Preferred Bible Version for Sermons
- Thread starter Puritanhead
- Start date
- Status
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Ruben,
This is prose with a poetic ring I suppose:
Why do you ask ? ?
My point is that when reading English translations of the bible I do not often, if ever, find myself being swept away by rapturous prose.
It is often quite dull.
However, I am swept away by the truths that God's Spirit illumines unto my mind, and kindles in my heart towards a fire of deeper passion for His law and His being.
[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Saiph]
This is prose with a poetic ring I suppose:
Why do you ask ? ?
My point is that when reading English translations of the bible I do not often, if ever, find myself being swept away by rapturous prose.
It is often quite dull.
However, I am swept away by the truths that God's Spirit illumines unto my mind, and kindles in my heart towards a fire of deeper passion for His law and His being.
[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Saiph]
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Thanks all for the recommendations, and I learned what the deal was with the Holman translation.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
One other thing that really bothers me though with the new versions, besides the liberality and loose dynamic equivalence... is the text is often changed just to make it slightly more distinguished for copyright reasons... To me, trivial legalities and intellectual property concerns getting in the way of the most prudent translation of the Word of God is annoying.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
That's kind of what I think of the ESV-- sort of a warmed over RSV. Nothing to get real excited or write home about. To me the NKJV and NASB are all a guy should ever need. Again, only my non-scholarly layman's opinion.
Mark,
Who was that from? It got rather good at the end. I like the line, "The voice crowed like some malevolent rooster heralding the dawn of hell" which is rather in the same vain as your quotation.
I agree that a lot of translations have dull language. The exciting thing is the truth, far more than the sonorities or the meter. Reading 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, for instance, one gets something of the same feeling through Paul's excitement that one gets from the language of A. Lindsay Gordon --though there is a consciousness that it comes via a somewhat different medium. However, of all translations I have had much acquaintance with the AV is the translation that gets closest to poetic prose; as in Isaiah 26:18
"We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen."
I asked because I have often enjoyed the prose of the AV and wondered if you had a completely different idea of poetic prose than I did.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Ruben:
I do not have a completely different idea, but perhaps am just more narrow in my taste. The KJV is somewhat more euphonic in many places, but when iread aloud during liturgy and hearing of the "bowels" of Christ or someone wearing "gay" clothing, it is hard to keep a strait face.
It would be a challenge to see a modern translation be reverent, and lofty, and yet still communicate the truth in a simple and accurate manner.
My quote was from Cormac McCarthy's novel "Blood Meridian".
I do not have a completely different idea, but perhaps am just more narrow in my taste. The KJV is somewhat more euphonic in many places, but when iread aloud during liturgy and hearing of the "bowels" of Christ or someone wearing "gay" clothing, it is hard to keep a strait face.
It would be a challenge to see a modern translation be reverent, and lofty, and yet still communicate the truth in a simple and accurate manner.
My quote was from Cormac McCarthy's novel "Blood Meridian".
Mark,
Yes, Stephen R. Donaldon wrote the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (2 trilogies) --that was a keen detection of him. You may have known this, but he has returned to the Land in a book called The Runes of the Earth (3 more volumes forthcoming). In places I think the writing in that one may be superior to anything else he's done (of course, as is always the case with Donaldson, the lacunea of magnificence are usually bleak and are interrupted with much drabber sections --though in the Chronicles I have never found him unbearable reading, though there are not a few books that I have laid down because the style was too painful to continue reading in them).
I have found that there are places where the AV is uncomfortable because you know that people are getting the wrong idea from the older vocabulary.
I would like to see a contemporary orthodox theologian who had an idea of cadences and sonorities in their writing. So far I have not found anyone whose still alive who writes theology with a sense of style.
Yes, Stephen R. Donaldon wrote the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (2 trilogies) --that was a keen detection of him. You may have known this, but he has returned to the Land in a book called The Runes of the Earth (3 more volumes forthcoming). In places I think the writing in that one may be superior to anything else he's done (of course, as is always the case with Donaldson, the lacunea of magnificence are usually bleak and are interrupted with much drabber sections --though in the Chronicles I have never found him unbearable reading, though there are not a few books that I have laid down because the style was too painful to continue reading in them).
