Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[Willie T]

My wife can converse in 7 different languages, and I make attempts in three. And both of us have learned that to try and "literally" translate any of them directly into English is not desirous. Not at all!
Did you know that even in English, we have so many meanings for words, that many of us can't keep up with our own language?
For instance:
"Run" has at least 645 meanings... and that is just in the verb form, alone.
"Go" has 368 meanings.
"Set" has 430.
"Take", 343.
"Stand", 334.
"Get", 289.
"Turn", 288.
"Put", 268.
"Fall", 264.
"Strike", 250
And we honestly think we can just flip a page in "Strong's", snatch a number written there, and be oh so knowledgeable of what was supposedly said in a certain verse. LOL

 

[Nancy]

My wife can converse in 7 different languages, and I make attempts in three. And both of us have learned that to try and "literally" translate any of them directly into English is not desirous. Not at all!
Did you know that even in English, we have so many meanings for words, that many of us can't keep up with our own language?
For instance:
"Run" has at least 645 meanings... and that is just in the verb form, alone.
"Go" has 368 meanings.
"Set" has 430.
"Take", 343.
"Stand", 334.
"Get", 289.
"Turn", 288.
"Put", 268.
"Fall", 264.
"Strike", 250
And we honestly think we can just flip a page in "Strong's", snatch a number written there, and be oh so knowledgeable of what was supposedly said in a certain verse. LOL

I suppose that is why it is so hard for others to learn the English language. I myself would love to learn another language, pretty sure I'd be good at it...I know some words and phrases in Italian but, I would not use THOSE words now!

 

[Willie T]

I suppose that is why it is so hard for others to learn the English language. I myself would love to learn another language, pretty sure I'd be good at it...I know some words and phrases in Italian but, I would not use THOSE words now!

Do you think, of the thousands of languages, only English is that way? Not at all. Every language does that sort of "play on words" thing.

 

[reformed1689]

Do you think, of the thousands of languages, only English is that way? Not at all. Every language does that sort of "play on words" thing.

Exactly, Greek, for example, if you look in the BDAG lexicon for any given word there are at least 4 or 5 main definitions then there are nuances to those definitions.

 

[Jay Ross]

So you like to engage in ad hominem. What are YOUR credentials?

David, all you had to do was to honestly answer the question I asked, which is exactly what you insist that others do on this forum. You put others down with your ad hominem fallacies arguments without adding anything worthwhile to the discussion. It has been your mode of operation on this forum since you have stormed into this forum with your "venom etc." with a point to prove against one particular person.

The thread topic is "Are doctrines affected by modern versions?"

My hypothesis that I would have discussed is, "Have the various translations been affected by the various doctrinal biases of the translators?"

To that question I would answer, YES.

To the question that I had asked you: -

Has Genesis 12:1 been correctly translated?

I would reply NO. But since you have agreed with the following quoted post:-

Of course it has been correctly translated. Why is this even an issue?

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמֹּֽולַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃
The literal rendering is: And had said Yahweh to Abram, Get out of your country (מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ mê-’ar-ṣə-ḵā), and from your family, and from the house of your father, to a land (הָאָ֖רֶץ hā-’ā-reṣ) that I will show you.

KJV Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

with your response to this above post of:-

Yeah I don't understand the issue either.

shows that your understanding of God's purposes within the first recorded part of the Abrahamic Covenant is very lacking like Enoch111's understanding which has been shaped by the doctrinal biases of the translations that we use to gain our understanding of who God is, what God is like, and the relationship that He desires with each and every one of us.

Another example of your misunderstanding is who you believe has the lead role in the two nearly identical parables found in Matt 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. You believe that the lead role in this parable is that of Jesus.

Yes David, you may have some things "right" in your understanding of Who God is, What God is like, and the relationship that He desires with each and every one of us, but the witness you have displayed on this forum suggests a very different person to the one that you want to display of who you are in Christ/God.

Shalom

 

[reformed1689]

David, all you had to do was to honestly answer the question I asked, which is exactly what you insist that others do on this forum. You put others down with your ad hominem fallacies arguments without adding anything worthwhile to the discussion. It has been your mode of operation on this forum since you have stormed into this forum with your "venom etc." with a point to prove against one particular person.

The thread topic is "Are doctrines affected by modern versions?"

