Genesis 1:1-2

Originally posted by sonship
Since RJHinds doesn't do a very good job of biblically defending Ussher's 6000 year old universe created Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, he has to resort to name calling. Expect nothing more from him beside throwing the word cult around at me.

[quote] James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity Colle ...[text shortened]... edge that they were wrong.

http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/we-were-wrong-2/

Evidence for a Young Earth

YouTube

Originally posted by KellyJay

That said, the turn of one English word in a translation should never be the corner stone to a doctrine, but text in context and preferably other scripture should also back up something so important.

Of course.

And that is why I presented other biblical substantiation that Satan's fall and all that went with it is pre-Adamic.

Translators sometimes say that "Every translation is an interpretation."
This is largely true. And insight, experience, spiritual maturity, coordination, one accord with others are some of the factors which enrich one's interpretation.

So it may be true that a translator may feel a certain interpretation of the original language she or he desires to place in the foreground. That does not make the translatiion necessarily wrong or "private" in a dangerous sense just because of that. It could, I agree. But it need not necessarily.

This is why most good English version contain sidebar or footnotes indicating to the reader that others have held different opinions about the passage in view.

Let's take the 1902 Emphasized Bible for example on Genesis 1:2. Although Joseph Bryant Rotherham definite rendered the passage as "Now the earth had become waste and wild.." he also included notes giving caution, in his opinion, to some assumptions of others that he felt were not warranted.



He contains a note that in his opinion to insist that "create" in verse one means to create out of nothing is done not on his authority. In other words, some may say so, but he does not vouch for the insistence of it.

So his commitment to destruction / reconstruction is somewhat guarded and qualified. And he obviously is aware of other scholarship as his entire Emphasized Bible continually reminds the reader of the its footnotes.

Still, I welcome his Hebrew expertise in giving the English word this atypical rendering of verse 2 -

"Now the earth had become waste and wild, and darkness was on the face of the roaring deep, - but the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters."

Concerning "But the Spirit of God was brooding" he writes in footnote -

This "but" is not demanded by the participle sense in itself, but springs naturally out of the tenor of the clause it introduces.

One August Dillman left this translation -

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But (then) the earth became waste... etc."

[According to Without Form and Void, Arthur Custance, Doorway, pg. 130, Appendix III]

So responsible translator may have only his name upon a published Bible. If that one really cares to give reason to readers for the choice of a rendering, those reasons will be responsibly provided often.

We may say perhaps "Every translation is also an interpretation." The translator usually is aware of that and furnishes reasons to those interested.

Now I would turn to Recovery Version's footnote for Genesis 1:2 which is more theological than technical. And I think it is the stronger of the two approaches. The note is Witness Lee's writing. Just as the Scoffield Bible incorporates a large volume of the notes of J N Darby the Recovery Version [footnoted edition] incorporated notes from Witness Lee.

God created the earth in a good order (Job 38:4-7; Isaiah 45:18). But here and became later in the verse indicate that something happened to cause God's creation to become "waste and emptiness." This cataclysmic event was God's judgment on the preadamic universe following Satan's rebellion. This judgment was executed on Satan, on the angels and the preadamic creatures living on the earth who joined Satan in his rebellions, and on the heavens and the earth themselves, See Isa. 14:12-15 and notes; Ezek. 28:12-19 and notes.

Living Stream Ministry (the publisher of the RcV) is doing nothing not done by other publishers of other study Bibles that include reasonings, explanations, rationales technical and theological for their renderings into English of particular passages.

I respect anyone saying that they don't agree with a certain note or translation. However it is not impossible that an translation / interpretation may be better even though it is in the minority.

Originally posted by sonship

That said, the turn of one English word in a translation should never be the corner stone to a doctrine, but text in context and preferably other scripture should also back up something so important.

Of course.

And that is why I presented other biblical substantiation that Satan's fall and all that went with it is pre-Adamic.
...[text shortened]... mpossible that an translation / interpretation may be better even though it is in the minority.

"Every translation is also an interpretation."

Every translation is an interpretation which is again why I like using those
that have different denominations working together so that no one group or
one person can in the end put their own stresses upon the text. I will not
use the one the JW use for that same reason, it is a doctrine enhancer not
one you go to for getting good doctrine.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Every translation is also an interpretation."

Every translation is an interpretation which is again why I like using those
that have different denominations working together so that no one group or
one person can in the end put their own stresses upon the text. I will not
use the one the JW use for that same reason, it is a doctrine enhancer not
one you go to for getting good doctrine.