I have found that there are places where the AV is uncomfortable because you know that people are getting the wrong idea from the older vocabulary.
I would like to see a contemporary orthodox theologian who had an idea of cadences and sonorities in their writing. So far I have not found anyone whose still alive who writes theology with a sense of style.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I actually do something similiar to what Ben suggested--I translate the text; compare it, memorize it, and will at time mix and use translations in the preparation--depending on verse, context, and poeticness.
I think Mark is onto something here, as well.
I think Mark is onto something here, as well.
I'll be curious to see what these are like. I was relatively disappointed with the Second triology - almost exclusively because of the annoying woman. I often wished I could smack her out of the book.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Gee-- you ought to hear my rendition of 1 Corinthians 13. I cannot help but to do this with some passages.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I figure something out.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by poimen
Oh great. Here comes Kevin again with his 'higher-critical' stance on scripture.
[Edited on 9-27-2005 by poimen]
Actually, to be accurate, I have a LOWER critical stance on scripture. Lower criticism deals with issues of textual transmission and is a legitimate scientific pursuit, even for evangelicals with a high view of scripture (of which, I am one). Higher criticism is a science (usually followed by pagans who deny the Bible is the Word of God) that, among other things, seeks to deconstruct the Bible along varying lines to get at the underlying documentary sources, etc.
So, while the label you pinned on me was inaccurate, your suspicions are dead on. The KJV simply is no longer the best English translation available.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
What about John 3:16 do they get right (though I think I know what you are referring to).
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by poimen
Oh great. Here comes Kevin again with his 'higher-critical' stance on scripture.
[Edited on 9-27-2005 by poimen]
Actually, to be accurate, I have a LOWER critical stance on scripture. Lower criticism deals with issues of textual transmission and is a legitimate scientific pursuit, even for evangelicals with a high view of scripture (of which, I am one). Higher criticism is a science (usually followed by pagans who deny the Bible is the Word of God) that, among other things, seeks to deconstruct the Bible along varying lines to get at the underlying documentary sources, etc.
So, while the label you pinned on me was inaccurate, your suspicions are dead on. The KJV simply is no longer the best English translation available.
While I agree with Kevin that the KJV is no longer the best English translation available now, I would like to have a moment of silence for the poor Church who for 1800 years had the wrong Bible.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Amen. And let us have silence for the editors of the TR, who, not having a full manuscript of the Greek NT, chose to back translate from the Vulgate into Greek.
Frankly, Fred, I continue to be amazed that you bring up this argument. With the exceptions of John 8 and Mark 16, neither of which affect a SINGLE doctrine, the only differences between extant mss are "ifs," "ands," and "buts."
If you can show me ANY two extant mansuscripts that are exactly the same (proving the Church had the Bible "wrong"), I shall publicly recant and take you out to Ruths Chris Steakhouse for dinner. :bigsmile:
That's fine with me, because adherence to the TR is not a part of the doctrine of Providential Preservation
I am amazed that you continue to say things like that with a straight face. Can you hear yourself saying that a portion of the Bible does not matter? Also, don't forget that John 8 affects our doctrine of marriage.
That is the whole point that you continue to miss.
It is not about individual magical manuscripts (pace Vaticanus). It is about God preserving his Word throughout the ages. The point is, if you were a pastor in 1830, and a pagan came up to you and said that the Bible you had was wrong, according to you, HE would be right, and not the Church of God.I also will remind you one more time that if a Cicero or Homeric scholar did the same thing as the Bible critics, they would be laughed out of the academy. Funny how it works that way.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
That's fine with me, because adherence to the TR is not a part of the doctrine of Providential Preservation
I am amazed that you continue to say things like that with a straight face. Can you hear yourself saying that a portion of the Bible does not matter? Also, don't forget that John 8 affects our doctrine of marriage.
That is the whole point that you continue to miss.
I also will remind you one more time that if a Cicero or Homeric scholar did the same thing as the Bible critics, they would be laughed out of the academy. Funny how it works that way.
