It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:30 am

HSC AffiliatesClick here for our affiliate link to Christianbook.comDonate to HSC





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8837
Hmmmm. I'd like to continue this discussion here as I do feel it's an important "Bible Study" question. For those that are feeling uncomfortable with it, you can choose not to read any more on this thread. :)

Scott, from where have you gained your personal knowledge from which you speak?

My position, as far as translations go, is that the KJV has been around long enuf that most (or maybe even all) of its "problems" are well known by Bible scholars, and it was translated from the Received Text, so that makes it *my* best foundational tool for Bible study.

Obviously I still have questions since that's what started this thread. ;-) I still don't understand where the word *mourning* comes in - HOW could it be derived from "leviathan" unless maybe there was some kind of idiom that would suggest it?

But, I would like to hear what you find "terrible" about the NIV. It seems to be *THE* Bible study version by several prominent teachers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 1095
I'm really glad that all involved have tried to be clear and apologetic when things got a bit heated. That is helpful. It is interesting to hear they why's behind how a person has come to the conclusion they have regarding differnt issues. It is most important that God is bigger than this all and His Holy Spirit is here to guide us through such thing.

I love a good academic discussion, even when I don't fully comprehend it all. I know I'm intellectually capable of greater understanding, but my reality is, I'm really busy raising my family, loving my husband, and trying to attend to all those that the Lord brings before me along the way. So, thank you all for adding bits and thoughts to this discussion. Now we can all mull things over, follow where we find God leading and move on to other important things.

As always, I love this group!! You keep me thinking, seeking, re-evaluating so much.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Sis wrote:
Scott, from where have you gained your personal knowledge from which you speak?

I'm not sure which "personal" knowledge you are referring to. None of what I have cited is based on "personal" knowledge, it's based on the underlying Greek and the meaning thereof.

Sis wrote:
My position, as far as translations go, is that the KJV has been around long enuf that most (or maybe even all) of its "problems" are well known by Bible scholars, and it was translated from the Received Text, so that makes it *my* best foundational tool for Bible study.

As I said, it's a decent translation, but it's not perfect. No translation is. The "Textus Receptus" is actually a conglomeration/compilation of several different Greek manuscripts (just like the "Majority Text" is) and also includes re-translations into the Greek from the Latin Vulgate version. Folks talk about the Textus Receptus like it was one manuscript copied down for thousands of years, but the reality is that in the early 16th century Greek scholars took half a dozen different early manuscripts and merged them together into the Textus Receptus. They excluded some manuscripts that they thought were "newer" because they weren't thought to be "original material," but ironically they have since discovered manuscripts which date back even further and which are included in other translations. The "Received Text" is actually a compilation of what one group of Greek scholars selected in the 16th century, there is no one manuscript that is a direct copy to copy down over time. The "Received Text" was edited/modified over a dozen times over the hundred years immediately after it was compiled, and the "Textus Receptus" that is referred to as such didn't actually get published until 20 years after the KJV was originally published. The phrase "textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus" was first used in the foreword of a Greek NT published in 1633, while the KJV was first published in 1611. Note the textum and receptum in there? That was where we get textus receptus, and over time folks used that phrase to refer to the earlier editions of the Greek NT (all still compilations).

Sis wrote:
Obviously I still have questions since that's what started this thread. ;-) I still don't understand where the word *mourning* comes in - HOW could it be derived from "leviathan" unless maybe there was some kind of idiom that would suggest it?

Excellent question. It is right up there with "How could the translators say "God forbid" when the word for God is not in any of those passages?" The word (even in the manuscripts used by the KJV translators) is leviathan, and everywhere else that word appears in the OT Hebrew it is translated as leviathan.

Sis wrote:
But, I would like to hear what you find "terrible" about the NIV. It seems to be *THE* Bible study version by several prominent teachers.

