that every translation makes many interpretive decisions for them. One goal of the NET Bible project was to find a way to help the reader see the decisions and choices that went into the translation. The answer was to include notes produced by the translators while they worked through the issues and options confronting them as they did the work of translation – thus providing an unprecedented level of transparency for users."

"Never before in the history of the Bible has a translation been published which includes explanatory notes from the translators and editors as to why the preferred translation was chosen and what the other alternatives are."

"The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than 25 biblical scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Most of these scholars teach Old or New Testament exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools. Furthermore, the translator assigned to prepare the first draft of the translation and notes for each book of the Bible was chosen in every instance because of his or her extensive work in that particular book – not only involving teaching but writing and research as well, often extending over several decades. Many of the translators and editors have also participated in other translation projects. They have been assisted by doctoral students and advised by style consultants and Wycliffe field translators. Hence, the notes alone are the cumulative result of hundreds of thousands of hours of biblical and linguistic research applied to the particular problems of accurately translating and interpreting the text. The translators’ notes, most of which were created at the same time as the initial drafts of the translation itself, enable the reader of the NET Bible to “look over the shoulders” of the translators as they worked and gain insight into their decisions and choices to an extent never before possible in an English translation."

"A great deal of scholarly literature has been produced on biblical interpretation and translation in the last quarter century. While virtually all other translations produced in the last two decades of the twentieth century were revisions of earlier versions, the NET Bible translators felt that an entirely different kind of translation was needed. In particular, the extensive translators’ notes that display for the reader the decisions and choices behind the translation ultimately chosen are virtually unique among Bible translations, in all languages, in the history of translation. The resulting translation itself is intended to capture the best of several worlds: readable and accurate and elegant all at the same time."

"The NET Bible is the first completely new translation of the Bible to be produced in the age of the Internet with full computer networking support involving collaborative file sharing, data storage and retrieval, and the creation of task-specific databases. Biblical scholars exchanged not only e-mail but entire documents over computer networks and the Internet for constant editorial revision and correction. Electronic versions of standard lexical and grammatical reference works enabled translators and editors to work much more rapidly than if they were dependent on paper copies of these materials. Materials were posted on the Internet at www.bible.org from the very beginning, with seven complete books along with their accompanying translators’ notes available online in 1996, less than one full year after the beginning of the project. This allowed literally millions of people to “beta test” the translation and notes, making countless valuable suggestions to the translators and editors. The result was not a consensus translation (since all the comments and suggestions were carefully reviewed by the translators and editors), but a translation produced with an unparalleled level of transparency."

"No denomination, church, agency, or publisher determined the nature of the NET Bible translation beforehand. It was a translation conceived and designed by biblical scholars themselves who were primarily specialists in the biblical languages and in the exegesis (interpretation) of the biblical text."

"Faithfulness to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in which the biblical documents were originally written was the primary concern."

 

[Johann]

So don’t bring your biases.

Simple.

God is correcting us. So yield to Him and be corrected.

I use the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2000 edition. The 1917 edition is available free on line. For those who have money flow problems, I also recommend the Blue Letter Bible (Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon) for both a good Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, as well as access to other translations and reference materials. All free of charge. My personal Lexicons are the New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. For the Greek I use The Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Thayer's Lexicon in among the best, but NOT the best. I use it because of the large number of OT Hebrew word references.

I use the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2000 edition. The 1917 edition is available free on line. For those who have money flow problems, I also recommend the Blue Letter Bible (Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon) for both a good Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, as well as access to other translations and reference materials. All free of charge. My personal Lexicons are the New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. For the Greek I use The Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Thayer's Lexicon in among the best, but NOT the best. I use it because of the large number of OT Hebrew word references.

Thank you, didn't know there was a new Brown-Briggs-Genesis Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Take it easy on folks by "correcting" the good ol' KJV and I must admit you are holding up well against your opponents.
J.

 

[Jim B]

Continued...

