How is it that you cannot see?

[ButterflyJones]

Why not go with the Tyndale translation? The first Latin to English Bible. Tyndale was martyred at the stake for that by the Roman church.

 

[Matthias]

Why not go with the Tyndale translation? The first Latin to English Bible. Tyndale was martyred at the stake for that by the Roman church.

Tyndale translated from Greek, not from Latin. Wycliffe was the first to produce a translation from Latin to English.

Tyndale, though martyred a little more than half a century before the Geneva Bible was produced, had an enormous influence on the translators of the Geneva Bible (as well as other translators of Greek into English.)

Why not go with the Tyndale translation? Great question. I would and I do. Now. (But I was raised KJVO and such a thought would have been entirely out of the question for me back in those days. Simply unthinkable - just like it is for many today.)

At our level of conversation on the Board, it’s not at all uncommon to hear people say that the Geneva Bible (as well as those like it) is blasphemous. That’s an overreaction in response to a belief about the prologue which they can’t even imagine has any validity. Tyndale (and the Protestant Reformers who translated the prologue as he did) would have been taken aback by that reaction.

William Tyndale. Championed out of one side of the Protestant mouth and accused, falsely, of producing a blasphemous translation out of the other side of the same Protestant mouth! (The same with the typically less well-known, to most, translators of the Geneva Bible.) It’s ironic, irrational and incorrect. But people must be allowed to come to their own conclusions and believe what they are persuaded is the truth.

The translator‘s decision has nothing to do with the topic which cannot be discussed. Tyndale (and the Geneva Bible translators) was in full agreement with the KJV translators in regard to the banned topic. They were all able to affirm Christianity Board’s Nicene Statement of Faith with a clear conscience. (That’s a simple statement of historical fact but it doesn’t immediately lodge with everyone.)

Tyndale’s translation, like the Geneva Bible translation, does no harm to those who affirm the Nicene Creed. (If it did, Tyndale and translators like him wouldn’t have been able to affirm belief in the Nicene Creed.) What it does do is place the focus of John in the prologue of his Gospel squarely on God speaking the creation into existence - something which those who affirm the Nicene Creed, as well as those who don’t, typically say they believe.

Tyndale believed he found support for his trinitarian belief concerning who the creator is confirmed in other passages of scripture.

Tyndale no more wrote Jesus out of John’s prologue than the Geneva Bible writers did, contrary to the belief and accusation by some that he (and they) did.

 

[Gottservant]

1 In the beginning was the Word,

[...]

”God said let there be …” and what previously had existed only in his mind was literally brought into being.

This is on the verge of being something very inspiring, I just don't see God responding to Creation as though His imagination was a 'given' in the beginning.

I prefer to think that God woke from a dream, about Creation and Jesus started talking in His sleep, about Creating it.

It takes a squeeze to interpret it, that way, but before God opens our eyes to the scripture, that's all we can do?

 

[ButterflyJones]

Tyndale translated from Greek, not from Latin. Wycliffe was the first to produce a translation from Latin to English.

Tyndale, though martyred a little more than half a century before the Geneva Bible was produced, had an enormous influence on the translators of the Geneva Bible (as well as other translators of Greek into English.)

Why not go with the Tyndale translation? Great question. I would and I do. Now. (But I was raised KJVO and such a thought would have been entirely out of the question for me back in those days. Simply unthinkable - just like it is for many today.)

At our level of conversation on the Board, it’s not at all uncommon to hear people say that the Geneva Bible (as well as those like it) is blasphemous. That’s an overreaction in response to a belief about the prologue which they can’t even imagine has any validity. Tyndale (and the Protestant Reformers who translated the prologue as he did) would have been taken aback by that reaction.

William Tyndale. Championed out of one side of the Protestant mouth and accused, falsely, of producing a blasphemous translation out of the other side of the same Protestant mouth! (The same with the typically less well-known, to most, translators of the Geneva Bible.) It’s ironic, irrational and incorrect. But people must be allowed to come to their own conclusions and believe what they are persuaded is the truth.

The translator‘s decision has nothing to do with the topic which cannot be discussed. Tyndale (and the Geneva Bible translators) was in full agreement with the KJV translators in regard to the banned topic. They were all able to affirm Christianity Board’s Nicene Statement of Faith with a clear conscience. (That’s a simple statement of historical fact but it doesn’t immediately lodge with everyone.)

Tyndale’s translation, like the Geneva Bible translation, does no harm to those who affirm the Nicene Creed. (If it did, Tyndale and translators like him wouldn’t have been able to affirm belief in the Nicene Creed.) What it does do is place the focus of John in the prologue of his Gospel squarely on God speaking the creation into existence - something which those who affirm the Nicene Creed, as well as those who don’t, typically say they believe.

Tyndale believed he found support for his trinitarian belief concerning who the creator is confirmed in other passages of scripture.

Tyndale no more wrote Jesus out of John’s prologue than the Geneva Bible writers did, contrary to the belief and accusation by some that he (and they) did.

Article source?