The NIV glosses over some things and uses some phrases that clearly give vastly different connotations. Part of this is because the underlying philosophical approach behind this translation was noble but flawed. The translators on the NIV wanted to tell people what the Scriptures meant instead of what they said. They wanted to convey the ideas instead of translating the words. There are a lot of specific liberties they take when they do this, and if you want I'll start a list (or provide a link to a place or three or three dozen that has a good list of clear textual errors of the NIV)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8837
I'm not sure which "personal" knowledge you are referring to. None of what I have cited is based on "personal" knowledge, it's based on the underlying Greek and the meaning thereof.

I mean did you go to Bible school? Have you done a lot of personal study? Do you go to the internet or books or a scholar when you answer these questions? From whence is thy knowledge? :geek:

As I said, it's a decent translation, but it's not perfect. No translation is. The "Textus Receptus" is actually a conglomeration/compilation of several different Greek manuscripts (just like the "Majority Text" is) and also includes re-translations into the Greek from the Latin Vulgate version.

My understanding was that the Received Text and the Majority Text was the same thing; isn't it?

Excellent question. It is right up there with "How could the translators say "God forbid" when the word for God is not in any of those passages?" The word (even in the manuscripts used by the KJV translators) is leviathan, and everywhere else that word appears in the OT Hebrew it is translated as leviathan.

LOL! OKOK! I'll get to the "God forbid" in a bit. I know it says leviathan but then tell me this. How DOES *LEVIATHAN* fit in the context of the verse?!

Yes, please - either start citing some or link, I don't care. : )

I'm not against tho't by tho't translating. I find it needful at times as when teaching a younger sunday school class. I do see the dangers in it, tho'!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: "God forbid".
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8837
Wow! I wonder if that term was especially common during the writing of the KJV? It's rather remarkable that it's in there SO many times with no direct translation. It seems more likely to mean something like "may it not be" from my own "translation" of the Greek. (Having absolutely NO knowledge of Greek, I should add.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Sis wrote:
I mean did you go to Bible school? Have you done a lot of personal study? Do you go to the internet or books or a scholar when you answer these questions? From whence is thy knowledge?

Long ago, when I was in 5th grade, we had a Sunday school teacher who started us on a little Greek. I went to a congregation where we were deep into the Scriptures in our study from about 3rd grade on, and I went to Bible camps in the summer where we had 10 or more Bible classes a week, and I did outside reading/study on my own. When I was in college, we had to have a Bible class every semester we were enrolled full time (I got 3 degrees at that school and consequently 14 or 15 different upper level courses lasting an entire semester ranging from the Pentateuch to Hebrew Poetry and Wisdom Literature to General Letters and Life of Christ and lots of stuff in between). I know enough Greek to look at the various manuscripts and look at the words there and look them up and one of the greatest resources out there is blueletterbible. They let you look at the text in multiple versions of the manuscript. A great example is the discussion the other day of Philippians 4:13. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Phl&c=4&t=NASB#conc/13 This shows you two manuscripts and tells you the difference, and goes through word by word to show which Greek words became which English words, and you can click on the Greek to find it elsewherein the Bible and get the Greek dictionary entry. I use that when studying, preparing to preach (I do that anywhere from a couple times a year to a dozen or more times a year to fill in for preachers who are traveling, sick, etc), preparing to teach Bible classes, discuss things in forums, whatnot.

Sis wrote:
My understanding was that the Received Text and the Majority Text was the same thing; isn't it?

Yeah, sorry. Those are actually similar but not the same. I was thinking of the newer compilations and not the Majority Text. Ironically, the Textus Receptus was based on the Majority Text, but made some changes and in fact differs from the Majority Text in roughly 2,000 places. (most of these are minor and inconsequential, but a few are not). Some of these appear to have been introduced when the authors of the Textus Receptus chose to ignore existing Greek manuscripts and instead pull in Latin translations from Latin Vulgate manuscripts (this is, ironically, one of the complaints about translations using the latter set of manuscripts - that those pull in the Latin inappropriately on occasion when the Textus Receptus did the same thing but used less reliable Latin manuscripts when doing so).

