23 replies to this topic

[aBluya]

I no longer have much faith in the current available versions of the Bible. At least as far as serious Bible study is concerned.

I was wondering if anyone out there knows the best way to learn Greek and Hebrew. I need an unbiased resource that won't let pre-set doctrine determine the meaning/definition of a word.

thanks so much for your help!

[Flappie]

Get a secular Greek dictionary, and do a course?

[Huldah]

aBluya, on Jan 2 2005, 08:59 PM, said:

I no longer have much faith in the current available versions of the Bible.  At least as far as serious Bible study is concerned. 

I was wondering if anyone out there knows the best way to learn Greek and Hebrew.

J.W. Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek is a good 'teach yourself' book.

However,

Quote

I need an unbiased resource that won't let pre-set doctrine determine the meaning/definition of a word.

This is where your problem will continue as there are biases in the Greek manuscripts.

My Greek NT is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society and contains interpolations!

[Asyncritus]

Unless you are one of these people who picks up languages like ordinary people catch colds, I can't really recommend that you learn Hebrew or Greek. There are pluses, but in my view the minuses outweigh them by far.

In order to become competent enough to make your own translations, again if you are an ordinary people like most, you will have to spend many, many hours of pretty hard work in order to learn enough to express a competent opinion. Anyone who learnt another language at school will testify to how much work they had to put in to pass a relatively easy examination.

May I make the simple suggestion that you buy a copy of the Online Bible or similar? I have an OLB, and it has about 12 different versions on it. I can move from version to version at a single click and make any comparison I need.

It would be most unlikely, if in your first 2 years or so of study of Hebrew or/and Greek, you would become sufficiently competent to argue with any of the translating Commitees. These, by and large, are fairly competent professionals, who have wrestled on your behalf with the complexities of many many passages. You or I may not always agree with their renderings, but surely, if 12 or so Committees can't come up with a decent translation of a particular verse, then you, as amateur no. 13, are not very likely to do any better.

From my observation of the 12 versions on my OLB, there is usually only relatively small amounts of variation in their renderings, and to be perfectly frank, I am coming to the conclusion that having all of these things is not taking me much further forward than my trusty AV/RV Interlinear Bible.

Sure, they've got older and more manuscripts to go at these days, and that may be a good thing, or it may not. But for our purposes, The Revised Version is an excellent tool. Fortigurn is always going on about the NET version, because of its extensive note content, but I personally prefer to think for myself about these matters, and not allow translators to rob me of the use of my few brain cells.

I'm sorry not to be more encouraging, but realism is a great thing - and the benefit you would receive from 2 or 3 years of learning effort is probably going to be smaller than simply buying an OLB.

Sure it doesn't have the same pazazz as saying: Look I know Hebrew, and I can tell you that..., but it's far safer to rely on a consensus than venture your own translations.

Edited by Asyncritus, 03 January 2005 - 01:30 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Jan 3 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

Fortigurn is always going on about the NET version, because of its extensive note content, but I personally prefer to think for myself about these matters, and not allow translators to rob me of the use of my few brain cells.

But Asyncritus, you misunderstand. The whole point of the NET is that it allows me to think for myself, and doesn't let the translators rob me of the use of my brain cells.

I can see for myself what the original text says, and I can also read for myself why the translators have interpreted the text in the way that they have. Then I can make a decision for myself.

You can't do that with the RSV, the text wasn't designed that way. You have no idea of what's going on inside the translator's head, and you have no way of understanding the decisions they made.

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Jan 3 2005, 01:18 AM, said:

Asyncritus, on Jan 3 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

Fortigurn is always going on about the NET version, because of its extensive note content, but I personally prefer to think for myself about these matters, and not allow translators to rob me of the use of my few brain cells.

But Asyncritus, you misunderstand. The whole point of the NET is that it allows me to think for myself, and doesn't let the translators rob me of the use of my brain cells.

I can see for myself what the original text says, and I can also read for myself why the translators have interpreted the text in the way that they have. Then I can make a decision for myself.

You can't do that with the RSV, the text wasn't designed that way. You have no idea of what's going on inside the translator's head, and you have no way of understanding the decisions they made.

Most translations work like the RV (not RSV, by the way).

