06 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI may be wrong, but I honestly believe we all fit that bill from time to time. 🙂
I don't disagree. However, I also believe it is important to seek the truth and try to prevent others from being deceived. But not much can be done for those that are willingly ignorant.
06 Feb 15
9 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not really been looking at this thread much mainly because I got a lot
of this in my real life. I will say you sent red flags up for me with this post
in you did two things, first being you did not give translation of scripture you
were using to prove your point, and 2nd you keyed everything off of just one
word in this case "became".
I could ...[text shortened]... ss was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the face of the waters.
I could not find a translation that said it like you quoted, so if you would please share it. What I did find were several and none of them were even close to yours except one maybe and that would be a big stretch.
I think I was paraphrasing by memory which is risky. And you have the right to question that. Below are some renderings which can be found online. With time I may turn up others.
The Emphasized Bible 1902
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.
The lattest adition seems not to have this rendering. I don't know if the footnote is the same in the recent Online Version below.
http://www.amazon.com/Rotherhams-Emphasized-Joseph-Bryant-Rotherham/dp/082543601X
Recovery Version
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters.
http://online.recoveryversion.org/txo/01_Genesis1.htm
Young's Literal Concordant use to read "became". The latter revision I see online says "existed". I am searching for the older version.
This information I read in this portion of the Life Study of Genesis by Witness Lee published by LSM. The comment is about "The Concordant Version of Genesis". I assume he was referring to Young's Concordant Version.
my bolding
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth became waste and empty." The Concordant Version of Genesis translates the verse this way: "Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant." The Concordant Version does not say "and"; it says "yet." "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant." A chaos is a mess. The earth became a chaos—waste and vacant. If you build some apartments and no one dwells in them, they are vacant. We may render this phrase as either "a chaos and vacant" or "waste and empty." Something happened between verse 1 and verse 2 which caused the earth to become waste and empty.
Thanks for requesting substantiation.
- sonship
07 Feb 15
3 edits
Originally posted by gswilmOkay, thank you for your post. I still find this suspect mainly due to whatI could not find a translation that said it like you quoted, so if you would please share it. What I did find were several and none of them were even close to yours except one maybe and that would be a big stretch.
I think I was paraphrasing by memory which is risky. And you have the right to question that. Below are some renderings wh ...[text shortened]... h to become waste and empty. [/quote]
Thanks for requesting substantiation.
- sonship
I saw when I looked up the version you gave me when I saw this in
Wikipedia. Other scriptures came about mainly do to teams going over
text. That prevented privately held beliefs to over run good translating.
So I'm afraid the work of a single person does not trump several different
denominations getting together to do a work. Even the KJV had several
people working on it. It is a great thing to do, but I'd not build a doctrine
with it.
John R Kohlenberger III says in his preface to the 1994 printing, "The Emphasized Bible is one of the most innovative and thoroughly researched translations ever done by a single individual. Its presentation of emphases and grammatical features of the original languages still reward careful study."
Your other version suffers from the same issue again from Wikipedia this
single source be it a person or a single group I will not take over the work
of a larger variety of translators.
The Recovery Version is a study Bible with a modern English translation of the Scriptures from their original languages. It is a result of roughly three decades of translation and revision work by the editorial section of Living Stream Ministry, from 1974 to 2003.
07 Feb 15
2 edits
Originally posted by gswilmThose versions were obviously made to support theistic evolution and the gap theory to stuff in billions or millions of years of death and destruction.I could not find a translation that said it like you quoted, so if you would please share it. What I did find were several and none of them were even close to yours except one maybe and that would be a big stretch.
I think I was paraphrasing by memory which is risky. And you have the right to question that. Below are some renderings wh ...[text shortened]... h to become waste and empty. [/quote]
Thanks for requesting substantiation.
- sonship
Henry M. Morris in his book "The Remarkable Birth Of Planet Earth" presents the problems with this gap theory approach in accepting the theory of evolution with its vast amount of past history of death and destruction.
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe Recovery Version is from a cult that supports the gap theory and obviously they are going to try to skew the wording toward their belief system.
