Bible Translations

[Steve Petersen]

Sorry but there is not such thing as "original" greek new testament manuscripts because the new testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The septuagint was the greek translation of the Hebrew new testament!

Back to school for you. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OLD Testament. Septuagint - Wikipedia

As for the original NT manuscripts being in Hebrew or Aramaic: so far none have been found. We have only some early church fathers saying that some were.

 

[GeorgeJ]

Paul said this in 1Corinthians:1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." This IS the Christian experience. .

Wonder of wonders.........it says the same thing in the NIV and ESV!

Imagine that!

 

[GeorgeJ]

Sorry but there is not such thing as "original" greek new testament manuscripts because the new testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The septuagint was the greek translation of the Hebrew new testament!

Nope.

In addition, the KJV translators used GREEK (and Latin) texts for their new testament translation because......well...they were no Hebrew or Aramaic new testament manuscripts available for them to use. How does this fit in with your KJV-only stance?

 

[Dave-W]

The septuagint was the greek translation of the Hebrew new testament!

Wrong. It was a Greek translation of the OLD testament.

 

[now faith]

Here is another Baptist, who supports the King James:

 

[now faith]

There are no perfect bible translations. None.

Then all theology is flawed.

 

[OzSpen]

Which - unfortunately, are no longer in existence.

Therefore, we must rely on copies of MSS that go back a long way. We can quote most of the NT from the church fathers.

In my understanding, no translation is inerrant.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry but there is not such thing as "original" greek new testament manuscripts because the new testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The septuagint was the greek translation of the Hebrew new testament!

From where did you obtain that information?

 

[OzSpen]

Then all theology is flawed.

That's because you and I are flawed, imperfect, ineffective and sinful.

 

[Dave-W]

Therefore, we must rely on copies of MSS that go back a long way. We can quote most of the NT from the church fathers.

There are Aramaic manuscripts that go back to the time of the ECFs that have not been altered by them, as early as some of the oldest Greek manuscripts.

In my understanding, no translation is inerrant.

That is true. Have you ever heard of (or read) the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?

Opening paragraph X:
"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture."

 

[GeorgeJ]

Then all theology is flawed.

Nope. Just yours.

 

[now faith]

That's because you and I are flawed, imperfect, ineffective and sinful.

1 John: 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
We are joint heirs in the body of Christ by his Blood.
God cannot look upon sin ,therefore we through Christ have been redeemed from the flawed sin nature into the perfection of the body of Christ.
All men have sinned ,but Christ has made us sinless by his Blood.

It is called grace.

 

[OzSpen]

There are Aramaic manuscripts that go back to the time of the ECFs that have not been altered by them, as early as some of the oldest Greek manuscripts.

That is true. Have you ever heard of (or read) the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?

Opening paragraph X:
"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture."

Yes I know of and fully support the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

People commonly say to me in person and on forums: But we don’t have the originals so it is pointless to talk about the inerrancy of original documents we do not have. Do you think so?

I have found R. Laird Harris’s statement helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

‘Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it' (Harris 1969:88-89).​

Oz

Works consulted

Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[OzSpen]

1 John: 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
We are joint heirs in the body of Christ by his Blood.
God cannot look upon sin ,therefore we through Christ have been redeemed from the flawed sin nature into the perfection of the body of Christ.
All men have sinned ,but Christ has made us sinless by his Blood.

It is called grace.

now faith,

Christ has not made us sinless by his blood sacrifice. This sacrifice means I am justified by faith - declared righteous. It's a legal position before God.

As to your use of the KJV of 1 John 3:9, it conveys a view that the Greek language does not support.

The translators of the NIV have tried to convey the meaning of the Greek tenses in this verse, 1 John 3:9 (NIV): 'No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God'.

There is a similar message to this in 1 John 3:6 (NIV), 'No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him'.

The issues from 1 John 3:9 (NIV) are:

1. We are talking about those who are born again (favourite language of John), those who are 'born of God'. We are talking about Christians who have been changed from the inside by God.
2. These Christians will not continue to sin as a lifestyle. They cannot go on sinning in that way. The Greek present tense verb indicates continuous action, so the NIV presents an acceptable translation. The thought in this verse is NOT that Christians will never commit acts of sin. It is not saying that born again believers will not sin but that they will not persist in sin.
3. So, the born again believer cannot live in habitual sin.
4. BUT, there is the possibility of committing occasional acts of sin - as I can testify in my own life. If we commit those acts of sin, 1 John 1:9 (NIV) tells us what we are to do: 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness'.

That's my understanding of 1 John 3:9 and the Greek verb used. Also, it makes practical sense. We know from the preceding verse, 1 John 3:8 (ESV) that 'whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil'. In other words, they have not been born of God.

That's my exegesis for what it's worth.

Oz

 

[now faith]

now faith,

Christ has not made us sinless by his blood sacrifice. This sacrifice means I am justified by faith - declared righteous. It's a legal position before God.

