Soul sleep

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Phoneman777 said:
Seriously? You might be interested to know that all the modern versions of the Bible are based upon only minuscule fraction of all the ancient MSS that exist today, something like 5 out of every 1,000, according to the Dean Burgon Society. These ancient MSS have been the subject of massive debate for hundreds of years regarding their voracity and authenticity, and many believe, as I do, that they were manufactured frauds intended to undermine the truth of Christ and the Gospel. To say that the newer versions are from "better sources" to me at the very least a bold statement.
St. Jerome had access to the oldest extant copies: Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic which he translated into the Latin Vulgate.
An excellent Youtube documentary is "Lamp In The Darkness: The Untold Story Of The Bible", untold because scandal and controversy are not welcomed ingredients for the Ecumenical Soup that is being cooked up today by those who place Unity of religions above Christ and His truth.
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.
Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.
The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation):
The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."
The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."
Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."
The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.
For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.
The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."
If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation.
Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author can be obscured.
BIBLE TRANSLATION GUIDE
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
StanJ said:
It doesn't matter how many English versions you read, if you refuse to recognize the truth you will never recognize the truth. You are not of the spiritual world, you are of and only of the physical world. This is why you fail to understand the spiritual things of God even when you eat them.
So you even know what the word Spiritual means?

It often means related to or effecting the Spirit of God in many cases; or in the context you are using it is means related to the fruits of the Spirit.

Natural on the other hand is related to the natural, aka world, flesh, soul, animal, and the like. In the contest you are using it then it means related to the works of the flesh.

Note: I modified the 2nd meaning of spiritual on Google to fit the more specific meaning used in Scripture.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
The NLT claims to be literal but they failed to translate it into the literal equivalent which is either soulish or soulical. Soulish is in Merriam-Webster online and might work best because of that availability.

kerwin,


Your are understanding of the translation philosophy of the New Living Translation seems to be influenced by some of the misleading explanations in the current edition of the NLT.

The NLT does not claim to be a literal translation in the first 1996 edition. Perhaps you gained this notion from what is stated by Tyndale House regarding the current edition of the NLT. All one has to do is compare the ESV with the NLT to see that the NLT is not formal equivalence or literal in its translation philosophy but is dynamic-equivalence predominantly.

This is what the NLT of 1996 stated of itself:


Thus, the NLT of 1996 acknowledges that it is a dynamic-equivalence translation and NOT a literal (formal equivalence) translation. The current edition is an update of the 1996 model.

The latest edition of the NLT from Tyndale House Publishers gives an impression that it is literal except where literal doesn't convey the meaning. Here is what Tyndale states:

A reading of the NLT demonstrates that it is a dynamic equivalence translation much of the time.

Oz
Yes, I did misunderstand that NLT is a paraphrased version. I do not regard such as reputable as more literal ones as there is more chance of the translators bias creeping in. Never the less, natural is acceptable in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:44 but it is not the best since the later is a teaching that is derived from the order of creation outlined in Genesis 1.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
kepha31 said:
Seriously? You might be interested to know that all the modern versions of the Bible are based upon only minuscule fraction of all the ancient MSS that exist today, something like 5 out of every 1,000, according to the Dean Burgon Society. These ancient MSS have been the subject of massive debate for hundreds of years regarding their voracity and authenticity, and many believe, as I do, that they were manufactured frauds intended to undermine the truth of Christ and the Gospel. To say that the newer versions are from "better sources" to me at the very least a bold statement.
St. Jerome had access to the oldest extant copies: Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic which he translated into the Latin Vulgate.
An excellent Youtube documentary is "Lamp In The Darkness: The Untold Story Of The Bible", untold because scandal and controversy are not welcomed ingredients for the Ecumenical Soup that is being cooked up today by those who place Unity of religions above Christ and His truth.
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.
Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.
The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation):
The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."
The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."
Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."
The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.
For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.
The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."
If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation.
Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author can be obscured.
BIBLE TRANSLATION GUIDE






Well written piece!
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
Yes, I did misunderstand that NLT is a paraphrased version. I do not regard such as reputable as more literal ones as there is more chance of the translators bias creeping in. Never the less, natural is acceptable in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:44 but it is not the best since the later is a teaching that is derived from the order of creation outlined in Genesis 1.
kerwin,

There you go again. The NLT is not a paraphrased version. It is dynamic-equivalence, which is translating meaning-for-meaning. If you want a paraphrased version, go to The Message or The Living Bible. The NLT is a completely new translation, dynamic-equivalence in translation philosophy and not paraphrased philosophy of translation.