What I have never understood is how you feel your TR position (which is a position on a MANUSCRIPT and not a text tradition) bolsters your case.
In any event we have discussed these things before. At least my wallet is safe.
BTW, I think I ought to change my Avitar. The place pictured is owned by a PB member and, thanks to Katrina, sadly no longer exists...
My position is not a TR position. It is not about a manuscript. It is about the transmission of the text through God's providential means - the Church, not pagans.
I'm not concerned about the TR per se. Obviously, you keep trying to put me in that box, because it is much easier to poke holes in Erasmyus than to deal with why JOhn 8 could have been universally thought to be Scripture for 1800+ years until a bunch of pagans said "NO."
Wonder what you would do if the pagan scholars found 10 2nd century manuscripts (much older than both Vaticanus and Syinaticus) that said that Matthew 28 was not Scripture.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
**Let no one ever say I post extraneous stuff on threads diverting from the original thread topic**
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Three things:
First, you know very well I believe in the doctrine of preservation.
Second, you seem to be arguing that God can only preserve the text through the labor of believers. Am I wrong to infer that? If not, it is a position which is relatively easy to debunk. (As a caveat, forgive my putting you in a TR box. I truly thought that was your position, one which is also easy to debunk. Am I not magnanimous?
) Third, your arguments tend to revolve around modern scholarship suggesting certain things ought not be in our Bibles because they were not part of the original (based on extant evidence). Why is it that you are troubled at the thought of subractions from the text but not longstanding additions to it? God's Word condemns both.It seems that your position is untenable whether you are majority or eclectic, because even within the majority tradition, there are still textual variants. Of the 5309 extant Greek manuscripts (subsumed in all traditions), no two are exactly the same, even in particular text traditions. To me, to hold your position you have to be able to proclaim a single ms as being the one God has preserved. Since we do not know which ms that is, it seems that the eclectic position is easier to defend. God HAS preserved His word...but we've had to dig for it. The argument that the eclectic position posits that the Church has been without the Word is a red herring. Since no doctrines are affected by the variants (not even the biggies, e.g. Mark 16, John 8), the point is moot.
For what it's worth, and you might find this interesting, if 1 Corinthians were ever found (the real one, not the canonical one), I would reject it as canonical, since my view of the preservation of Scripture is essentially the same as yours. I'm just not as bothered by variants as you are.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Puritanhead
**Let no one ever say I post extraneous stuff on threads diverting from the original thread topic**
I don't think it is off-topic at all. At the heart of the question (unless one is an ignorant, KJV only type...as opposed to an educated one, and they are truly two different beasts!) is one of transmission of the text, which invariably leads to two different discussions:1. Which text tradition is the most reliable? and
2. Which philosophy of translation (e.g. literal, dynamic) is superior. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
But I still liked your observation!
Donaldson sub-discussion
Fred,
If you didn't like Linden Avery in the 2nd Chronicles I don't think you'll like the final tetralogy --the first book, which is all that has appeared so far, is told entirely from her point of view. The first time I read them I thought the first series was better --but rereading them recently I found it more difficult to make that judgment. What was surprising to me is how completely different Donaldson can be in writing other things --The Man Who series, or the Gap series, or even Mordant's Need. It shows skill, I think, to be able to adapt your writing style to the sort of person your point-of-view characters are --but none of his characters in these other series compare with Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery. --Not to mention that the Chronicles are relatively chaste & decent, and the other series are anything but.
Fred,
If you didn't like Linden Avery in the 2nd Chronicles I don't think you'll like the final tetralogy --the first book, which is all that has appeared so far, is told entirely from her point of view. The first time I read them I thought the first series was better --but rereading them recently I found it more difficult to make that judgment. What was surprising to me is how completely different Donaldson can be in writing other things --The Man Who series, or the Gap series, or even Mordant's Need. It shows skill, I think, to be able to adapt your writing style to the sort of person your point-of-view characters are --but none of his characters in these other series compare with Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery. --Not to mention that the Chronicles are relatively chaste & decent, and the other series are anything but.
- Status
Similar threads
