Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues


Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm
Reply
ESV vs NKJV, Translation sources, John 7:8

Like this post
Of all people I have Jagella to thank for this lol.

In a particular thread he claimed Jesus had lied in John 7:8 when he told his brothers he was not going to the feast of tabernacles and then later secretly did. I had read this before and had also wondered about this.

After googling, I found that the KJV, NKJV, and other translations have the verse worded differently whereas that ESV and NIV leave a particular key word out of it:

NIV
You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”

ESV
You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”

KJV
Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

NKJV
You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.

HCSB
Go up to the festival yourselves. I’m not going up to the festival yet, because My time has not yet fully come.

----------

As you can see, some translations (ESV and NIV) have Jesus saying he's not going to the feast while others say he's not yet going to the feast. To me, this makes a huge difference. I think the reason some translations like ESV and NIV omit "yet" while others like KJV, NKJV, HCSB have it is because the prior use the Alexandrain/Egyptian translations while the latter use the Majority Text translations. I am very new to studying translation sources though.

My questions:
What are people's opinions about the two translation sources? Are there other serious differences between the two that might make you favor one over the other? Right now I'm seriously considering switching to the NKJV or HCSB from the ESV. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:47 pm
Reply
Re: ESV vs NKJV, Translation sources, John 7:8

Like this post (1): sami
[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

The uses of 'not yet' (oupō) appear in many different manuscripts. The two oldest manuscripts use oupō in both places at John 8:7 (p75) and in the first place only (p66).

Because of the many differences of this aspect of John 8:7 found in later manuscripts, translations vary. My own opinion would include oupō in the first instance, at least: "Go up to the festival yourselves. I’m not going up to the festival yet,"

However, I believe this is an unimportant clue for choosing a Bible.

Because John 17:3 (and others) tell us how important it is to know God (eternal life and death), I would want to be absolutely certain of other verses dealing with exactly who or what God is.

Some of these are Ex. 3:14/John 8:58; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; john 20:28; Acts 20:28; Ro. 9:5; Titus 2:13; etc.. Very few Bibles translate these with the most likely intended meanings. And those Bibles which give notes, often don't include the more likely meaning or put it in last place.

This makes it very difficult for those who don't examine a number of different sources for different meanings and translations.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:51 am
Reply
Re: ESV vs NKJV, Translation sources, John 7:8

Like this post
[Replying to post 2 by tigger2]

To paraphrase, you said very few bibles translate with the most likely intended meanings on verses related to who God is, and you go even farther to say those with notes often don't even have the right meaning in them. Forgive me, but this sounds unreasonably negative.

Could you give an example of numerous translations getting the meaning wrong of a particular verse/section you were referring to, and then give the very few translations (or only translation if there is only one) getting the meaning right?

Does one have to play hopscotch between numerous translations to find the correct meaning exclusive to particular translations for particular verses? What is the method for finding truth?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:34 pm
Reply
Re: ESV vs NKJV, Translation sources, John 7:8

Like this post (1): sami
[Replying to post 3 by jgh7]

1. Ex. 3:14/John 8:58 - Many, if not most, Bibles translate both of these verses with "I Am" in order to 'prove' that Jesus is the Most High God of the OT. For example,

Exodus 3:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
14 God replied to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.”
Footnotes:
Exodus 3:14 Or I AM BECAUSE I AM, or I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE

And,

John 8:58 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
58 Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Before Abraham was, I am.”
Footnotes:
John 8:58 I AM is the name God gave Himself at the burning bush; Ex3:13-14; see note at 8:24.

The above footnote is false in at least two ways.

First, the ancient manuscripts translators used did not use capital letters (except for those NT Greek manuscripts which used capitals only).

Second, Ex. 3:14 is the ONLY place God is called by this 'name.' Instead, he declares his actual personal name (used many thousands of times throughout the OT) in the next verse, Ex. 3:15: YHWH, Yahweh/Jehovah/Yehowah.

Most translations will not use these acceptable transliterations, but instead use the false translation 'LORD' (initial capital followed by smaller capital letters).