"Although one of the general principles of this translation is to indicate in the notes a more literal rendering, not every departure from such is noted. For one thing, Greek (or Hebrew) and English are sufficiently different that to document every departure would be an exercise in futility. No translation is completely literal, nor should that be a desirable goal. A completely word-for-word literal translation would be unreadable. John 4:15, for example, would be rendered: “Says to him the woman, ‘Sir, give to me this the water that not I thirst nor I come here to draw.” Matthew 1:18 would say, “Of the but Jesus Christ the birth thus was. Being betrothed the mother of him, Mary, to Joseph, before of to come together them she was found in belly having from Spirit Holy.” Such examples are not isolated, but are the norm. Claims for a literal translation must necessarily have a lot of fine print.

Literal is also not necessarily faithful. The word order differences between English and Greek, the use of the article, case, infinitives, participles, voice, mood, and other grammatical features are often so different that gibberish is the result if an absolutely literal translation is attempted (as in the two examples cited above). Not only this, but the idioms of one language have to be converted into the receptor language. Thus, in Matthew 1:18, no English translation (not even the King James Version) would dare speak of Mary’s pregnancy as “she was having [it] in the belly.” Yet this is the literal Greek expression for pregnancy. But it is not English. Thus the real question in translation is not whether it is literal, but whether it is faithful. And fidelity requires converting the lexical, grammatical, idiomatic, and figurative elements (to mention but a few) of the original language into the corresponding package in the receptor language. At times this can be accomplished by maintaining an approximately literal force. At other times, a loose rendering is required if the sentence is to have any meaning in English at all. Of course, this can be overdone. There are two dangers to avoid in translation. First, a translation should not be so literal that it is not good English. The meaning of the original needs to be as faithfully rendered into good English as possible. Second, a translation should not be so loose that it becomes merely an interpretation or allows sectarian interests to overwhelm the resultant text. All translation is interpretation; it cannot be otherwise. But the issue is how much interpretation and how idiosyncratic an interpretation is.

Part of the problem is this: the more literal a translation is, the less readable it generally is; the more readable it is, the less faithful it is to the original meaning (at least in many cases). Some modern translations are quite readable but are not very faithful to the biblical author’s meaning. A major goal of good translation is of course readability – but not at the expense of the intended meaning. The philosophy of the NET Bible translators was to be interpretive when such an interpretation represents the best thinking of recent scholarship. Thus, for example, in Romans 6:4, the expression “newness of life” is taken to mean “new life” by grammarians and exegetes alike and is thus translated this way. But when an interpretive translation is unnecessary or might suggest sectarian bias, and when a more literal rendering results in good English, we have followed the latter course.

A major category of nonliteral translation involves certain conjunctions. For example, the Greek word καιί (kai), meaning generally “and, even, also, yet, but, indeed,” is often left untranslated at the beginning of a sentence. When such is the case, there is usually no note given. However, if the possibility exists that an interpretive issue is involved, a note is given.

An additional consideration of the translation team was faithfulness (as far as possible without violation of current English style) to the style of the individual biblical authors. Even within the New Testament, written over a short span of time in comparison with the Old Testament, the authors exhibit their own unique literary styles. Paul’s style differs from Peter’s, and both differ from John’s. The translators and editors attempted to give the modern reader an impression of these stylistic differences where it was possible to do so without sacrificing accuracy, clarity, or readability."

 

[Jim B]

Continuing on...

"One distinctive characteristic is how the NET Bible strives for accuracy. The NET Bible seeks to be accurate by translating passages consistently and properly within their grammatical, historical, and theological context. The interplay and proper understanding of these three contexts has produced some distinctive translations within the NET Bible. By explaining these here we hope to help the Bible reader understand more fully the translation task undertaken to produce the NET Bible, but even more importantly to understand more fully the Bible itself.

As a translator approaches a passage there are a number of contexts which must be considered. They can be summed up under three broad terms: grammatical, historical, and theological. Grammatical context involves a natural, accurate understanding of the language of the original text which provides parameters for how language functions and which meanings are possible and probable for a given text. This is what most naturally comes to mind when translation work is done. It is the primary work of the translator to determine what meaning is expressed in the original language and how that can best be expressed in the target language. Understanding in this area has improved immensely over the last several years, especially with the advent of computer tools for language study. One of the primary goals of the NET Bible has been to stay abreast of current research in this area. The footnotes in the NET Bible often refer to recent articles, books, and dissertations which have new data regarding how biblical languages function. As our understanding of these languages improves, naturally it will affect the translation of particular passages.