Have you spotted any really significant and enlightening differences in the NET renderings of any passages that you wouldn't have got from OLB? ( Apart from Jacob attacking...)

I'm trying very hard to download a copy of NET, to see what the hoopla is all about, but I haven't quite managed it yet. Brain cell problem. Or something!

Edited by Asyncritus, 03 January 2005 - 01:47 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Jan 3 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

Most translations work like the RV (not RSV, by the way).

Exactly, and that's what's so unfortunate about them. The advantage of the NET is that I can see the decisions which the translators have made, because they explain them in a footnote. Then I can make up my own mind.

Quote

Have you spotted any really significant and enlightening differences in the NET renderings of any passages that you wouldn't have got from OLB? (  Apart from Jacob attacking...)

Yes, many of them based on new textual data, or a superior translation work.

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Jan 3 2005, 01:45 AM, said:

Asyncritus, on Jan 3 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

Most translations work like the RV (not RSV, by the way).

Exactly, and that's what's so unfortunate about them. The advantage of the NET is that I can see the decisions which the translators have made, because they explain them in a footnote. Then I can make up my own mind.

Quote

Have you spotted any really significant and enlightening differences in the NET renderings of any passages that you wouldn't have got from OLB? (  Apart from Jacob attacking...)

Yes, many of them based on new textual data, or a superior translation work.

For instance?

[Fortigurn]

Asyncritus, on Jan 3 2005, 09:48 AM, said:

For instance?

• Places in which the translation of the KJV has a trinitarian bias (the trinitarian bias in the NET is minimal to negligible, and they openly reject most of the classic trinitarian 'proof' texts, whilst providing textual data for the decision)
  
  
  
• Places in which the KJV has a poor translation which Strong's won't fix (Zechariah 13:6 for example, and a host of places in which numbers are inaccurate and have been corrected with other textual data)
  
  
  
• Insights into the meanings, derivations, and cultural context of certain words or phrases (especially where anti-pagan polemic is in view)

[Asyncritus]

Good man. I really must have a look at it.

As I can't get a download, could you scan a page on so I can have a look? Who knows, we may agree on something after all!

[Fortigurn]

You can download it directly here.

[Asyncritus]

Fortigurn, on Jan 3 2005, 02:32 PM, said:

You can download it directly here.

Thanks Fort. It's downloaded and I'll have a good look at it.

And thx Dave for helpfulness above and beyond the call of duty!

[aBluya]

"Unless you are one of these people who picks up languages like ordinary people catch colds, I can't really recommend that you learn Hebrew or Greek. There are pluses, but in my view the minuses outweigh them by far."


You are very right Asyncritus, i didn't exactly think that one through. I DON'T learn languages all the well, i was just frustrated with all the versions. And comparing version to version is a useless undertaking in my mind. I want ONE version!!!!

It seems logical (in a way) that God's Word should have one translation, or one true translation. As it does in Greek, and Hebrew, of course those are the original. But you don't see them changing the Greek, or Hebrew Bible just because their language has evolved over the years.

I want the True Greek Vulgate, isn't the only uncorrupted (by the RCC) New Testemant the Textus Receptus, faithfully guarded by the Waldenses?

If so, why do no modern versions use it? Did everyone forget how the RCC tried to destroy orthodox Christianity? and how they are likely still trying? (possibly by pacifying us with corrupt text)


I am by no means a scholar or expert in Church history, but i've learned enough to never trust anything connected with the RCC. I am just baffeled by how quickly everyone forgets the insane doctrine, and horrific history of the RCC.

[Evangelion]

aBluya said:

I want the True Greek Vulgate

There's no such thing as the Greek Vulgate. There's only the Latin Vulgate - and it's not the best translation available.

Quote

isn't the only uncorrupted (by the RCC) New Testemant the Textus Receptus, faithfully guarded by the Waldenses?

No. The TR is riddled with inaccuracies.

[aBluya]

Evangelion, on Jan 3 2005, 04:20 PM, said:

aBluya said:

I want the True Greek Vulgate

There's no such thing as the Greek Vulgate. There's only the Latin Vulgate - and it's not the best translation available.