My hypothesis that I would have discussed is, "Have the various translations been affected by the various doctrinal biases of the translators?"

To that question I would answer, YES.

To the question that I had asked you: -

I would reply NO. But since you have agreed with the following quoted post:-

with your response to this above post of:-

shows that your understanding of God's purposes within the first recorded part of the Abrahamic Covenant is very lacking like Enoch111's understanding which has been shaped by the doctrinal biases of the translations that we use to gain our understanding of who God is, what God is like, and the relationship that He desires with each and every one of us.

Another example of your misunderstanding is who you believe has the lead role in the two nearly identical parables found in Matt 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. You believe that the lead role in this parable is that of Jesus.

Yes David, you may have some things "right" in your understanding of Who God is, What God is like, and the relationship that He desires with each and every one of us, but the witness you have displayed on this forum suggests a very different person to the one that you want to display of who you are in Christ/God.

Shalom

And in all of this, you still have yet to say how it was translated WRONG.

 

[reformed1689]

Another example of your misunderstanding is who you believe has the lead role in the two nearly identical parables found in Matt 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. You believe that the lead role in this parable is that of Jesus.

I don't recall actually discussing who has the lead in these parables...

 

[reformed1689]

Yes David, you may have some things "right" in your understanding of Who God is, What God is like, and the relationship that He desires with each and every one of us, but the witness you have displayed on this forum suggests a very different person to the one that you want to display of who you are in Christ/God.

How is this relevant to the topic?

 

[Jay Ross]

And in all of this, you still have yet to say how it was translated WRONG.

Your response is again a ad hominem fallacy argument and confirms your witness on display on this forum.

Shalom

 

[reformed1689]

Your response is again a ad hominem fallacy argument and confirms your witness on display on this forum.

Shalom

How in the world is that ad hominem? It simply asks a question, you suggest and say that it is translated wrong but have not shown how it is translated wrong.

 

[Enoch111]

...your understanding of God's purposes within the first recorded part of the Abrahamic Covenant is very lacking like Enoch111's understanding which has been shaped by the doctrinal biases of the translations that we use to gain our understanding of who God is, what God is like, and the relationship that He desires with each and every one of us.

So you are in fact claiming to be superior to all the translators who have been translating the Bible before you. Well BAH! HUMBUG! NONSENSE.

The proof that there is NO doctrinal bias was already shown when I quoted Genesis 12:1. The Hebrew, the literal rendering, and the KJV translation are all a perfect match. So it is you who is manufacturing your own theology. Which has been a pattern for quite some time.

 

[Jay Ross]

How in the world is that ad hominem? It simply asks a question, you suggest and say that it is translated wrong but have not shown how it is translated wrong.

Have you posted how you believe that it is correctly translated? No.

How about you give it a rest and start posting so that people can actually come to grips with what you actually believe is true instead of your ad hominem fallacy attacks against people, like what you are attempting to do against me.

Now in the land where I reside, people have taken matters into their own hands and started fires in defiance of the environmental righteous who have created the apocalyptic situations that have dotted our country for the past couple of months.

What people are feeling right at this moment in this country is real for them. The gutter trash that you indulge in on this forum is not real at all.

Good day sir.

 

[Jay Ross]

The proof that there is NO doctrinal bias was already shown when I quoted Genesis 12:1. The Hebrew, the literal rendering, and the KJV translation are all a perfect match.

How so? Your claim is no proof that it is right. The Jews have focused on the "land" and the getting of the "promised land," for so long now that this has become the adopted tradition of the "christian" church as well. As such few are walking the length and breadth of God's "earth" nor do people see God's Kingdom plainly in sight for those who have eyes to see.

All that I see you confirming is that you have no idea as to why you believe what you believe because of the adopted tradition that is prevalent in the "church" today and that doctrinal bias of many centuries has force the English translation that we have today.

Good Day sir.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Probably as far as you and some even further...

When Jesus becomes Lord, your life becomes His, once your life becomes His, ever day is His, simply because, for those who love Him one day is not enogh.

Not even nice words or good prose, just a Scripture-less vacuum like in your head. What for you for the question, <Are Doctrines affected by translation of Scripture>, is enough, is of no consequence, of no bearing, and useless disinformation.

 

[Enoch111]

How so? Your claim is no proof that it is right.