The American Standard Version is one of the few Bibles to use an acceptable transliteration of this name (YHWH) throughout the OT. Exodus 3:15, for example says: And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, ... hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. - ASV.

The HCSB also uses an acceptable English transliteration for God's personal name right after the so-called 'I AM' at Ex. 3:14 - "15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, ... has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation."

Even the KJV correctly uses this personal name of God in a very few places:
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." - Ps. 83:18.

The OT Hebrew manuscripts read the 'name' at Ex. 3:14 as ehyeh. It is highly probable that this should be translated into English as "I will be" just as it is in Exodus 3:12. In fact, other than most 'translations' of Ex. 3:14, all uses of ehyeh by Moses in all his writings are translated by most, if not all English Bibles as "I will be" - but none as "I am."

Notice that God is asked about his name (which was already known by them), but his first response does not even repeat his personal name. Why? The New Bible Dictionary, Douglas (ed.), 1962, 1982, pp. 478, 479, published by Eerdmans, explains it well:

"He [Moses] inquires, ‘when ... the children of Israel ... shall say, what (mah [in Hebrew]) is his name? What shall I say unto them?’ (Ex. 3:13). The normal way to ask a name is to use the [Hebrew] pronoun ; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?’) or substance of the name. [For an example of this, see Ex. 13:14 in the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. Mah, exactly as in Ex. 3:13, clearly has this meaning and is even translated in the NRSV; RSV; REB; NAB; NJB; HCSB; JB; NIV; etc. as “what does this mean?”]


".... Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name [in Ex. 3:14], nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses [and the Israelites already] knew. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’ and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance."

So, the personal name of God is not "I am" nor "I will be." The personal name, given by God himself (Ex. 3:15), is properly transliterated into English as YHWH (or Jehovah, Yahweh, or Yehowah). And the meaning of that name is related to ehyeh. The meaning of Yahweh, then, is something like "He will be" and has absolutely no connection to any use of 'I am" found elsewhere in the Bible (cf. John 9:9).

What is the method for finding truth? Exhaustively examining all sides of a disputed point. This includes Bibles, Bible Dictionaries, commentaries, histories, and even as much (and as many) NT Greek and OT grammar aids that you can find.

If you are examining 'orthodox' doctrinal or traditional points, you will need extra effort to find both sides because one side will be massively covered while the other side(s) will be much more difficult to find.

I will cover Is. 9:6 next.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:31 pm
Reply

Like this post
tigger2 wrote:

Quote:
1. Ex. 3:14/John 8:58 - Many, if not most, Bibles translate both of these verses with "I Am" in order to 'prove' that Jesus is the Most High God of the OT.


That isn't true. It's your church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, that altered the Bible to make it fit their bogus theology. That means they altered anything that indicated Jesus is God and that God exists as a Trinity. This is a well-known historical fact and one has only to look at the Greek to see how they have changed God's Word to suit themselves.

See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html

tigger2 wrote:

Quote:
First, the ancient manuscripts translators used did not use capital letters (except for those NT Greek manuscripts which used capitals only).


So what?

tigger2 wrote:

Quote:
Second, Ex. 3:14 is the ONLY place God is called by this 'name.' Instead, he declares his actual personal name (used many thousands of times throughout the OT) in the next verse, Ex. 3:15: YHWH, Yahweh/Jehovah/Yehowah.


Again, so what? God has many names and one of them is I AM. Here's a list of other names of God found in the Bible:

https://bible.org/article/names-god

Here's the thing: I AM and Yahweh are both derivatives of the same verb "to be". The name I AM WHO I AM revealed by God in Ex. 3:14 is the full expression of his eternal being. It is shortened to Yahweh in verse 15. The names have the same root meaning and are virtually interchangeable.

Bear in mind that the names of God were not names like John or Fred or Steve. God's names reflected his very being. See here:

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/i-am-who-i-am

And if we are all supposed to call God "Jehovah/Yahweh" as you assert, why didn't anybody in the New Testament call him that? According to all the reliable ancient Greek texts, he was never called that. He was called other things such as Father and Abba. And what a privilege it is for those of us who follow Christ to be able to call him those things as well. It speaks to our close and loving relationship with God.

tigger2 wrote:

Quote:
M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’ and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance."