Okay, thank you for your post. I still find this suspect mainly due to what
I saw when I looked up the version you gave me when I saw this in
Wikipedia. Other scriptures came about mainly do to teams going over
text. That prevented privately held beliefs to over run good translating.
So I'm afraid the work of a single person does not trump several diffe ...[text shortened]... slation and revision work by the editorial section of Living Stream Ministry, from 1974 to 2003.
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsLike I have said, I've heard the gap theory presented in a very strong manner
The Recovery Version is from a cult that supports the gap theory and obviously they are going to try to skew the wording toward their belief system.
and none of what I just read was used. I don't believe in it, but I without a
doubt have friends I admire greatly that I do believe do their level best to
rightly divide the Word of God believe in it. I do not disagree with them very
much, but on this one topic I do. Out of the respect I have for them I will
say there is room for doubt on my part, but I don't accept it at this time.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou would do well not to disrespect your friends belief if you wish to remain friends. However, on the issue of the man-made gap theory, I am certain there is no intention of the writer of Genesis to leave a big unexplained gap of millions of years in the beginning creation narrative of seven days.
Like I have said, I've heard the gap theory presented in a very strong manner
and none of what I just read was used. I don't believe in it, but I without a
doubt have friends I admire greatly that I do believe do their level best to
rightly divide the Word of God believe in it. I do not disagree with them very
much, but on this one topic I do. Out of th ...[text shortened]... ave for them I will
say there is room for doubt on my part, but I don't accept it at this time.
The fact that God did it in only seven days is solid proof that He does not intend for His followers to believe in Satan's evolution deception.
Proof evolution is an evil lie from satan. (The Devil)
Earth is 6000 years old
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI believe in a young earth, I believe God created the universe in six days,
You would do well not to disrespect your friends belief if you wish to remain friends. However, on the issue of the man-made gap theory, I am certain there is no intention of the writer of Genesis to leave a big unexplained gap of millions of years in the beginning creation narrative of seven days.
The fact that God did it in only seven days is solid pro ...[text shortened]... om/watch?v=aQ4iORFL_Jk
Earth is 6000 years old
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72h2R4FO0k
but I have to accept I can be wrong. I pointed out to you I don't think this
is a make it or break it belief for one's salvation. I do agree with you it is
better to rightly divide the Word than not.
I've debated the point with people who I know love the Lord, I'm not going
to question their motivation or their heart when it comes to this belief.
I just question the belief itself.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Feb 15
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, thank you for your post. I still find this suspect mainly due to what I saw when I looked up the version you gave me when I saw this in
Wikipedia. Other scriptures came about mainly do to teams going over
text. That prevented privately held beliefs to over run good translating.
So I'm afraid the work of a single person does not trump several different
denominations getting together to do a work. Even the KJV had several
people working on it. It is a great thing to do, but I'd not build a doctrine
with it.
Because one person's name appears on a publication does not necessarily mean that there was no consultation. The Emphasized Bible is dense with footnotes indication the alternative renderings of ancient manuscripts and other translations.
John Nelson Darby's name appears on his translation of the whole Bible. But the footnotes also reveal intense consultation in the field of textural criticism. Ryrie's name appears on his translation and John McCarther's name, Moffatt's name, Weymouth's name are associated with their respective translations. That does not necessarily mean no consultation with either live or established previous authorities were not consulted as any responsible scholar would be expected to do. I think this broad generalization is not reliable.
So the "one person's private view" I do not accept as a conclusive indication of suspicion. Dr. Kerry S. Robichaux is responsible for the translation of Recovery Version. And before you launch reckless objections you should at least read the editorial notes of that version.
This was a comment by world renown NT scholar F.F. Bruce about The Recovery Version
I have read with interest the copies of translations of New Testament epistles in the Recovery Version. This is a version which I had not previously met. The version seems to me to be an accurate and fairly literal rendering of the Greek. The user of this version will get a precise impression of what the sacred text says.
With all good wishes:
Yours Sincerely,
F.F. Bruce
Another comment about the RcV
Lakewood, CO
I have only had the Recovery Version for a couple of months and find I use it far more than any other version. The footnotes, explanations and cross references have all helped in my understanding of God's message.