I am not making any *claim*. But I am showing you from Scripture, that the land given to Abraham is NOT the whole world but the land of Canaan (the land God would show Abraham), which will eventually become Greater Israel (from the Nile to the Euphrates) after the Second Coming of Christ.

GENESIS 15,17,24,28,35
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites... 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God...7 The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence... 13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed...12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.

So the proof is within the Bible itself, and there has been no manipulation of the text. The text has remained the same since Moses wrote Genesis, and Jesus Himself confirmed that.

 

[reformed1689]

Have you posted how you believe that it is correctly translated? No.

Actually I have. I agreed that it is translated correctly.

How about you give it a rest and start posting so that people can actually come to grips with what you actually believe is true instead of your ad hominem fallacy attacks against people, like what you are attempting to do against me.

Again, how have I engaged in ad hominem against you? I simply asked that you show how it has been translated incorrectly.

What people are feeling right at this moment in this country is real for them. The gutter trash that you indulge in on this forum is not real at all.

Good day sir.

Talking about Scripture is gutter trash?

How so? Your claim is no proof that it is right. The Jews have focused on the "land" and the getting of the "promised land," for so long now that this has become the adopted tradition of the "christian" church as well. As such few are walking the length and breadth of God's "earth" nor do people see God's Kingdom plainly in sight for those who have eyes to see.

All that I see you confirming is that you have no idea as to why you believe what you believe because of the adopted tradition that is prevalent in the "church" today and that doctrinal bias of many centuries has force the English translation that we have today.

Good Day sir.

Ah, I understand now. You mistake translation for interpretation. Those are not the same thing.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

And we honestly think we can just flip a page in "Strong's", snatch a number written there, and be oh so knowledgeable of what was supposedly said in a certain verse. LOL

WRITE IT IN CAPITALS!

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn Just now ·
Just flip a page in "Strong's", snatch a number there, and be oh so knowledgeable of what was supposedly said. Willie T

 

[Jay Ross]

So the proof is within the Bible itself, and there has been no manipulation of the text. The text has remained the same since Moses wrote Genesis, and Jesus Himself confirmed that.

Yes Jesus did confirm that the source texts of the translations was correct at the time of his first Advent, but He has not confirmed that the translations that you have relied upon to justify your argument are. The fact is that the translations have been manipulated to reflect the traditions of the Jewish understanding that the Promised Lands is theirs, i.e. Abraham's descendants, forever and ever, is the downfall in your argument. The truth of the matter is that the original Hebrew Text does not state this at all, but it does state that the Jew will have possession of the "Promised Land," for a period of time that is beyond their ability to comprehend. In other words the period of time was a finite period which ended in 70 AD and not an infinite period of time as you are suggesting.

So what you have suggested in the quote above is that Moses wrote the book of Genesis in English. A foolish claim IMHO to make.

Good Day Sir

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

My hypothesis that I would have discussed is, "Have the various translations been affected by the various doctrinal biases of the translators?"

Spot on! Absolutely! That's it really!

 

[Jay Ross]

QUOTE="David Taylor, post: 674494, member: 8398"

Actually I have. I agreed that it is translated correctly.

BUT YOU HAVE NOT STATED WHY YOU BELIEVE IT IS TRUE. All you have done is agreed with someone else's opinion and they have not presented why they believe it is true.

Again, how have I engaged in ad hominem against you? I simply asked that you show how it has been translated incorrectly.

AND PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH YOU FOR WHAT YOU REALLY ARE.

Talking about Scripture is gutter trash?

AND HOW YOU TWIST WORDS TO SUIT YOUR OWN PURPOSES.

Ah, I understand now. You mistake translation for interpretation. Those are not the same thing.

BEFORE YOU CAN BEGIN TO TRANSLATE ONE LANGUAGE INTO ANOTHER LANGUAGE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE INTENT OF THE PASSAGE YOU ARE WANTING TO TRANSLATE AND THAT REQUIRES INTERPRETATION. INTERPRETATION HAPPENS BEFORE THE TRANSLATION PROCESS CAN BEGIN.

For good transmission of a message from one language to another, it requires that the same message/intent of the original source text is transmitted to the reader of the translated text. Sadly, the message content is not always transmitted correctly in this process. Why you even have difficulties in understanding the message content of English post. Can I rest my case now, or do you want to continue your AD HOMINEM fallacy arguments.