As to your use of the KJV of 1 John 3:9, it conveys a view that the Greek language does not support.

The translators of the NIV have tried to convey the meaning of the Greek tenses in this verse, 1 John 3:9 (NIV): 'No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God'.

There is a similar message to this in 1 John 3:6 (NIV), 'No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him'.

The issues from 1 John 3:9 (NIV) are:

1. We are talking about those who are born again (favourite language of John), those who are 'born of God'. We are talking about Christians who have been changed from the inside by God.
2. These Christians will not continue to sin as a lifestyle. They cannot go on sinning in that way. The Greek present tense verb indicates continuous action, so the NIV presents an acceptable translation. The thought in this verse is NOT that Christians will never commit acts of sin. It is not saying that born again believers will not sin but that they will not persist in sin.
3. So, the born again believer cannot live in habitual sin.
4. BUT, there is the possibility of committing occasional acts of sin - as I can testify in my
5. own life. If we commit those acts of sin, 1 John 1:9 (NIV) tells us what we are to do: 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness'.

That's my understanding of 1 John 3:9 and the Greek verb used. Also, it makes practical sense. We know from the preceding verse, 1 John 3:8 (ESV) that 'whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil'. In other words, they have not been born of God.

That's my exegesis for what it's worth.

Oz

Based on your first paragraph, am I to assume that salvation is a continuous progression of faith?
To say that salvation is simply a justification to declare a legal position before God,seems to declare that the work of Christ was simply to keep a contract ,or covenant with Abraham.
It was God who gave Abraham the promise, and John 3: 16 tells us the reason.
For God so loved..
Paragraph 2 is vindicated by Roman's 8
Paragraph 3 I agree
Paragraph 4 I agree to the point where a sin does not remove us from the atonement of Christ.
The last statement is a bit confusing due to switching translations to enforce a point.
This negates the validity of the NIV,since it does not convey the best message for a practical exegesis.

 

[now faith]

now faithVeteranSupporter
5,522
✟18,338.00
+581
Married
Word of Faith
New
↑
now faith,
QUOTE :OZ
Christ has not made us sinless by his blood sacrifice. This sacrifice means I am justified by faith - declared righteous. It's a legal position before God. unquote

I would like all of us to reconsider the first sentence of the statement the OP has written.
Do we truly believe this?
Do we have to past a plethora of verses that support the blood of Christ for remission of sin?

Hebrews: 9. 18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews: 9. 12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Christ work was not finished at death burial and resurrection, atonement for mankind was finished when He sprinkled His Blood on the mercy seat of God,without Blood there can be no remission of sin.

This theology was propagated by John MacArthur in the late 80s and MacArthur recanted his position on the Blood and changed his study Bible.

I'm not debating this here due to my status but ,I hope another Baptist will continue this fundamental discussion with you.

 

[GingerBeer]

I've used NIV almost my whole life, I don't know why but I've always favoured that one and it never seems to make other people's most accurate translation lists. What are everyone's top three?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the

1. Revised Standard Version
2. Good News Translation
3. Jerusalem Bible

 

[OzSpen]

Based on your first paragraph, am I to assume that salvation is a continuous progression of faith?
To say that salvation is simply a justification to declare a legal position before God,seems to declare that the work of Christ was simply to keep a contract ,or covenant with Abraham.
It was God who gave Abraham the promise, and John 3: 16 tells us the reason.
For God so loved..
Paragraph 2 is vindicated by Roman's 8
Paragraph 3 I agree
Paragraph 4 I agree to the point where a sin does not remove us from the atonement of Christ.
The last statement is a bit confusing due to switching translations to enforce a point.
This negates the validity of the NIV,since it does not convey the best message for a practical exegesis.

now faith,

Your whole response is a red herring fallacy. Not once did you refer to the exegesis I had provided of 1 John 3:9 to refute your view.

When you change the topic like this, we cannot have a logical conversation when you do not engage with the information I provided to counter what you wrote about the meaning of 1 John 3:9 (NIV).

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

1 John: 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
We are joint heirs in the body of Christ by his Blood.
God cannot look upon sin ,therefore we through Christ have been redeemed from the flawed sin nature into the perfection of the body of Christ.
All men have sinned ,but Christ has made us sinless by his Blood.

It is called grace.

So, if 1 Jn. 3:9 is taken correctly, I must ask you:

Since the day you were "saved", have you sinned even once?

If you have, then by your standard, you, me, and billions and billions of others who have proclaimed to be Christian, are not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Sorry but there is not such thing as "original" greek new testament manuscripts because the new testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The septuagint was the greek translation of the Hebrew new testament!

Wrong!

"Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC...The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books."

Source

If the LXX was the Hebrew translated into Greek between 300-200 BC, how could it be the Greek NT when that didn't come until some 200-300 years later?

Sorry, try again.

God Bless

Till all are one.