To sum that up again, there was the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus was a compilation based on that but is NOT the same. A later compilation was made that included other Greek manuscripts unknown when Textus Receptus was compiled. In some points, the later agrees with the Majority Text where Textus Receptus disagrees, and in some cases it disagrees with both of the other two. How's that for thoroughly confusing?

Sis wrote:
LOL! OKOK! I'll get to the "God forbid" in a bit. I know it says leviathan but then tell me this. How DOES *LEVIATHAN* fit in the context of the verse?!


Good question.

"Let those curse it who curse the day, who are prepared to rouse Leviathan" is the NASB translation. Job is talking about wishing he had never been born and wishing that day were destroyed. He says to let those curse it who curse the day (who are sick of living) and who are prepared to rouse leviathan (who would be prepared to rouse a monster save one eager for destruction?) I think it makes perfect sense in the context of calling for the destruction of the day of his birth, which is most of the chapter including this verse.

Sis wrote:
Yes, please - either start citing some or link, I don't care. : )

I'm not against tho't by tho't translating. I find it needful at times as when teaching a younger sunday school class. I do see the dangers in it, tho'!

I used to like the NIV. I used it when working with teenagers and others who liked the "simple" language. My first really eye-opening experience with it came when I was having a conversation about marriage with a young youth minister and some kids in a Bible class.
Here's what Matthew 19:9 says in the NIV:
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
contrast that with KJV:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
or NASB:
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Apparently a whole school of thought has cropped up using the NIV that says "marital unfaithfulness" can include lots of stuff other than sexual immorality, but the word in the Greek there is πορνεία which transliterates as porneia (the root word of fornication and pornography). The "idea" translation becomes like a game of telephone. The youth minister was saying that this verse covered stuff beyond just sexual immorality as a Scriptural justification for divorce and remarriage, and we ended up looking into the Greek to convince him. That was my first real "Wow, I can't believe how badly the NIV screwed that up" moment.

Here's a link (ironically from a KJV only guy) that lits some good and valid complaints with the NIV, and it has stuff beyond the manuscript selection. If you want more, I'll get some more for you.
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "God forbid".
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Sis wrote:
Wow! I wonder if that term was especially common during the writing of the KJV? It's rather remarkable that it's in there SO many times with no direct translation. It seems more likely to mean something like "may it not be" from my own "translation" of the Greek. (Having absolutely NO knowledge of Greek, I should add.)

I know. Best I can figure is that it was a popular colloquialism that slipped in when they were translating the KJV and everybody just accepted it (an idea translation on their part)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 5828
scottbiddle wrote:
Here's what Matthew 19:9 says in the NIV:
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
contrast that with KJV:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
or NASB:
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Apparently a whole school of thought has cropped up using the NIV that says "marital unfaithfulness" can include lots of stuff other than sexual immorality, but the word in the Greek there is πορνεία which transliterates as porneia (the root word of fornication and pornography).


This is off topic but it is something I've wondered about for a while... does this mean that a person can divorce a spouse that is involved in pornography? That it is Biblically acceptable to do so?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Tory wrote:
This is off topic but it is something I've wondered about for a while... does this mean that a person can divorce a spouse that is involved in pornography? That it is Biblically acceptable to do so?

That is a great question. This word is translated throughout the New Testament as "Adultery", "Fornication", or "Sexual Immorality". The question would be whether pornography, which is clearly related to those, constitutes one of those.

The best perspective I have heard on it (in my opinion) is that the reasoning behind this prohibition on divorce/re-marriage appears to be that a married couple are "one flesh" (that's what Jesus says in Matthew 19:5-6 right before this). The reasoning continues that if either member willingly joins themselves sexually to another person in the flesh they are causing that split themselves. Pornography/lust/etc. are not good and they are the moral equivalent of Adultery (Matthew 5:28), but the earthly consequences of thought (Lust) and action (Adultery) aren't necessarily the same. For example, Paul didn't tell the church at Corinth to expel someone for lusting after another person, but he did tell them to expel someone living in a sexually immoral relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Theme designed by stylerbb.net © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]