Historical context involves an understanding of the peoples, cultures, customs, and history of the times in which the Bible was written. As with the grammatical context, the historical context provides parameters for understanding the meaning of passages in the Bible and how they should be translated. It looks at the historical background and events of the text to provide a good balance for possible interpretations and meanings of a text.

Theological context is the understanding of God and his work that a particular author would have at the time he wrote a particular passage of scripture. In a manner similar to historical context, theological context provides parameters for deciding upon the meaning of a text and the best way to translate it. The Bible was written over a period of about 2,500 years. During this time, theological understanding changed dramatically. Moses did not know and understand God the way Paul did. This does not mean that Moses knew God in a wrong way and that Paul knew him the right way; it simply means that God had revealed more about himself over time, so Paul had a fuller understanding of who God was and what he was doing in the world. When translating an earlier passage of scripture, the translator should take into account that the theological understanding of the author will be different from that of a later author.

 

[Jim B]

And finally...

As implied above, these three concepts form a limited hierarchy. Grammatical context is the most important because it deals with the nuts and bolts of the language which convey meaning which ultimately can be translated. For example, in English one cannot communicate to a reader that the sky is blue by writing “The tree is green.” The words and phrases which make up this sentence can only communicate a limited meaning, and this is defined by the grammar, the syntax of the phrases, the meanings of the individual words, and other similar considerations. Understanding the grammatical context is the most important task of the translator, for the meaning is found in these words and phrases. The translators and editors of the NET Bible translate a passage with precedence given to the grammatical context. The historical and theological context provide a reasonable system of checks and balances; they help the translator decide what is the most probable meaning of the original text and how that meaning should be translated. They do not drive the translation; instead they guide it so that the most probable meaning is conveyed.

A very important concept for understanding the translation philosophy of the NET Bible and how these three contexts work together is progressive revelation. Simply put, progressive revelation recognizes that God reveals himself – his nature as well as his word, plans, and purposes – over time. He did not reveal everything about himself and what he was doing in the world all at once; instead he graciously revealed more and more as time went on. Later revelation serves to complement and supplement what has come before. The relation of this reality to translation work creates a great deal of tension, especially as it relates to the theological context, because certain earlier passages are clarified by later ones. Does the translator translate the older passage with a view to the clarification that the later passage brings, or does the translator concentrate solely on the native context of the older passage? The translators and editors for the NET Bible have generally chosen to do the latter for a variety of reasons. A translation which takes into account the progress of revelation will be true to the three contexts discussed above. It is also very beneficial to the Bible reader to have the progress of revelation accurately represented in the translation of particular texts. This helps the reader see how God has worked through the centuries, and it helps the reader to stand more accurately in the place of the original recipients of the text. Both of these are very instructive and inspirational, and they help the reader to connect with the text in a more fulfilling way.

A discussion of particular passages in the NET Bible – how they have been translated and why – will illuminate these concepts. Explaining these examples will show how the translators and editors have put the aspects of the translation theory discussed above into practice. The translators and editors believe these issues are important for readers of the Bible to grasp, so all these passages have extensive notes regarding these issues. An example from both the Old and New Testaments will be given.

Isaiah 7:14. This verse has seen a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation. The text of the verse from the NET Bible is as follows:

Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

The most visible issue surrounding this verse is the translation of the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (’almah). The NET Bible uses the phrase “young woman,” while many translations use the word “virgin.” The arguments center upon two main points: the actual meaning of the term as it is used in Hebrew, and the use of this verse in the New Testament. There is a great deal of debate about the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. However, in the New Testament when this verse is cited in Matthew 1:23 the Greek word παρθένος (parqenos) is used, and this word can mean nothing but “virgin.” Therefore, many people see Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin birth with Matthew 1:23 serving as a “divine commentary” on the Isaiah passage which establishes its meaning. The interplay of these issues makes a resolution quite complex. It is the opinion of the translators and editors that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman” and actually carries no connotations of sexual experience, so the grammatical context of the verse in the Old Testament is in our opinion fairly straightforward. Neither does the historical context of Isaiah 7:14 point to any connection with the birth of the Messiah: in its original historical context, this verse was pointing to a sign for King Ahaz that the alliance between Syria and Israel which was threatening the land of Judah would come to nothing. The theological context of Isaiah 7:14 is also limited: it is a presentation of God’s divine power to show himself strong on behalf of his people. The role or birth of the Messiah does not come into view here. So the historical and theological contexts of the verse support the grammatical: the word עַלְמָה (’almah) means “young woman” and should be translated as such. Within the book of Isaiah itself, however, the author begins to develop the theological context of this verse, and this provides a connection to the use of the passage in Matthew. In Isaiah 8:9-10 the prophet delivers an announcement of future victory over Israel’s enemies; the special child Immanuel, alluded to in the last line of v. 10, is a guarantee that the covenant promises of God will result in future greatness. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 is a pledge of God’s presence during the time of Ahaz, but he also is a promise of God’s presence in the future when he gives his people victory over all their enemies. This theological development progresses even further when another child is promised in Isaiah 9:6-7 who will be a perfect ruler over Israel, manifesting God’s presence perfectly and ultimately among his people. The New Testament author draws from this development and uses the original passage in Isaiah to make the connection between the child originally promised and the child who would be the ultimate fulfillment of that initial promise. The use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 draws upon the theological development present in the book of Isaiah, but it does not change the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in its original context.

Passages Involving πιίστις Χριστοῦ and Similar Expressions in Paul. The phrase πιίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) is a difficult one to translate. The issue centers on the relationship of the genitive noun Χριστοῦ to the head noun πιίστις: is the genitive subjective or objective? That is, is the emphasis of this phrase on Christ as the one who exercises faith (subjective) or on Christ as the one in whom others have faith (objective)? Traditionally these phrases have been interpreted emphasizing Christ as the object of faith; “faith in Jesus Christ” is the traditional translation. However, in recent years an increasing number of New Testament scholars are arguing from both the grammatical and theological contexts that πιίστις Χριστοῦ and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and emphasize Christ as the one who exercises faith: “the faithfulness of Christ.” A wider glance at the use of the noun πιίστις in the rest of the New Testament shows that when it takes a personal genitive that genitive is almost never objective. Certainly faith in Christ is a Pauline concept, but Bible scholars have begun to see that in Paul’s theological thought there is also an emphasis on Christ as one who is faithful and therefore worthy of our faith. The grammatical and theological contexts are not decisive, and either translation is acceptable. The editors decided to follow the subjective genitive view because a decision had to be made – “faith of Christ,” a literal translation, communicates very little to the average reader in the context – and because scholarship in this area is now leaning toward this view. The question is certainly not closed, however, and if further research indicates that the grammatical or theological context proves decisive for the other view, the translation will be modified to reflect that.

In short, the translators and editors of the NET Bible are committed to following the text where it leads and translating it honestly. The translation philosophy leaves no other options: For the sake of Christ and the truth, the translators and editors are compelled to translate as they have done in the examples above and throughout the NET Bible. The 19th century conservative Christian scholar Henry Alford stated it best: “a translator of Holy Scripture must be…ready to sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s testimony.”

For the specific guidelines employed by the translators and editors of the NET Bible, see “NET Bible Principles of Translation” included as the first item in the Appendices."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's enough for now, and should be sufficient to correct your impaired thinking regarding Bible translation.

If you're interested in the complete article you can find it here: NET Bible : The Biblical Studies Foundation

I will not debate this any further with you as I doubt you're capable of having an informed discussion about Bible translation.

 

[AW Bowman]

There is one charge that does require a response, that of having "blood on my hands" by casting doubt on the truth of the Bible. In the very first post I said,

"The result being that if one desires to learn of the “God of the Jews”, the knowledge is freely available, even in poorly written translations. Any serious translation of the holy language into any known human language contains sufficient information to provide the path to reconciliation between the seeker of God’s face and God Himself. Anyone with a working understanding of their own native language can achieve sufficient knowledge to secure their salvation by a simple reading of the scriptures – and in their own language"

Remember, the KJV is a translation for English speaking people. That leaves open the question, "What about all those other translations for the rest of the non-English speaking people?"

At any point, where anything I present (in context) causes one to doubt the authority of scripture - I humbly apologize and accept the correction (rebuke).

 

[AW Bowman]

Thank you, didn't know there was a new Brown-Briggs-Genesis Hebrew and English Lexicon.
J.

