Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By a knowledge of Biblical theology and hermeneutics. It's very basic.
The problem is that the YLT is wrong- it's outdated- which is why it's free.
But how do you know if the persons biblical theology and hermeneutics is correct? In other words, wouldn't you first need to know what the text says in order to formulate what theology can be derived therefrom?
How do know the YLT is wrong? It is outdated when compared with todays hip-hop speech, yes...LOL But I don't think that's why it is free. It's copy-right may have lapsed and perhaps a generation has come into existence that cannot appreciate it's value, but it's value is of much greater worth than most of the newer translations, NIV included. Would you not agree?
But how do you know if the persons biblical theology and hermeneutics is correct? In other words, wouldn't you first need to know what the text says in order to formulate what theology can be derived therefrom?
Yes, you would need to know that.
Quote:
How do know the YLT is wrong?
By use of lexicons. I haven't checked all of mine, but 'pronunciation' is not included.
Quote:
It is outdated when compared with todays hip-hop speech, yes...LOL But I don't think that's why it is free. It's copy-right may have lapsed
Of course. I did wink.
Though you do, on the whole, get what you pay for. Scholarship moves on.
Quote:
and perhaps a generation has come into existence that cannot appreciate it's value, but it's value is of much greater worth than most of the newer translations, NIV included. Would you not agree?
No, I wouldn't agree. The YLT is quite well-known as inaccurate, and you won't find many scholars who use it or recommend it. It may be useful much of the time, but will let you down- and you don't know when that is. Though so will the NIV, and everything else in print.
Until recently there was no such thing as a literal translation, and even now there isn't one, really, because Hebrew, in particular, has several possible meanings for many of its words. That's why churches should teach Hebrew- and Greek, too, five days a week!
As a side note, this is one of the reasons this board has become wearisome to me. It seems that most of the time people here are talking past each other--as you have done to me. As a result, the discussions on this board generate more heat than light. I got involved in this thread because I thought it might be different. How foolish of me to think so.
.
Jremy,
As in all things there is good and bad ---- I have found on this board there are things to learn, even if it is knowing when to bow out of a "conversation" that seems to be going nowhere.
I happen to agree with you in your example that adding the descriptive word "sinful" to the actual word that was in the original text "flesh" is adding to it and is not being true to the text.
Though you do, on the whole, get what you pay for. Scholarship moves on.
No, I wouldn't agree. The YLT is quite well-known as inaccurate, and you won't find many scholars who use it or recommend it. It may be useful much of the time, but will let you down- and you don't know when that is. Though so will the NIV, and everything else in print.
Until recently there was no such thing as a literal translation, and even now there isn't one, really, because Hebrew, in particular, has several possible meanings for many of its words. That's why churches should teach Hebrew- and Greek, too, five days a week!
I think what is actually happening in biblical scholorship is that yes, it is moving. I'm just not sure if it is moving "up" (heavenly) or "down" (earthly)...LOL It would seem the farther we are removed in time from an original event, the more distant we become from it. Would you agree?
Biblical scholarship is not like modern science that finds itself discovering "new frontiers" that lay ahead, never before seen by man. Biblical scholarship, on the other hand, is more akin to archeology that looks back in time at events and manuscripts that find their beginnings in the past. As we become more and more removed from those events and manuscripts, the more interpretation, hypothesizing, debating, formulating and guessing...lol...is required to understand what we are in-fact looking at. Thus, making it all the more difficult to know if anything modern is actually closer to the truth than it was even 100 years ago, let alone 2,000 years ago. The farther we become removed from those events, the less we actually know about them, even though we may have more manuscripts, in number, to look at.
I think what is actually happening in biblical scholorship is that yes, it is moving. I'm just not sure if it is moving "up" (heavenly) or "down" (earthly)...LOL It would seem the farther we are removed in time from an original event, the more distant we become from it. Would you agree?
On the contrary, I think that the technical advances in Biblical studies of the last few decades have been remarkable- I personally feel that we have the same sort of feel available to us that the apostolic generation had, better, in fact, than the third century AD generations or even earlier had. The deep irony is that we have achieved this at the point when we are afraid of, and detest, what we have discovered, more than we ever have. What is more, we have discovered that the world of Paul and the apostles was in some important ways similar to our own.
What is different about our world is that we are in retreat- desperate denial of gospel truth, clinging to failed old traditions and new follies, neither of which sort we can possibly believe in. We have 'scholars' in universities spouting amazing nonsense that even teenagers can see through. 'Experts' appear on TV, who stimulate the most asinine of 'debates' on the internet and even in the press. And we have Bible translations that are technically wonderful, yet make the mind boggle with their spiritual inventiveness. All of these things would have been jaw-dropping to theologians, philosophers and scientists of even fifty years ago.