Here's what renowned textual critic and Greek scholar, Dan Wallace, says in response to that in a footnote in the NET Bible:

The verb form used here is אֶהְיֶה (’ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb הָיָה (haya, “to be”). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I am.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I am” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I am”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I am” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation of the OT used a participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance (e.g., John 8:58). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7).

See here:

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Exodus+3:14

Bottom line: The name speaks to the eternality of God.

Here is a study of the passage in question that is enlightening:

https://bible.org/seriespage/3-burning-bush-exodus-31-15

That's all I have time for tonight. I want to add just one more thing. When Jesus called himself I AM in John 8:58, the Pharisees knew he was calling himself God. We know that because of their reaction. They accused him of blasphemy (which was defined as someone claiming to be God) and they picked up stones to stone him to death (the fate of those guilty of blasphemy. See Lev. 24:120-16). So if Jesus wasn't claiming to be God, why didn't he say, "Wait a minute! Drop those stones! I'm NOT God!"? And if the Pharisees of Christ's day understood he was calling himself God, why do JW's doubt it today?

P.S. I'll post on Bible translations another day.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:49 pm
Reply

Like this post
I want to thank you both for your comments. Even though you have differing views, the one thing I have seen is the very rigorous studying you do all the way from expert commentaries down to the original Greek words used in the texts. I have high respect for that.

I've decided to switch to the NKJV, away from the ESV. I just don't feel good with the ESV after that one verse I read. I don't have the strong dedication to rigorously study the very foundations of translations like you two do. But if there is something I feel that I'm not quite getting, then I will commit myself at least for that verse. Thanks again and God bless!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:48 am
Reply

Like this post
I've never used the ESV so I can't comment on that. I use an old NIV and New Revised Standard Version as well as the NET Bible. Those are my three favourites. I also have an old KJV that I got as a child and a Good News Bible given to me in my youth. I love to read the poetry of the Bible (Psalms in particular) in the KJV because the language is so beautiful. I like to go back and forth between them all to see how different versions put things -- and that's easy to do online because all versions are available.

I didn't realize what a challenge it was to translate the Bible until I took Greek at school. Then I began to see why different translators might choose different approaches and vocabulary. This article gives a bit of information about translation:

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2017/01/which-bible-translation-is-best-part-1...

The one thing I did note was that, when it comes to the primary doctrines of who God is, what Jesus did, how we receive salvation, etc. the versions are all in agreement -- with the notable exception of the New World Translation which, as I noted above, was altered to make it say what Jehovah's Witnesses wanted it to say.

Bottom line: You really can't go wrong with the standard translations. It's really a matter of what style you prefer. Some attempt to translate the text literally and that can be a bit stilted while others translate for thought/meaning which results in a better-flowing text. I think most versions combine a bit of each.

As to the original question about that verse in John, Ben Witherington (a fine Biblical scholar) notes that the key rests in Jesus' statement that his time had not yet come. However, he may have received word from God the Father (not recorded in the gospel) after that conversation that led him to go to the feast.

Here's an article that mentions Witherington's theory, but offers alternative viewpoints based on the culture of the time:

http://tektonics.org/af/didjesuslie.php

And here's what a footnote in the NET Bible says about the statement:

tc Most mss (Ì66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupw) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+7

The NET Bible is available online. I really like the footnotes that accompany it. They go into more depth linguistically than the average Bible.

Hope that helps. And God bless you, too, jgh7!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Sun Jun 24, 2018 6:08 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): sami
post 5 by Overcomer:

Quote:
tigger2 wrote:


1. Ex. 3:14/John 8:58 - Many, if not most, Bibles translate both of these verses with "I Am" in order to 'prove' that Jesus is the Most High God of the OT.


T2: Ego eimi ('I am') is used by other individuals in the NT - John 9:9 for one.

As for ehyeh in Hebrew:

In contrast to the paucity of evidence for an “I am” interpretation of ehyeh in translations of other uses of ehyeh, you will find that all of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), including Exodus, of course, and the book of Joshua always use ehyeh to mean “I will be.” The list of all uses of ehyeh in the writings of Moses can be found below. Check out the various translations of these scriptures. A Hebrew interlinear will back up what I have listed.