Well that's the title. It is the 1979 edition!

 

[Johann]

Well that's the title. It is the 1979 edition!

No money, here in South Africa difficult times.
J.

 

[AW Bowman]

Introductory note to the different bias that will effect how we approach out Bible studies

We all have many acquired points of view (biases, prejudices, presuppositions, preconceptions, etc. ) that we "filter" our lives through. From our daily existence, to how we view our neighbors, to our view of God and the study of His word. Most of the time we are unaware of them and their influence over us. But, our "filters" can hinder both our studies and our spiritual growth!

Many years ago, I ran across an article that contained the following statement:

"If your view of God has not changed in the past five years, your brain dead." I can't cite the author, and don't remember the article, way too far in the past. /sigh/ But, I do remember his words!

At first, I dismissed this comment, out of hand. I spent the majority of my time over the years working on, “What do I need to know that God requires of me, and what goodies (rewards) can I expect from Him”. One day, while going through my study's, it hit me, "My personal view of God colors how I understand scripture! Further, my view fluctuates on a daily basis!" Sometime I viewed God as the hard, righteous judge, and other times I viewed God as a gracious, loving parent that would never allow any harm come to me, among many other such views. What I discovered was that I did not have a consistent, coherent view of who and what God really is and what He actually means to me, personally! Then the questions: Do I actually love God? How do I know that I love Him and do I demonstrate that love to Him - or, do I demonstrate what I think is love, according to my own human based standards, and not His holy standard of love? Or, do I do nothing? Ouch!

If I am going to mature in my view of God (to actually know Him), I must gain a better understanding of His word, and I must clean up what I bring (of myself) to my studies. My foundational view of God will change. This task requires a continual deep self-evaluation, a very messy undertaking, I assure you. I am sharing my insights here for any who are willing to undertake such a self-test, personal evaluation, and to put forth the effort required to mitigate, the best one can, those hindering points of view that stand between us and understanding and implementing God's word in our lives.

 

[AW Bowman]

Some folks expressed some hesitation at reading long posts. I can relate.

I had originally written the attached material to be posted in three parts, however they were lengthy. So, I combined then into one extra long downloadable file, to read and/or printed out. Then let's discuss.

The subjects are:
1. Personality type
2. Our world view
3. Spiritual gifting
4. Where we are born
5. Personal environment
6. Our sin

In reviewing the attached, please go through it at least twice, and reflect on what are your personal experiences for this particular subject, what have I heard, been taught, by whom, what are my emotions, etc. Uncovering one's biases can be a very trying task.

May our studies be fruitful.

 

[Enoch111]

You are going to have to consult dictionaries and commentaries, no question about it.

That is merely your opinion. No, we do not need to necessarily consult dictionaries and commentaries to arrive at a proper under of what is written. The Bible provides its own commentary, and I already quoted the necessary Scripture. But there are many more which speak of Christ as the exalted Servant of YAHWEH (Isa 42:1,19; 44:26; 49:5,6,7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11).

 

[Johann]

That is merely your opinion. No, we do not need to necessarily consult dictionaries and commentaries to arrive at a proper under of what is written. The Bible provides its own commentary, and I already quoted the necessary Scripture. But there are many more which speak of Christ as the exalted Servant of YAHWEH (Isa 42:1,19; 44:26; 49:5,6,7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11).

Not my opinion, if you don't want to dig deeper into scriptures since we all have only 12 hours in a day, that's your decision.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

What is the text saying?

WE ARE ONE, echad, Plural.


One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal_3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (Joh_5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (Joh_5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (Joh_17:11, Joh_17:21). Note hen used in 1Co_3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in Joh_17:11, Joh_17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.
Robertson

If you don't want to read this, your prerogative, I am willing to redeem the time and learn.

J.

 

[AW Bowman]

Take it easy on folks by "correcting" the good ol' KJV and I must admit you are holding up well against your opponents.
J.

Because so many folks have the KJV, and many hold tightly to it, that is the version I "mostly use" when I teach and preach, and make corrections (explanations) as I go along. The NET Bible is one of my few "go-to" English Translations for study.

 

[Enoch111]

Remember, the KJV is a translation for English speaking people. That leaves open the question, "What about all those other translations for the rest of the non-English speaking people?"