Anyone reading my posts know that though I may have my favorite Bibles I have no problem with referring and recommending other versions. You see me quote many English versions to make points theological. And often in my quoting two or more English versions may have somewhat different renderings. And I will continue to do so.
Read up some on The Recovery Version before you jump to conclusions.
http://www.recoveryversion.org/comments.html
John R Kohlenberger III says in his preface to the 1994 printing, "The Emphasized Bible is one of the most innovative and thoroughly researched translations ever done by a single individual. Its presentation of emphases and grammatical features of the original languages still reward careful study."
This matter I will review because I recall some issues around the latter additions of Rotherham's Emphasized Bible which may have been contraversial. But I would have to take time to recall the details.
Your other version suffers from the same issue again from Wikipedia this
single source be it a person or a single group I will not take over the work
of a larger variety of translators.
Wiki is a second hand source of pop information as you should know.
And if you don't want to read the a fine translation like the RcV and the marvelous study notes and footnotes there, I feel the loss is your own brother.
But that is your choice. The New Testament they send free of charge and if F.F. Bruce said it met with his level of world renown approval, I think its a reliable translation.
In fact I think I may open up a thread showing the superiority of the RcV over some other good versions for reasons I will site.
The Recovery Version is a study Bible with a modern English translation of the Scriptures from their original languages. It is a result of roughly three decades of translation and revision work by the editorial sec
I will show you WHY on some crucial passages I would refer the RcV than to say New American Standard or some other popular English versions. And this is not to say I would not own or read them as I have a number of other Bibles in my library.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Feb 15
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Those versions were obviously made to support theistic evolution and the gap theory to stuff in billions or millions of years of death and destruction.
Henry M. Morris in his book "The Remarkable Birth Of Planet Earth" presents the problems with this gap theory approach in accepting the theory of evolution with its vast amount of past history of death and destruction.
Those versions were obviously made to support theistic evolution and the gap theory to stuff in billions or millions of years of death and destruction.
You said you bowed out but you're back in the discussion. Okay fine. Now you're back in.
So, that the rendering of Genesis 1:2 in the RcV is made to "support theistic evolution" is so ignorant a statement that it is ridiculous.
This is like saying a translation of "upon this rock I will build my church" is made to support Roman Catholicism or Peter being the first Pope.
Before evolution or theistic evolution was invented some Hebrew language readers saw an unspecified interval of time indicated in Genesis 1:1,2. I already proved that to you.
You can say you don't agree with the rendering. You can't say all such people who would accept it are evolutionists.
Sefar Hazzohar was written around end of first century beginning of second century AD. Origen died about 254 AD. Hugo St. Victor died in 1141 AD.
These readers had no concern for your loathed theistic evolution. Neither this one - Dionysius Petavius (1583 - 1652), a French Jesuit Theologian, Professor of Philosophy at Bourges and latter Professor of Theology in Paris, who wrote:
"The question of 'How great an interval there was', it is not possible except by inspiration to attain knowledge of. Nor, indeed, do I judge those basic components of earth and water, which I have taught originated first of all, to have been fabricated the same day on which had occurred the appearance of daylight, as pleases certain persons (to believe), but by no means with sound enough reason."
You should drop your generalization that all those who understood an unspecified time interval were dedicated to Darwin's theories. But I'm not holding my breath for that.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Feb 15
4 edits
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.
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin ... Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC,
The Recovery Version is from a cult that supports the gap theory and obviously they are going to try to skew the wording toward their belief system.
We Were Wrong Says CRI Christian Research Institute who took the lead to brand the local churches as a cult and lived long enough to really study and acknowledge that they were wrong.
http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/we-were-wrong-2/
08 Feb 15
Originally posted by sonshipAgreed I would hope he had consultation, but it still boils down to just one
[quote] Okay, thank you for your post. I still find this suspect mainly due to what I saw when I looked up the version you gave me when I saw this in
Wikipedia. Other scriptures came about mainly do to teams going over
text. That prevented privately held beliefs to over run good translating.
So I'm afraid the work of a single person does not trump several ...[text shortened]... his is not to say I would not own or read them as I have a number of other Bibles in my library.
voice in the end saying yea or nay to the process.
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.
08 Feb 15
Originally posted by sonshipEarth is 6000 years old
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/