I think this might be a good example of why I don't advocate any one translation. By far the overwhelming majority of English translations use the Matthaen phrase "Kingdom of Heaven." The question I have is, did Matthew actually say "of Heaven"?

If preservation has moved into a certain translation (and for the time I am admitting that possibility) then that translation cannot conflict with the original language that it was translated from. With that said, how does the KJV stack up? For that matter how do any translations stack up? Just look up the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" in the book of Matthew.

On your mark... get set... go!

For more, see my article on this (though it is more of a different area of theology as it relates to this issue at hand):
http://debatingtheologicalissues.blogspo...om-of.html

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:24 PM by Greektim.

You are saying that the words from Greek have been mistranslated, not that the English is incapable of expressing the true meaning, right?

To give me/us the ability to discuss, please identify your source so that I/we know what the starting point is. Your text is the UBS4, and your lexicon(s) is/are ??

You are correct in your first question. The issue is mistranslation.

I will use the TR exclusively for this if you would like. The lexicon is the one in my head. The 4 word Greek phrase are words that I know. They are common words. I can recommned certain lexicons (though there seems to be a disgruntled attitude toward lexicons) if you would like.

Okay, it's hard to get into one's head, but I would say that since you believe that God does not preserve His Words in English nor inspires people today, then you got what is in your head from someone speaking or writing. That is your source, not your head. I will consider that since you say a number of English versions use "Heaven" then someone somewhere besides me thinks that "Heaven" may be a correct translation. It sounds like your scholar against my scholar, right?

Not necessarily. I think the issue is a translators translation vs. a translators forced interpretation, not scholar vs. scholar. Just check the TR and see if "of heaven" is what Matthew recorded.

Are you laughing at me? Are you agreeing with me (I doubt it)? Did you study the passage? I don't know what you are thinking. Aahhhhh!

Ahh! Now just Who do you think that I think did the forcing? (Hint: use modern rules for capitalizing pronouns referring to Deity)

My source:

If "heavens" is the correct rendering, then does that mean the kingdom referred here is the "kingdom of the sky"? Or as is indicated, is there room to render the word as being the "abode of God" i.e. Heaven?

By the way, my Strong's evidently just identifies the root word, and not its exact form. The squiggly lines look different in my Jay Green Interlinear. Is that because the word is in the plural form in the text?

[Hmm! Look at that word "perhaps". I guess that Strong wasn't educated enough.]

Curious question?
Is a translator not a scholar? I would think that a translator must not only have "scholar" credentials, but even be a scholar of scholars, and a teacher of scholars. And best I know, those KJB scholar/translators were the cream of the crop. So I'll stick by my scholar vs. scholar quip, thank you.

Now we are getting at the root of the issue.

As to what kingdom is referred to, we can discuss this later (or you can see my view in the article I referred to ealier). That is a rabbit trail. But I think a correct translation will help to understand it.

By the way, my Strong's evidently just identifies the root word, and not its exact form. The squiggly lines look different in my Jay Green Interlinear. Is that because the word is in the plural form in the text?

Strong's id's the lexical form of the word (nominative singular for nouns like this). It was no lack of education of Strong. He was producing a lexicon. He did what he set out to do. He put out the lexical form of the word in question. He does not handle scenarios specifically like the plural meaning of the word.
The issue is exactly that the word in the text is plural. Yet most translations have a singular translation. Is that preservation into English?

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 02:07 PM by Greektim.

From A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures via SwordSearcher:

As I understand it, and please correct me, A.T. Robertson is considered one of the premier Greek scholars of modern times. Yet, he does not even flinch at the phrase "kingdom of heaven"!

If you are not watching, then you will not see Robertson's Reformed/Covenant Theology skew his interpretation. What kingdom did CHrist preach and offer to Israel? The kingdom to which Israel only expected - an earthly, political, and Davidic kingdom. Robertson denies that interpretation. That is why I maintian that if scholars would translate the phrase literally, the interpretation would have to be revised (speaking mainly of the Covenantal position). Robertson is a good example. He is a good scholar, but at times he is biased towards his system of theology.

So it would be better to use this?

Guess the translation. (give up? hint: YLT)

Not a fan of Young's LT, I like the ALT here: "Be repenting, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near!" I would only change "be repenting" to "Repent". "Be repenting" communicates a passive whereas "repent" is active (just like the Greek Word).
You asked what would be better. You tell me which translation would be better - one that gives a plural or singular translation?

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 02:22 PM by Greektim.

Darby has: "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh." I like that one.