Have you not heard of the Trinitarian Bible Society? They answer your question.

 

[Johann]

Because so many folks have the KJV, and many hold tightly to it, that is the version I "mostly use" when I teach and preach, and make corrections (explanations) as I go along. The NET Bible is one of my few "go-to" English Translations for study.

This is excellent news Mr. Bowman, in your view, would you say it is correct to use reputable commentaries, dictionaries and lexicons.
Since, on this platform you will be met with vehement antagonism against anything secondary, a secondary source.
Also, there is a intense debate on the Triune Godhead and you will find, to your surprise, that the Deity of Mashiach is under attack.
I would caution you not to give your testimony to anyone here.


1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


1Jn 4:1 Chaverim, do not believe every ruach. [YIRMEYAH 29:8] But test the ruchot (spirits), if they be of Hashem, because many nevi'ei sheker have gone out into the Olam Hazeh.
1Jn 4:2 By this we have da'as of the Ruach Hakodesh of Hashem: every ruach which makes hoda'ah (confession) of Yehoshua, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach as having come in the basar is of Hashem,
1Jn 4:3 And every ruach which does not make hoda'ah of Yehoshua is not of Hashem. And this is the ruach of the Anti-Moshiach, which you have heard that it is coming; and now it already is in the Olam Hazeh.
OJB
Shalom
J.

 

[AW Bowman]

Mr. Bowman, in your view, would you say it is correct to use reputable commentaries, dictionaries and lexicons.
Since, on this platform you will be met with vehement antagonism against anything secondary, a secondary source.

Most definitely!

I have already noticed that. In an open forum such as this, that is to be expected. The maturity of its members will most likely run the full spectrum of spiritual growth levels. Yet, when I was in active ministry I was a member of a several ministerial forums. The same problems existed in them! When I left them I my parting comment (when I "retired" from active ministry) was, "If your congregations could see how you treat one another other here, no doubt they would say, 'A pox on all of your houses.', and leave your church." This is the sad state of the Western Church, or at least for the denominations so gathered in these forums. Me? I take 2 Timothy seriously - and no, I am not another Timothy!

 

[farouk]

I have already noticed that. In an open forum such as this, that is to be expected. The maturity of its members will most likely run the full spectrum of spiritual growth levels. Yet, when I was in active ministry I was a member of a several ministers forums. The same problems existed in them! When I left them I my parting comment (when I "retired" from active ministry) was, "If your congregations could see how you treat one another other here, no doubt they would say, 'A pox on all of your houses.', and leave your church." This is the sad state of the Western Church, or at least for the denominations so gathered in these forums. Me? I take 2 Timothy seriously - and no I am not another Timothy!

@AW Bowman In the truest sense, did you ever really "retire" from ministry?

 

[AW Bowman]

@AW Bowman In the truest sense, did you ever really "retire" from ministry?

No. I did take a few years off. But one day I "heard" a question, "Who told you to retire?" So, for better or worse, here I am. And, as I have just moved, I have yet to find a new church. The truth is I am dependent on my near-by son for transpiration. I quit driving and gave my son my pickup because I was loosing confidence in my ability to safely drive. After finding a church to attend I think I can arrange transpiration.

 

[Johann]

No. I did take a few years off. But one day I "heard" a question, "Who told you to retire?" So, for better or worse, here I am. And, as I have just moved, I have yet to find a new church. The truth is I am dependent on my near-by son for transpiration. I quit driving and gave my son my pickup because I was loosing confidence in my ability to safely drive. After finding a church to attend I think I can arrange transpiration.

May our Lord Christ Jesus continue to richly bless you and family.


יפתח יהוה לך את־אוצרו הטוב את־השׁמים לתת מטר־ארצך בעתו ולברך את כל־מעשׂה ידך והלוית גוים רבים ואתה לא תלוה׃
ונתנך יהוה לראשׁ ולא לזנב והיית רק למעלה ולא תהיה למטה כי־תשׁמע אל־מצות יהוה אלהיך אשׁר אנכי מצוך היום לשׁמר ולעשׂות׃

Jץ

 

[MatthewG]

What was your post @AW Bowman the pdf you created, I lost where it was.