What English version is your most trusted one ?

Originally posted by KellyJay

Every translation is an interpretation which is again why I like using those that have different denominations working together so that no one group or one person can in the end put their own stresses upon the text.

Do you know "ecumenical" can mean keeping fences yet holding hands over the fences ? That can be a "halfway house" to the more orthodox.

Instead of denominations working together, how about first leaving the denominations, the divisions ?

Denominations working together could also indicate the appeasement attitude - "I won't bother yours if you don't bother mine." That's a truce of holding hands over the fence.

Denominations can work together yet still have a motive to protect denominationalism.

Please take you denominational cooperation Bible and tell me what is one that might have a footnote to, say, Revelation 1:11.

I would be impressed if you could produce your collaborative ecumenical version which produces such a note as the following from the Recovery Version -

Revelation 1:10-12 - "I was in spirit on the Lord's Day and heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, Saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me; and when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands." [RcV]

Now the study note in the Recovery Version on 11(1)

This book's being sent to the seven churches equals it being sent to the seven cities. This shows clearly that the practice of the church life in the early days was the practice of having one church for one city, one city with only one church. In no city was there more than one church. This is the local church, with the city, not the street or the area, as the unit. The jurisdiction of a local church should cover the whole city in which the church is located; it should not be greater or lesser than the boundary of the city. All the believers within that boundary should constitute the one unique local church within that city."

Now I would ask you to produce a similar note on Revelation 1:10-12 from two or more or ANY of your ecumenical interdenominational cooperative Bible translations. I would like to see if such a faithful and frank helpful study note would be produced like this.

I do not say this to indicate ONE passage with study note makes a good translation of the Bible. I have many English translations. You have seen me reference many good English translations.

But if cross denominational ecumenicism is your litmus test, I question that just a little bit. How about some Christians who have seen through the error of denominationalism to highlight the normal ground of a local church to be city wide ?

I'll include in my library a number of very good translations and ALSO one NOT produced by denominational "holding hands over our fences."

Can you look at the Amplified, or the NIV or the NASV or NKJ or the ESV and produce such an accompanying footnote on Revelation 1:10-12 ? And if not, why do you think you cannot?

Originally posted by sonship
What English version is your most trusted one ?

I like several KJV, NIV, AVS to name a few. My daily readings I normally
stay in the NIV.

Originally posted by sonship

Every translation is an interpretation which is again why I like using those that have different denominations working together so that no one group or one person can in the end put their own stresses upon the text.

Do you know "ecumenical" can mean keeping fences yet holding hands over the fences ? That can be a "halfway house" to the mo ...[text shortened]... n accompanying footnote on [b]Revelation 1:10-12 ? And if not, why do you think you cannot?[/b]

Look if you want to stay with your scripture stay with it, it is completely
up to you! My friends who share your view don't use the translations you
use and still make a strong argument for that belief. I gave you my reasons
for not accepting them, and those reasons are not going to change.

I'm more than happy to say we agree to disagree and move on. I spend no
time trying to convince a JW they need to change versions and I'm not
going to attempt you to change yours either.

Originally posted by sonship

That said, the turn of one English word in a translation should never be the corner stone to a doctrine, but text in context and preferably other scripture should also back up something so important.

Of course.

And that is why I presented other biblical substantiation that Satan's fall and all that went with it is pre-Adamic.
...[text shortened]... mpossible that an translation / interpretation may be better even though it is in the minority.

He [Joseph Bryant Rotherham] contains a note that in his opinion to insist that "create" in verse one means to create out of nothing is done not on his authority. In other words, some may say so, but he does not vouch for the insistence of it.

John 1:3 English Standard Version (ESV)
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The opposite of all things would be no things (nothing).

If all things were made through him, then he had to already exist in order for those things to be made; God must have already existed before anything could have been made through him.

So depending on your point of view, either nothingness (or God) existed before anything (or anything else) existed.


Edit: I was reluctant to post this, because it's not clear to me whether or not I'm actually addressing your intended point... and after re-reading your entire post I'm still not sure.

Originally posted by sonship

That said, the turn of one English word in a translation should never be the corner stone to a doctrine, but text in context and preferably other scripture should also back up something so important.

Of course.

And that is why I presented other biblical substantiation that Satan's fall and all that went with it is pre-Adamic.
...[text shortened]... mpossible that an translation / interpretation may be better even though it is in the minority.