Oz
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
So you even know what the word Spiritual means?
It often means related to or effecting the Spirit of God in many cases; or in the context you are using it is means related to the fruits of the Spirit.
Natural on the other hand is related to the natural, aka world, flesh, soul, animal, and the like. In the contest you are using it then it means related to the works of the flesh.
Note: I modified the 2nd meaning of spiritual on Google to fit the more specific meaning used in Scripture.
It has already been well established throughout this forum that your comprehension of the English language is somewhat lacking as it is not your mother tongue. Please don't assume to lecture me about what the English means. I've been studying the Bible for over 45 years and I can assure you I know exactly what it means when conveyed in English, and how to study the Greek when people such as yourself try to misrepresent what the actual scripture says.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
kerwin,

There you go again. The NLT is not a paraphrased version. It is dynamic-equivalence, which is translating meaning-for-meaning. If you want a paraphrased version, go to The Message or The Living Bible. The NLT is a completely new translation, dynamic-equivalence in translation philosophy and not paraphrased philosophy of translation.

Oz
That is also the definition of paraphrase though there might be some subtle difference.

The literal form you spoke of is called formal-equivalence.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
StanJ said:
It has already been well established throughout this forum that your comprehension of the English language is somewhat lacking as it is not your mother tongue. Please don't assume to lecture me about what the English means. I've been studying the Bible for over 45 years and I can assure you I know exactly what it means when conveyed in English, and how to study the Greek when people such as yourself try to misrepresent what the actual scripture says.
The quality of your answer is low.

I disagree about you knowing English because you stumble over verb tenses while I am wise enough to use sources that know more than me.

I happen to know that what I told you is actually known by experts but I doubt you really care. If you do then you can do some research like I have.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,365
2,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kerwin said:
The comparison does not work since the two do not correspond.

I agree that the living soul did not exist until the body and breath came together but Scripture treats the soul is an offspring of the mating of the two and therefore not depending on the existence of either one.

Scripture speaks of the soul going to hell , aka Sheol, or Hades, after death and it also states it is down (Genesis 37:35) as opposed to the spirit ascending. Genesis 35:18 speaks of the soul departing as opposed to ceasing to exist.
Of course the comparisons correspond. Scripture does not treat the soul as an "offspring" at all. Not one verse.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
That is also the definition of paraphrase though there might be some subtle difference.

The literal form you spoke of is called formal-equivalence.
I am a translator of the Greek NT into English and a paraphrased version is not equivalent to a dynamic equivalence version.

This comparison chart demonstrates that a paraphrase translation is not synonymous with dynamic equivalence. This is the statement about the NLT from this chart, 'Translators were involved in bringing the classic Living Bible from its status as a paraphrase to a thought-for-thought translation [i.e. dynamic equivalence] of Scripture.' See:

 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
I am a translator of the Greek NT into English and a paraphrased version is not equivalent to a dynamic equivalence version.

This comparison chart demonstrates that a paraphrase translation is not synonymous with dynamic equivalence. This is the statement about the NLT from this chart, 'Translators were involved in bringing the classic Living Bible from its status as a paraphrase to a thought-for-thought translation [i.e. dynamic equivalence] of Scripture.' See:

Still not seeing the difference and the comment on your source regards Colossians 2:9-10 supports what I understand though I understand it is only one instance and therefore reflect only that one instance.

Comments: I like the NLT’s paraphrase here. I think it captures nicely what the text is teaching. And again, The Message is way out in left field. A horoscope! Besides the text says nothing about realizing the fullness of Christ. Rather, Paul asserts that the fullness of the divine nature or of deity dwells in him
I also found this claim that treats it like there is a difference but nothing to say what the actual difference. In short I see no metrics to measure it by.

Translators were involved in bringing the classic Living Bible from its status as a paraphrase to a thought-for-thought translation of Scripture
I can hypothesis what the difference is since paraphrase is general used putting other words to the same meaning in the same language and dynamic equivalency seems to refer to translating the meanings from one language to another.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Phoneman777 said:
Of course the comparisons correspond. Scripture does not treat the soul as an "offspring" at all. Not one verse.
I obviously disagree because Scripture does speak of the soul departing the body and descending to Sheol after death.

In addition the verses involved destroy the argument that the stops existing after death and Scripture cannot be broken.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
The quality of your answer is low
I disagree about you knowing English because you stumble over verb tenses while I am wise enough to use sources that know more than me.
I happen to know that what I told you is actually known by experts but I doubt you really care. If you do then you can do some research like I have.
All you've done now is gone from being ignorant to being outrageous. Typical for somebody who can't deal with issues.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
Still not seeing the difference and the comment on your source regards Colossians 2:9-10 supports what I understand though I understand it is only one instance and therefore reflect only that one instance.