Here's mine:William Tyndale

William Tyndale (l.c. 1494-1536) was a talented English linguist, scholar and priest who was the first to translate the Bible into English. Tyndale objected to the Catholic Church’s control of scripture in Latin and the prohibition against an English translation. His work formed the basis of all other English translations of the Bible up through the modern era.

The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated from the original by Saint Jerome (l. 347-420), assisted by Saint Paula (l. 347-404) was considered the only true version by the Church, and translation into the vernacular, in any country, was forbidden. Even before the Reformation began in 1517, however, European scholars had already translated the Bible into their own languages, the German translation by Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) being only one among many. The proto-reformer John Wycliffe (l. 1330-1384) had translated the Bible from the Vulgate to Middle English in c. 1380 but volumes of this work had been burned after his death.

Tyndale requested permission from ecclesiastical authorities to translate the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek but was denied. He then left for Germany where he translated and published his work on the New Testament and part of the Old Testament, along with other writings, and had them smuggled into England. Tyndale is recognized as the first to translate the Bible into English, rather than Wycliffe, because he worked from the original languages, not just the Latin translation, as Wycliffe had done.

Continues... William Tyndale

 

[Matthias]

Article source?

Here's mine:William Tyndale

William Tyndale (l.c. 1494-1536) was a talented English linguist, scholar and priest who was the first to translate the Bible into English. Tyndale objected to the Catholic Church’s control of scripture in Latin and the prohibition against an English translation. His work formed the basis of all other English translations of the Bible up through the modern era.

The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated from the original by Saint Jerome (l. 347-420), assisted by Saint Paula (l. 347-404) was considered the only true version by the Church, and translation into the vernacular, in any country, was forbidden. Even before the Reformation began in 1517, however, European scholars had already translated the Bible into their own languages, the German translation by Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) being only one among many. The proto-reformer John Wycliffe (l. 1330-1384) had translated the Bible from the Vulgate to Middle English in c. 1380 but volumes of this work had been burned after his death.

Tyndale requested permission from ecclesiastical authorities to translate the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek but was denied. He then left for Germany where he translated and published his work on the New Testament and part of the Old Testament, along with other writings, and had them smuggled into England. Tyndale is recognized as the first to translate the Bible into English, rather than Wycliffe, because he worked from the original languages, not just the Latin translation, as Wycliffe had done.

Continues... William Tyndale

I agree with your source.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I agree with your source.

Good. Then you admit you were in error to claim William Tyndale did not translate the Bible from the Latin into English.

I appreciate that.:)

 

[Matthias]

Good. Then you admit you were in error to claim William Tyndale did not translate the Bible from the Latin into English.

I appreciate that.:)

Tyndale's Translation (Full Story) - Early English Bibles

 

[Wrangler]

I agree that angels are called elohim in scripture and that they were present when Yahweh created the heavens and the earth. Beyond Yahweh speaking with his heavenly council and angels singing, I’m not aware of any other participation of the angels in creation

It's absurd to suppose elohim were present but did not participate in Creation since that is EXACTLY what Scripture says.

What purpose does it serve to have the other elohim sit idly by as Yahweh makes all of creation by himself? What purpose does their existence serve?

The heavens and the earth were created by Yahweh. I don’t think that’s disputable

It's not being disputed. What's being discussed is to not fall into the trap of relegating a plural word to refer to a singular Being when it is convenient to your doctrine.

That the heavens and the earth were - or may have been - created by Yahweh and angels is speculation.

It's speculation either way since Scripture specifically says elohim created.

I don’t see anything in scripture which pushes me in that direction.

Scripture certainly should push you in that direction for 2 reasons.

1. That elohim created is EXACTLY what Scripture says.
2. Agency.

Agency is ubiquitous in Scripture.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on Isaiah 44:24.

Agency. When we say "Ford" build this car. We mean Ford was the principle, knowing he could have had many agents and other suppliers involved in making the components, assemblies and platforms.

Watched a show last night about how Hitler started WWII. Some say Putin has started WWIII. Either way, both had agents doing their bidding. Why is it so hard to recognize God also uses many agents throughout Scripture and could have used elohim in making the heavens and the Earth? It's all for God's glory, right?

 

[Wrangler]

Tyndale is recognized as the first to translate the Bible into English, rather than Wycliffe, because he worked from the original languages, not just the Latin translation, as Wycliffe had done.

Sad way to deny the accomplishment of Wycliffe who actually first translated the Bible into English - even if it is not as acedemically rigorous as Tyndale. While we can all agree a translation of a translation is not ideal, Wycliffe may only have had access to the Latin source.

Point being, a person could first read a Bible in English due to Wycliffe, period. End of Story. Case Closed. How accurate that translation was or was not is another matter.

Funny thing, 5 centuries later, English speaking Christians still debate what translation - among dozens, if not 100's - is the most accurate.

 

[Matthias]

It's absurd to suppose elohim were present but did not participate in Creation since that is EXACTLY what Scripture says.

Agreed. What precisely does scripture say that they did? We’ve noted that the angels were singing while Yahweh was creating.

What purpose does it serve to have the other elohim sit idly by as Yahweh makes all of creation by himself?

They didn’t sit idly by. See above.

What purpose does their existence serve

They exist to serve God and man.

