So NOW we have to be fully aware of the scholar's theology before we put any weight on his work and skills? Does that apply to Origen, Westcott, Hort, Thayer, etc?

It helps. It gives reasons why a certain rendering is given over another. Let's put the scholars aside and asnwer my question: which is a preserved translation - one that translates the plural noun as a plural or a singular?

Then why do you not use from the pulpit and encourage your people to use for their personal study a translation that gets it right. NAS is in the same camp as every other commonly used English version.

Are you like some others that I have conversed with about the "best" translation option? They always say not to be limited to one. I responded thusly to one called DC:

5. DC, So then you are saying that to understand what God really meant, we should all buy parallel Bibles. If fact, maybe that should be a criterion for membership in the church! [warning for the sensitive: absurdity being used to press a point] Of course then we run into a problem. It is hard to find ones that have the dozen or so popular, and reasonably accurate versions. Do we need to include all of the ones to which the translators would have been referring? Remember that they rejected certain ones from consideration. Certainly we could not limit ourselves to just one language. That would then necessitate learning the "archaic" languages of Biblical era Hebrew and Greek so that we would could be sure that we had gotten "the most accurate sense of the meaning". We probably would also run into some copyright issues with Zondervan and Nelson. After all, they are competitors in the lucrative modern version market. By the way, does anyone know where I might get a parallel NKJV-NIV?

I have said over and over again I don't advocate one translation. But I use the NASB b/c it is the closest (in my opinion) translation which has the Ryrie study Bible with it . But I don't use it exclusively. Also, it is hard to get a written copy of the ALT. Plus, the ALT is not a "readable" translation. Plus the ALT is only a NT.
I have also told my congregation about this issue, though it was for a different purpose entirely.
You still haven't answered my question.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 02:48 PM by Greektim.

I'm afraid that I will have to stay a dumb English-only preacher then because I really am not interested in having an intimate knowledge of all these scholars who supposedly can tell me the real meaning of the words.

I am going to answer your question plainly. ... (dramatic pause) ... the KJB! Yea! It says what God meant for it to say. (too bad there isn't a smilie with its tongue sticking out. )

The NT changed words when quoting the OT (I know - that's inspiration). Likewise, I can believe that the Holy Spirit can "influence" the rendering of the word so that the concept will not be lost.

C'mon, I thought you were going to point out flaws in the KJB (recall unicornly oxen), not have a general attack on all English versions including what you use in the pulpit. Get something that everyone else says is WRONG in the KJB!

I am going to answer your question plainly. ... (dramatic pause) ... the KJB! Yea! It says what God meant for it to say. (too bad there isn't a smilie with its tongue sticking out. )

And that is the issue. Your bias says that the preserved translation has overriden the Greek Text. Certianly heaven and heavens are not the same thing. Where is the rationality in that? It would seem most rational to translate a plural for a plural.

But I am contending that the concept was lost! Thus this preserved translation has actually perverted it. What if the message was not the abode of God? What if it was rooted in Daniel's kingdomology teachings (cf. Dan. 7:13). Thus it would seem that the Jewish gospel Matthew would tap into the resource of the primary Jewish apocalypse source on the Kingdom.

From post #19:

Slow down a bit. Remember that I could be typing ... answering kids' questions ... typing some more ... trying to remember what was said before ... getting the kids to their next assignment, etc. At the while, you have posted something that I will not even see until I finish what I am writing. I will if at all possible answer every question asked of me, no matter how long it takes me (a teacher thing).

Does that mean you advocate for a functional/dynamic equivalence in translation? I guess you would have to otherwise God would not forbid (Rom. 6:2).

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 03:15 PM by Greektim.

You know what? There are other verses in there that would compliment such a thing so as not to lose a context or seem contradictory. You seem to like cultural views concerning scripture, so as we in America like to YELL to get our point across, the Jews did not, they repeated things, again and again "Verily verily i say unto you..." when they want to drive a point home.

What I am saying is that what you are poring over, may be explained quite easily, in other parts of scripture to help clarify it. Remember, the bible is it's own commentary.

No I do not advocate what today is known as dynamic equivalence (such as the NIV). I do accept that there could be formal equivalence, where the wording while not literally translated, uses the same or very similar sentence form of structure. There are obvious cases where literal translation has not been used in the KJB. "God forbid". (pun intended)

headed for work ... long night ahead ... will check back late p.m.

P.S. I'm not fussing about the question thing. You can see with the last few posts that we are leap-frogging each other. Such is the limitation of this form of communication. Now if it were in Greek . . . bye!

