From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
To: "Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:06:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort
From: Stephen Zimmerman
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort
Yes, the NASB is considered the most accurate translation nowadays,
though it is far from the smoothest reading, and it is based on a variety
of texts, rather than only te Received Text. But as far as word-for-word
literalness, it is closest.
The best thing, of course, is to be conversant in the original languages.
Then you can compare, say, Mark 7:19 to the NIV, NASB, etc. and
say, "Hey! The Greek doesn't say that!" At least not here! (And the
Acts 10 vision was an allegory.) All it says is, "Nothing that enters a
man from outside is able to profane him, because it does not enter
the heart, but the belly, and it goes out into the wastebowl, purging all
foods." (The others say, "By this He declared all foods clean"!) The
context is hygiene, but these translations construe it to mean that
Jesus was contradicting God's law, and make it look as if that is
actually in the text. The KJV has it right.
Any translation is by nature an interpretation, but some acknowledge
that by putting words that "smooth out" (or explain) in italics;
paraphrases usually don't.
In some cases, modern translations do improve on the KJV. The latter
translates Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is within you" (entos humin),
which, to modern ears, at least, could give rise to the ideas that God is in
everyone, that the Kingdom will never have a visible form, etc. The Kingdom
certainly wasn't in the hearts of these Pharisees who were out to entrap the
King in His words. The RSV does better, saying, "The kingdom of God is in
your midst" (but that version has other problems). "Among you" might be best,
showing use that He was speaking of Himself as being the firstfruits of that
kingdom.
If you have to choose between learning Hebrew or Greek well, go with Hebrew,
for all of the authors of Scripture (except maybe Luke) were Jewish, and even
if they wrote in Greek, they thought in Hebrew. By that measure, 90% of the
Bible was composed in Hebrew. [Bivin & Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult
Words of Jesus...from a Hebraic Perspective, 1994] "The Kingdom of God is at
hand" is a Hebraism in the Greek text. You can deduce that "at hand" means
"nearby", but in Greek you can't tell that it refers to place, not time-so it
had to be referring to Jesus' own presence.
Some use the KJV only, not because the translation is necessarily better than
the rest; some major archaeological and linguistic discoveries since 1611
have added much precision. But the KJV is based on the Greek Textus Receptus
that was watched very carefully to be sure it was not tampered with as the
Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus had been-to make it line up with a
particular church's doctrinal position, which was based on their own
interpretation, and no other translation is based exclusively on this one
(not even the "New KJV"). There are older copies of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
available, but only because they were questioned by many, and so didn't get
worn out, as the trusted text -which many sacrificed their lives to
preserve-did. (The Hebrew doesn't present as much of this kind of problem
because the Jews have guarded it much more carefully all along.)
Some newer translation also water down the specific wording in order to make
it sound more normal to our 20th-century ears. For example, they may shorten
"the Lord Jesus Christ" to simply "Jesus" or "the Lord". But there is
nothing superfluous in God's Word. Anything that looks redundant is repeated
for a purpose. We also have to bear in mind that a "strong delusion"-a
counterfeit that will look extremely convincing-is coming, and precision with
Scripture will be the only way to avoid being deceived. The Antichrist could
very easily twist "the Lord" to seem to be speaking of himself. (That's the
basic argument of Riplinger -- but, yes, there are some overstatements in
that book.)
Every version has problems, so compare several of them to get the right shade
of meaning. Even if you never study Greek, get an interlinear Bible that
follows the text word-for-word, or one that has a number key to the Greek or
Hebrew words, and thus you can at least get a better idea of what is actually
there. It matters!
Stephen
**************************************************************************
From: Jeff Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
I am amused regarding Ms. Riplinger's book, which (according to
readers who've posted here) presumably exposes the non-Christian
beliefs of Wescott & Hort, thus placing suspicion on their views
regarding authoritative ancient texts and their interpretations, and
yet I read on several occasions where Thayer's Greek-English lexicon
is the preferred lexicon for New Testament study. Thayer, as was
noted by Walter Martin ("Kingdom of the Cults"), was a Unitarian, who
denied the deity of Messiah, and yet is masterful and accurate in his
treatment of the Greek in his lexicon.
Whether or not Wescott & Hort were Spirit-filled, Bible-believing
followers of Christ, it is the strength and/or weakness of their
arguments for authoritative texts that should be analyzed. Where such
things can be given a fair hearing in this newsgroup, wisdom will be
gained.
Jeff Bradshaw
***********************************************************************
From: Rev Keith R. Snyder
Organization: Benzie Church of the Nazarene
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort
I use the NASB for my main study and for preaching, comparing it to
other translations, and cross-reference with Strong's and the
NASB Exhaustive Concordance to see how words are used in other
passages. It seems to work pretty well, especially when used with
other necessary Bible study tool, including this discussion group.
One day I plan to get some formal schooling in biblical languages,
but until then, I think the NASB will serve well.
Blessings,
--
Rev. Keith R. Snyder
Benzie Church of the Nazarene
4440 Benzie Highway
Benzonia, MI 49616
*****************************************************************
From: Sharon Spicka
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: NIV Bible
Dear Eddie,
Didn't Marvin Wilson, author of "Our Father Abraham," serve on the
team which translated the Old Testament portion of the NIV Bible?
What does he think about it being called New Age? I know there have
been some problems with the translation, as with others, because
Dwight Pryor mentioned one on a tape not long ago. But it seems that
we're condemning it as a whole. Is this true or am I misunderstanding
what I've read?
Sharon Spicka
***********************************************************************