Quote

isn't the only uncorrupted (by the RCC) New Testemant the Textus Receptus, faithfully guarded by the Waldenses?

No. The TR is riddled with inaccuracies.

i'm sure it does, when compared to all the RCC corrupted texts.

[Flappie]

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

Edited by Flappie, 03 January 2005 - 06:30 PM.

[Asyncritus]

I can't really see how we as amateurs can really hope to find/create a definitive version of anything.

We are compelled to (or should I say, I am compelled to) rely on the professionality of the translators and textual researchers who do this work. By now, given the many hundreds of fragments and codices and I don't know what else, I imagine that they are about 99.999% of the way to reconstructing exactly what the original texts were. That is far in excess of the existing sources of any other ancient book.

We are then left to the mercies of the translators, which is the real bugbear.

But given that the said translators are scrutinised very minutely, I imagine, by their peers, they are forced, by sheer peer pressure, by conscience, and by professionalism to translate accurately. If say, a translated verse is wildly wrong, then soon in the technical papers produced by other scholars, there will be much criticism and mockery of the idiot(s) who produced this garbage. Not in so many words, but more politely.

So I believe that the line I, as amateur #14, take is the most sensible one. I rely on consensus - because I think it is highly improbable that there is a general translators' conspiracy to defraud the general public. They are above all else, individualistic, and intelligent - which tends, but does not guarantee to, produce correct work.

Between 12 of them (as in OLB) they probably have the correct translation somewhere. And if of the 12, 8 say yea, and 4 say nay, then I go with the 8. I would be a fool to do otherwise. If it's 6 and 6, then I'll have a look at my new NET download and then decide. Failing that, I will look at the context, and make my own mind up.

I don't think we can do any better.

Edited by Asyncritus, 03 January 2005 - 06:53 PM.

[Flappie]

Bit of a strange thing to say for someone who uses a lexicon to make a point. Apart from Youngs literal translation, howmany of those 12 have earth in Revelation 6:4? Why aren't you going with the majority in this case?

Edited by Flappie, 03 January 2005 - 07:04 PM.

[aBluya]

Flappie, on Jan 3 2005, 06:27 PM, said:

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

could i get a source on that?

[Flappie]

aBluya, on Jan 3 2005, 10:05 PM, said:

Flappie, on Jan 3 2005, 06:27 PM, said:

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

could i get a source on that?

I don't have a source available, you could look up the history of the TR though. It was compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century, based on documents no older than the 10th century. In fact, some verses that were missing from his sources he translated back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate. So not exactly the original faithfully guarded, not even a document itself, but a compilation.

[aBluya]

Flappie, on Jan 4 2005, 12:03 AM, said:

aBluya, on Jan 3 2005, 10:05 PM, said:

Flappie, on Jan 3 2005, 06:27 PM, said:

If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR, it's (thankfully) not done on a very big scale though.

could i get a source on that?

I don't have a source available, you could look up the history of the TR though. It was compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century, based on documents no older than the 10th century. In fact, some verses that were missing from his sources he translated back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate. So not exactly the original faithfully guarded, not even a document itself, but a compilation.

It doesn't seem like you are in a position to make statements like "If one codex can be blamed for being corrupted by the RCC it's the TR"

There are two separate types of corruption, intentional, and unintentional.

what you are describing as "corrupt" has no relation to the intentional changes made to the Bible in the name of the RCC.


maybe you didn't mean to say "corrupted by the RCC"?

[Flappie]

The TR was based on the Latin Vulgate, and manuscripts that were owned by the church.

The NET (New English Translation) footnote on 1 John 5:7-8

Quote

(“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 1500’s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church.

Quote

The words ["in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)

Source: F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142)


Think this qualifies as a corruption by the RCC.



I just don't think you can say that all the other manuscripts are corrupted by the RCC while the TR is true, when the TR has the vulgate as one of it's sources.

Edited by Flappie, 04 January 2005 - 10:13 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Part of this discussion has now drifted from the original subject of this post. It is discussing an issue in another thread, which is currently locked.

I intend to split this new discussion off into a new thread, where it will be continued.

In the meantime Asyncritus, I suggest you read the posts which start here, and which continue for some time.

[Fortigurn]

The new discussion is here.