I also found this claim that treats it like there is a difference but nothing to say what the actual difference. In short I see no metrics to measure it by.

I can hypothesis what the difference is since paraphrase is general used putting other words to the same meaning in the same language and dynamic equivalency seems to refer to translating the meanings from one language to another.
kerwin,

These are the differences among these 3 types of Bible translation philosophies:

Methods of Translation
  1. Literal translation [formal equivalence]. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).
  2. Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB), [New Living Translation (NLT)].
  3. Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message (source)
Oz
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
StanJ said:
All you've done now is gone from being ignorant to being outrageous. Typical for somebody who can't deal with issues.
Thank you for the persecution, but you honor me beyond what I deserve.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,365
2,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
I am a translator of the Greek NT into English and a paraphrased version is not equivalent to a dynamic equivalence version.
kerwin said:
I obviously disagree because Scripture does speak of the soul departing the body and descending to Sheol after death.

In addition the verses involved destroy the argument that the stops existing after death and Scripture cannot be broken
Friend, you're basing your "immortal soul" idea on three or four texts that you either misinterpret or fail to see are figurative. How do I know? Please answer whether the following texts line up with what you say or what I say about what happens when we die:
  • The dead don't know anything. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead have no memory. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead feel no emotions. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not work. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not lay plans. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not have wisdom or knowledge. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead no longer have thoughts to think. Psalms 146:3-4 KJV
  • The dead do not praise the Lord. Psalms 115:17 KJV
  • The dead do not know the fates of their children. Job 14:21 KJV
  • The dead do not remember anything. Psalms 88:11-12 KJV
  • The dead do not return to the land of the living. Job 7:10 KJV
  • The dead have nothing to do with anything that happens on Earth until the resurrection. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • Souls need to be saved from death. James 5:20 KJV
  • Souls that sin will die. Ezekiel 18:4 KJV (refers to "literal death" b/c "spiritual death" is in present tense (1 Timothy 5:6 KJV)
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,365
2,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
kerwin,

These are the differences among these 3 types of Bible translation philosophies:


Oz
I disagree with "thought for thought" Dynamic Equvalence methodology - creates room for a spin zone. That's why the KJV translators stuck to Formal Equivalence and Verbal Equivalence.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Phoneman777 said:
Friend, you're basing your "immortal soul" idea on three or four texts that you either misinterpret or fail to see are figurative. How do I know? Please answer whether the following texts line up with what you say or what I say about what happens when we die:
  • The dead don't know anything. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead have no memory. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead feel no emotions. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not work. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not lay plans. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not have wisdom or knowledge. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead no longer have thoughts to think. Psalms 146:3-4 KJV
  • The dead do not praise the Lord. Psalms 115:17 KJV
  • The dead do not know the fates of their children. Job 14:21 KJV
  • The dead do not remember anything. Psalms 88:11-12 KJV
  • The dead do not return to the land of the living. Job 7:10 KJV
  • The dead have nothing to do with anything that happens on Earth until the resurrection. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • Souls need to be saved from death. James 5:20 KJV
  • Souls that sin will die. Ezekiel 18:4 KJV (refers to "literal death" b/c "spiritual death" is in present tense (1 Timothy 5:6 KJV)
I base my faith on on my conviction that Jesus would not use a false teaching and the literal interpretation of several passages of Scripture as well as limited know of what teaching were current in the first century and possibly some other things I am not thinking of. I also strive to throw out modern interpretations that are influenced by the current "knowledge" of our world that is derived through separating the physical world from the real of God. Some "modern" ideas are merely rewording of ancient ones and they are more likely to be accurate.

I think yours is a relatively modern, after the first century, interpretation. For example to my knowledge some of the interpretations you use are based on the vagueness of English words and not that of the Hebrew they were translated from. Other are misinterpretations clearly.

I have to go over them when I have time as my memory betrays me by lying about what I have learned in the past.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
Phoneman777 said:
Friend, you're basing your "immortal soul" idea on three or four texts that you either misinterpret or fail to see are figurative. How do I know? Please answer whether the following texts line up with what you say or what I say about what happens when we die:
  • The dead don't know anything. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead have no memory. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead feel no emotions. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not work. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not lay plans. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
  • The dead do not have wisdom or knowledge. Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV
...
This passage testifies that the dead go to Sheol in verse 10 and that Sheol is not under the sun.

It also seems that two shades would not be communicating according to this description but that may be a modern viewpoint. The Ancients looked at many things different than we do in this day and age.