I'll admit I haven't read most of your messages, because frankly I'm having trouble following your arguments. It would help if I had a thumb nail sketch of your beliefs and how they might differ from what people of other denominations believe. You often use the term "pre-Adamic", and I'm wondering if this means you believe the earth was populated by people before Adam... ?

I don't intend to challenge you or argue with you, I just want to know what all the apparent disagreements seem to be based on. I'll start at the beginning of this thread and see if that will clear things up for me... I can't remember the last time I had so much trouble zeroing in on what someone has been saying, so hopefully looking through this (entire?) thread will clear this up for me.

Edit: I get it now. This didn't take nearly as long as I thought it would. I watched the first Chuck Missler video, so I get the general idea. It's a very persuasive argument... I spotted a few problems with it, but nothing to get excited over.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I like several KJV, NIV, AVS to name a few. My daily readings I normally
stay in the NIV.

I like several KJV, NIV, AVS to name a few. My daily readings I normally stay in the NIV.

Okay. King James Version, New International Version, I am not sure right now what AVS stands for. Sounds like American Standard Version 1901.

First let me give my personal preference. I do read and highly regard the 1901 American Standard. I would read King James. I have NOT much use for the New International Version.

Now let's look at some comparisons between the Recovery Version on certain verses with NIV.

1.) First Thessalonians 5:23

NIV - May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You're being cheated. The NIV leaves out the "and" which should have it "your whole spirit and soul and body". They push a dichotomous view of man where Paul speaks of a trichotomous man faithfully reflected in the Recovery Version and the ASV.

RcV - "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

So your NIV cheats you. Curiously they include the "and" between the three of the Trinity in Matt. 28:19

NIV
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

But for some strange reason they don't have the two and[s] in 1 Thess. 5:23 where it is just as crucial.

2.) Ephesians 4:22, 24

NIV
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires;

NIV
and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Thanks NIV. But I feel cheated by your so-called "help". I'll take the more literal reading of "the new man" rather than "the new self" .

The new man is more according to Paul's teaching of the church being the new man created in Christ on the cross (Eph. 2:15). The new "self" is a introduced human concept and not what Paul wrote. The new "self" is a paraphase but is too individualistic. It is good for individualistic piety. But what Paul WROTE in the Greek is more accurately reflected in the Recovery Version's faithful rendering.

RcV - "That you put off, as regards your former manner of life, the old man, which is being corrupted according to the lusts of the deceit. ..

And that you put on the new man, which was created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the reality."

Your committee is trying to help you but are leavening the pure word with their assumption of very individualistic spirituality. They should be faithful to what Paul wrote. Put off the old man, put on the new man. it is a great new corporate humanity which is at stake here and not just someone's individual "self" piety.

Of course King James is more faithful here reading also "new man"
The New American Standard falls to the same error, reading old self and new self.

The 1901 American Standard like the Recovery Version is faithful here over the paraphrase of the NIV and NASV.

1901 ASV
and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.

3.) John 14:2, 23

Here the NIV is better than the KJV "many mansions" in John 14:2 many "rooms" is better. But curiously, they take the plural of the word in verse 23 and instead of "a room" they "help" us with their own idea of what John must have meant. They same "our home".

NIV John 14:2 - My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?


John 14:23 - Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Well, certainly Jesus makes His home in the hearts of the believers as Paul said in Ephesians 3:17. But I prefer the faithful rendering of the Recovery Version to have plural "abodes" in verse 2 and singular "abode" in verse 23.

RcV - "In My Father's house are many abodes; if is were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you." (v.2)

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him."

This is the noun form of the same word "abide" in John 15. While "rooms" may be convey the thought in v.2 as well as "abodes", I don't know why the NIV didn't use singlular "room" in verse 23.

It is an improvement over the KJV "mansions". But it doesn't go all the way to faithfully reflect that the plural "rooms" or "abodes" are the same thing that Jesus promises that He and the Father will make with the lovers of Jesus - "We will come to him and make an abode [room] with him."

I'll take the Recover Version over NIV here too. The motive to "help" us with smooth sounding English is not completely unappreciated. But the three examples above are some of the reasons why interdenominational committees is no silver bullet of faithfulness necessarily in conveying what the inspired word of God was written.

You have three bad concepts conveyed, IMO, in the NIV above -

1.) The obscurring of the distinction between spirit and soul and body. NIV want to imply that "spirit, soul, AND body" leans or implies that spirit and soul are pretty much the same thing.