2 Samuel 7:14 in the annotated list is quoted in the New Testament scriptures at Hebrews 1:5. Notice that when ehyeh (2 Sam. 7:14) was translated into the NT Greek by the inspired Bible writer at Heb. 1:5, he didn’t write ego eimi (“I am”) but ego esomai (“I will be”)! (Esomai is also used at 2 Sam. 7:14 in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek OT,)

Ezekiel 11:20 in the list is also quoted in the NT at Heb. 8:10. Ehyeh in Ezekiel 11:20 is translated as "I will be," of course, and the quoting of this word by the NT writer in Heb. 8:10 is esomai ("I will be") not ego eimi (“I am”). (Ego esomai is used at Ezek. 11:20 in the Septuagint also.)

Conversely, the trinitarian United Bible Societies and trinitarian scholar Delitzsch both translated the Greek “I will be” of Rev. 21:7 into the Hebrew ehyeh. - See their Hebrew New Testaments.

The trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House, pp. 330-331, says of Ex. 3:14 -

“It has been rendered, ‘I WILL BE that I WILL BE’ as an indication of God’s sovereignty and immutability” and “the translation ... that probably comes closest to the intention of God at this point is, ‘I will be there’.”

Also see the strongly trinitarian standard reference The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing, Vol. 2, p. 1254 (#3), p. 1266 (#5), and p. 1267 (#9), and the trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Vol. 2, pp. 199, 200, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

The clear testimony of the evidence shows that Ex. 3:14 incorrectly translates ehyeh as “I am” in some trinitarian Bible translations, and that it should be rendered as something closer to “I will be.”

(Also take special note of the fact that all other uses of ehyeh found in the first five books [by Moses] always use ehyeh to mean "I will be"!)

Exodus 3:14: Verse in question - see above.

Now look up all the other scriptures which use ehyeh in the rest of Moses’ writings and see how they are translated:

Genesis 26:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)

Genesis 31:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)

Exodus 3:12 (Jehovah: I will be with you" NRSV)

Exodus 4:12 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)

Exodus 4:15 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)

Deuteronomy 31:23 (Moses: "I will be with you" NRSV)

Exodus 3:14 is incorrectly rendered as “I am” (and even capitalized) in many trinitarian translations. One may disagree, but, in all honesty, he should at least admit that the evidence is not in his favor.

Overcomer:
Quote:
"That isn't true. It's your church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, that altered the Bible to make it fit their bogus theology. That means they altered anything that indicated Jesus is God and that God exists as a Trinity. This is a well-known historical fact and one has only to look at the Greek to see how they have changed God's Word to suit themselves."

..........................

T2: I would really like to see in your own words just 3 of the most certain "well-known historical fact[s]" of the 'alteration' of the NT Greek by the NWT to make an original 'Jesus is God' statement read otherwise.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:06 pm
Reply

Like this post
Overcomer,
From your link: https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

"The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence."
....................

"Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article."

Incredibly false! The definite article appears with 9 out of 12 uses of theon in John (and 9 out of 10 times in 1 John). These 3 exceptions in John can be explained by grammar and usage rules.

"The New World Translation renders none of these as 'a god'.”

The NWT translates theon at John 10:33 as "a god."

"Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both 'God' and 'god' in the very same sentence."

These are not the same term. The term translated as 'God' is theon and the reason for that translation is explained in my study 'THEON - RDB's Rule'. The term translated 'god' in that same verse is theos. This rendering is because it does not have the definite article. It is also in dispute because so many NT manuscripts (and Bible translations) have 'only-begotten son' here.

This is an outstanding example of either extremely poor scholarship or out and out lies. I strongly urge you to test out any anti-JW statements written by those who hate JW's.
..............................
T2: Overcomer, I would really like to see in your own words just 3 of the most certain "well-known historical fact[s]" of the 'alteration' of the NT Greek by the NWT to make an original 'Jesus is God' statement read otherwise.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version