What non-speculative purpose does their presence at the creation serve? They were witnesses and they gave glory to God.

It's not being disputed.

Agreed.

What's being discussed is to not fall into the trap of relegating a plural word to refer to a singular Being when it is convenient to your doctrine.

Elohim is a Hebrew word which is always plural in form but can be either singular or plural in meaning.

Yahweh is the elohim who created. Yahweh is the God (elohim, plural in form, singular in meaning), not the gods (elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning), of Israel.

It's speculation either way since Scripture specifically says elohim created.

We’ve agreed that it’s not speculation that Yahweh himself created.

Where does scripture specifically say that the gods (elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning) created? We’ve agreed that there are no such statements made in scripture. Hence, speculation.

Scripture certainly should push you in that direction for 2 reasons.

1. That elohim created is EXACTLY what Scripture says.

Yahweh. (See above)

The angels? Philosophical musing and acknowledgement that it’s only speculation doesn’t move me in the direction of agency.

1. Agency.

Agency is ubiquitous in Scripture.

Agency. When we say "Ford" build this car. We mean Ford was the principle, knowing he could have had many agents and other suppliers involved in making the components, assemblies and platforms.

Watched a show last night about how Hitler started WWII. Some say Putin has started WWIII. Either way, both had agents doing their bidding. Why is it so hard to recognize God also uses many agents throughout Scripture and could have used elohim in making the heavens and the Earth? It's all for God's glory, right?

It is all for God’s glory.

Agency is a vital concept and we can point to a large number of examples in the Bible where Yahweh in fact used agents to accomplish his purpose. The question is whether or not the concept is applicable to the creation of the heavens and the earth. You’ve acknowledged, and I’ve agreed, that it’s only speculation that he could have.

Yahweh himself saying that he created “alone, by myself” doesn’t sound like agency to me.

God (elohim,plural in form, singular in meaning) created the heavens and the earth -> full agreement. This is the safe and solid ground.

God (elohim, plural in form, singular in meaning) and the gods (elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning) created the heavens and the earth -> agreement is that it is only speculation. There’s nothing safe or solid about speculation.

What if that speculation is wrong? Have you considered that?

 

[Wrangler]

What non-speculative purpose does their presence at the creation serve? They were witnesses and they gave glory to God.

To what end be a witness to subsequent creation after their own? I mean, their existence is witness, isn't it?

 

[Matthias]

To what end be a witness to subsequent creation after their own?

To glorify the creator.

I mean, their existence is witness, isn't it?

Their existence is witness that there is a creator.

 

[Wrangler]

Where does scripture specifically say that the gods (elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning) created? We’ve agreed that there are no such statements made in scripture. Hence, speculation.

You are taking Elohim to only be referring to YHWH in creating when the text does not support that. It is you who is speculating.

I admit the text is ambiguous as it uses the term elohim created rather than YHWH created.

 

[Matthias]

You are taking Elohim to only be referring to YHWH in creating when the text does not support that. It is you who is speculating.

I’m not speculating. I’m absolutely certain that Yahweh is the creator.

I admit the text is ambiguous as it uses the term elohim created rather than YHWH created.

Yahweh himself says that he is the creator.

 

[Wrangler]

I’m not speculating. I’m absolutely certain that Yahweh is the creator.



Yahweh himself says that he is the creator.

Again, no one is disputing that. The question is about agency. Did YHWH create other elohim's to carry out his plans of Creation? The text is ambiguous.

Don't contradict yourself in acknowledge elohim has multiple meanings but only means YWHW in a certain instance. The ambiguity of HOW remains. That's all.

 

[Matthias]

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

(Genesis 1:1)

Elohim, plural in form, singular in meaning.

“In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth.”

Elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning.

 

[Matthias]

Again, no one is disputing that.

Again, agreed.

The question is about agency. Did YHWH create other elohim's to carry out his plans of Creation? The text is ambiguous.

You’re speculating on ambiguity. I’m grounding on Yahweh himself saying that he did it alone, by himself.

Don't contradict yourself in acknowledge elohim has multiple meanings but only means YWHW in a certain instance.

That’s not a contradiction. It’s something which we can prove by testing it.

The ambiguity of HOW remains. That's all.

“God said” is sufficient for me.

 

[Wrangler]

You’re speculating on ambiguity. I’m grounding on Yahweh himself saying that he did it alone, by himself.

No. I am not speculating on ambiquity. You are in denial of agency. Who spoke to Moses in the burning bush? YHWH or angels. Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorah? YHWH or angels? The text says both. Elohom created, which does not mean one or the other.

 

[Wrangler]

“God said” is sufficient for me.

Me too. The HOW is above our pay grade.

 

[Matthias]

No. I am not speculating on ambiquity.

You said that the text is ambiguous and that it is only speculation that the angels created the heavens and the earth.

You are in denial of agency.

In the specific case of creation of the heavens and the earth, yes.

Who spoke to Moses in the burning bush? YHWH or angels. Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorah? YHWH or angels? The text says both.

Valid examples of agency.

Elohom created, which does not mean one or the other.

See the rest of the story. Yahweh says that he did it alone, by himself. That rules out creation falling into the agency category for me.