The best translations that I like are the NKJV, but MODERN-KJV and KJV or some most Bibles are usefull,,,, where Bible that I do not like come from the bibles were the root are simular to NIV , NLV, the New Living Versions are lased with promoting to be proud and accepting pride as a acceptable way.,,, NIV has a simular root interpetation but a little less pride word in the scripture.... The Message Bible is also lased with pride as acceptable terminology word which if I had one it would be in the trash can, good place for it .......Heard Most Spanish Bibles are watered down over the years, but one bible they have is the only true Bible..... Sorry if these Bibles are the ones that you like.......
On the contrary, I think that the technical advances in Biblical studies of the last few decades have been remarkable- I personally feel that we have the same sort of feel available to us that the apostolic generation had, better, in fact, than the third century AD generations or even earlier had. The deep irony is that we have achieved this at the point when we are afraid of, and detest, what we have discovered, more than we ever have. What is more, we have discovered that the world of Paul and the apostles was in some important ways similar to our own.
What is different about our world is that we are in retreat- desperate denial of gospel truth, clinging to failed old traditions and new follies, neither of which sort we can possibly believe in. We have 'scholars' in universities spouting amazing nonsense that even teenagers can see through. 'Experts' appear on TV, who stimulate the most asinine of 'debates' on the internet and even in the press. And we have Bible translations that are technically wonderful, yet make the mind boggle with their spiritual inventiveness. All of these things would have been jaw-dropping to theologians, philosophers and scientists of even fifty years ago.
See, I would probably disagree with your premise and the conclusions you've drawn therefrom. I would say the closer you are to an actual event, the closer you are to understanding it. Take our U.S. Constitution for instance. Do we know more about it today than those that went before us? I doubt it. The USSC will interpret it differently today, but I doubt they have greater insight than those who sat on the Bench shortly after it was written. I would imagine we know less about it's actual meaning and intent today than those of yesterday, and even less so than those going back further.
I think textual criticism works in a similar way. Biblical manuscripts are perhaps more plentiful and we have more to "look at" in terms of numbers, but I'm not sure we're actually "seeing" those manuscripts any better. Just more of them to see. Years ago I spent a considerable amount of time researching the various thoughts on textual criticism and how they arrived at the critical text used for most translations today. I'm not really of the opinion of modern scholarship and the translations they produce.
So let me ask you. Do you feel we know more today about Moses, David and the Prophets than those who lived during the days of Jesus?
See, I would probably disagree with your premise and the conclusions you've drawn therefrom. I would say the closer you are to an actual event, the closer you are to understanding it.
If it is suggested that the late medievals knew more about ancient Palestine than we do, I don't think many will agree!
Quote:
I think textual criticism works in a similar way. Biblical manuscripts are perhaps more plentiful and we have more to "look at" in terms of numbers, but I'm not sure we're actually "seeing" those manuscripts any better. Just more of them to see. Years ago I spent a considerable amount of time researching the various thoughts on textual criticism and how they arrived at the critical text used for most translations today. I'm not really of the opinion of modern scholarship and the translations they produce.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, as, of course, is the majority, which takes another view.
Quote:
So let me ask you. Do you feel we we know more today about Moses, David and the Prophets than those who lived during the days of Jesus?
Possibly not. But we probably know considerably more about them today than almost every generation since the Roman destruction of Judaea.
If it is suggested that the late medievals knew more about ancient Palestine than we do, I don't think many will agree!
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, as, of course, is the majority, which takes another view.
Possibly not. But we probably know considerably more about them today than almost every generation since the Roman destruction of Judaea.
I like your style Shibata...easy to dialogue with. By the way, what translation do you recommend reading from in English, and why so, if you don't mind?
I like your style Shibata...easy to dialogue with.
Thank you- and you, too.
Quote:
By the way, what translation do you recommend reading from in English, and why so, if you don't mind?
Oh dear. I don't like any of them, much! All of them make me screw up my eyes in pain, though the two I mention next do so less often than most.
For reading for devotional purposes the Good News Bible is very useful. It is accessible and 'cosy', yet scholarly (approved by the United Bible Societies), and arrived in that brief window when Bible scholarship was on the rise, but PC and the latest heresies had not yet arrived. The NIV contains error like the rest, but it is popular because it translates the NT, most of the time, just as many Greek students translate- it's a bit uncanny that way. So for personal devotion, or teaching children, I suggest the GNB, for generally accurate (though not reliable) teaching in a fellowship or class of adults, the NIV.
The original NLT (New Living Translation) was dreadful, but after much criticism, was revised, and the 2nd Edition is supposed to be much better. I've got both, but not read the 2nd Ed. much yet, so I can't say too much, but it seems quite an improvement so far. It is certainly ahead of the field for the latest scholarship, has excellent maps, and is an 'easy reader'. Might be worth a try.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