The fact of the matter is that most English translations did not translate properly. But if you want to get into the theology of "kingdom of the heavens" then we can do that too. Since Christ never corrected the concept of the Kingdom, then it stands to reason that He was referring to the Kingdom mentioned in the OT. Also, this Kingdom was only preached to the Jews (Matt. 10:6-7). That would indicate it has Jewish implications - like Davidic Kingdom fulfillment. This idea jives best with Daniel and the Millennial/Davidic Kingdom coming from the sky or heavens. Thus the genitive phrase "of the heavens" should be interpretd as a genitive of source - the idea being the kingdom from the heavens. I'll stop there for now. Feel free to add to this if you like.

What is interesting is that you could argue all day long about it by yourself. Being there is nothing solid in the English translations (as you have pointedly discussed), then you will never come to a conclusion about anything.

Nothing is solid, nothing is exact, and we are just blowing about in the wind, because our common sense, yes that God gave us for understanding, is useless against such greek studies. We must bow to the higher intellect of the "bible-students".

GreekTim, what are you going to have to answer for at the judgment seat, or does your Greek studies lead you to beleive that it does not exist?

You have claimed earlier that you discuss these things for betterment, but the only thing you have done thus far is to butcher any stance that we have the bible in today's English speaking tongue. Here it goes....I am about to be harsh.......to me.....that....is sacrilege.

To you, God speaks Greek and Hebrew alone. You have said that these are man's languages yet at the same time you do not feel that God can cross them. That is a god-in-a-box syndrome. That the Word of God is dictated by man's fickleness and fallen-headedness.

The bible was never intended to mean anything other than what context suggests. When parables or symbolism is invoked, it is relatively easy to see in context. The trouble begins is when we try to spiritualize things or take them out of context.

Where does faith come into play Greektim? Do you even know what that is? Because if you don't as I have pointed out earlier, you cannot please God. I pray that you haven't let your self-intellect impair your judgment on matters the intellect cannot comprehend.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 03:48 PM by Jim.

Bro Jim,

For what it's worth - the kingdom of heaven(s) (mentioned only in Matthew's gospel, primarily for the Jews) and the kingdom of God are not the same thing, no matter how much the briders try to make it so. You are correct, in that the kingdom of heaven was present and available, when Jesus was physically here on earth. It is Davidic and physical. It will show up again. However, on the nation of Israel's rejection of the Messiah, things turned to the Gentiles and the kingdom of God. I know - I know, there are many Baptists who disagree, but instead of studying their Bibles(KJB), they are wrapped up in Hebrew/Greek, or in what good, godly Dr Messemup taught them in seminary. We can look this over, when the dust settles.

Well since Mongul Servant says so, then lets just accept it. What is the difference from listening to seminary professors and listening to you. At least they offer Scripture to back up their view.

Besides Matt. 19, when Matthew records the kingdom of the heavens, in the parallel passage in Mark or Luke it is recorded as kingdom of God. For instance, Matt. 4:17 Christ is preaching repentance for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand. Mark 1:14-15, CHrist message is repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. Interchangeable. Just so you know, Christ was preaching the Kingdom of God in Mark 1 to Jews only. So it has no relationship to Gentiles. Even Matt. 6:10 in the model prayer, Christ says that God's kingdom and God's will should be done on earth. Thus the kingdom of God is on earth.

Also, Matthew 13:11 (K of the heavens) parallels with Mark 4:11 & Luke 8:10 (K of God). Also, Matt. 13:31-32 (K of the heavens) parallels with Mark 4:30-32 & Luke 13:18-19 (K of God). Also, Matt. 13:33 (K of the heavens) parallels w/ Luke 13:20-21 (K of God). Also, Matt. 8:11 (K of the heavens) parallels w/ Luke 13:29 (K of God). Also, Matt. 5:3 (K of the heavens) parallels w/ Luke 6:20 (K of God). In Christ's 1st commission to the disciples, He tells them to preach to Israel only (Matt. 10:6), they were to do miracles (Matt. 10:8 & Luke 9:1-2), they were to preach the K of the heavens (Matt. 10:7)/K of God (Luke 9:2) where they are used interchangeably. THe context in Matt. 10:9+ closely parallels Luke 9:3+.

THat is enough for now. I am not denying a great sotriological truth taught in the K of God. I just maintain that it is still the same Kingdom taught in the OT prophets. Since Christ never correcected their view, and people were waiting on it and it was about to appear, it seems like it was the physical Kingdom prophesied in the OT (Mill Kingdom).

This should have been posted in the CHurch thread.

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 08:34 AM by Greektim.