2.) New self rather than new man is too individualistic and falls short of Paul's revelation of new humanity, a whole new "race" as you will that was created in Christ and which we, in transformation and sanctification can put on.

3.) The Father's house, in the mind of Jesus is a house consisting of many ABODES. And He will prepare us a place by coming with the Father to make an ABODE with each and all the lovers of Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship

I like several KJV, NIV, AVS to name a few. My daily readings I normally stay in the NIV.

Okay. King James Version, New International Version, I am not sure right now what AVS stands for. Sounds like American Standard Version 1901.

First let me give my personal preference. I do read and highly regard the [b]1901 American Sta ...[text shortened]... will prepare us a place by coming with the Father to make an ABODE with all the lovers of Jesus.

I give up, what are you talking about?

Originally posted by lemon lime

I'll admit I haven't read most of your messages, because frankly I'm having trouble following your arguments. It would help if I had a thumb nail sketch of your beliefs and how they might differ from what people of other denominations believe. You often use the term "pre-Adamic", and I'm wondering if this means you believe the earth was populated by people before Adam... ?

I believe in "the first man Adam" meaning that Adam was the first human being. So any pre-Adamic age or world has no human beings in my understanding of the Bible.

But there were angels and forms of living things. Some of them were intelligent. We do not know what they were and probably would not want to know. They followed Satan.

The demons of today are the disembodied spirits of those creatures. That is why they seek to inhabit the bodies of humans. They lost their own in the judgment of God.

I don't intend to challenge you or argue with you, I just want to know what all the apparent disagreements seem to be based on. I'll start at the beginning of this thread and see if that will clear things up for me... I can't remember the last time I had so much trouble zeroing in on what someone has been saying, so hopefully looking through this (entire?) thread will clear this up for me.

Part of the problem is that over the course of the last three to five years, me and a certain poster have visited and revisited and re-revisited this debate before.

Looks like you are getting an idea of some of the things involved.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I give up, what are you talking about?

I only looked closely at the part about words translating into "self" rather than "man", or "men".

Most of the time the correct translation will be men or man, but some of the newer translations will say "self" or "person" rather than "man" because the original rendering appears to be specifically referring to everyone, and not just "men". But even the best Hebrew and Greek!@# scholars aren't always sure of what a word means. I run into this sometimes in the footnotes... it will say "the meaning is unclear".

I remember about an attempt to de-sexualize the Bible, and it failed horribly... nearly every (if not every) reference to "man" or "a man" or "men" was replaced by "people" or "person". The effort backfired and became the butt of jokes for a few years. In fact, I can still remember seeing a news item where at a city council meeting (I don't recall where) it was proposed and voted on to change the name of manhole covers to personhole covers... true story.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I only looked closely at the part about words translating into "self" rather than "man", or "men".

Most of the time the correct translation will be men or man, but some of the newer translations will say "self" or "person" rather than "man" because the original rendering appears to be specifically referring to everyone, and not just "men". But e ...[text shortened]... s proposed and voted on to change the name of manhole covers to personhole covers... true story.

Most of the time the correct translation will be men or man, but some of the newer translations will say "self" or "person" rather than "man" because the original rendering appears to be specifically referring to everyone, and not just "men". But even the best Hebrew scholars aren't always sure of what a word means. I run into this sometimes in the footnotes... it will say "the meaning is unclear".

I think you mean Greek scholars as the NT is written in Greek.

I remember about an attempt to de-sexualize the Bible, and it failed horribly... nearly every (if not every) reference to "man" or "a man" or "men" was replaced by "people" or "person". The effort backfired and became the butt of jokes for a few years. In fact, I can still remember seeing a news item where at a city council meeting (I don't recall where) it was proposed and voted on to change the name of manhole covers to personhole covers... true story.

The NIV is bad enough, IMO. The new revized NIV is terrible.

If you want to take time, see what R.C. Sproul says about the newer revized version of an already very loose NIV in this lecture on -

This Means War

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I'll admit I haven't read most of your messages, because frankly I'm having trouble following your arguments. It would help if I had a thumb nail sketch of your beliefs and how they might differ from what people of other denominations believe. You often use the term "pre-Adamic", and I'm wondering if this means you believe the earth was populated by ...[text shortened]... ed this debate before.

Looks like you are getting an idea of some of the things involved.

Thanks for replying.

And don't worry, I have no desire to get into a big slug fest over this. There are enough people (mostly men) here to keep me busy with that sort of... activity.