Does a 'Thought for Thought' translation or 'Dynamic Equivalence' make a difference?

[GDL]

I think there is a lot of confusion. I do not think there is a perfect translation although I do most of my readings from the KJV. I like to look at the parallel translations and also the Greek and Hebrew. My personal view though is that we cannot know the truth of God's Word unless God is our guide and teacher which is Gods new covenant promise to all those who believe and obey His Word (John 16:13; John 7:17; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; which is also a part of God's new covenant promise in Hebrews 8:11. Take a look at the Jews for example. They had the perfect translation of God's Word and when Jesus came who the Word testified of they crucified him. So much for the arguments of "the perfect translation". We need to have more faith that God will be our guide and teacher and believe his promises to us.

It would seem at least the early Jews did have the original Text and no translation, and they did not understand much of what was written. Same for those who spoke common Greek in the days the Greek documents were written. Then the various copies with variations and then translations. It's amazing we have as much as we have after these millennia. God's involvement is clear.

I agree with you completely. It's always God as our guide and ultimate teacher and it's clear that He favors those who truly believe, obey, Love (with and per His Divine Love) Him.

Thanks, David.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It would seem at least the early Jews did have the original Text and no translation, and they did not understand much of what was written. Same for those who spoke common Greek in the days the Greek documents were written. Then the various copies with variations and then translations. It's amazing we have as much as we have after these millennia. God's involvement is clear.

I agree with you completely. It's always God as our guide and ultimate teacher and it's clear that He favors those who truly believe, obey, Love (with and per His Divine Love) Him.

Thanks, David.

Hi GDL!

Nice to see you here.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is one that definitely makes a difference and its done in Gods Ten Commandments:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.

Do you see what they did. Its very subtle, but if you look "the Sabbath" is changed to "a Sabbath". This would broaden the scope of the command to cover ALL sabbaths including 'ceremonial' ones and not just the one made for man on the seventh day, and effectively create confusion within the Bible itself, for God did not create the world in seven days prior to each of the ceremonial sabbaths.

1. First of all it gets to whether or not the definite article "the" is in the Hebrew or merely inferred or whether the indefinite article "a" is in the Hebrew - or merely inferred. In Hebrew there are no indefinite articles so when there is one in a given OT translation it is always being inferred by translators using the rule that if there is no definite article then use indefinite. (I think GDL also mentioned this).

2. "A Sabbath of the Lord" would mean God inspired the Bible and none of the Sabbaths given in Lev 23 (weekly and annual) are "of man" but all are given by God. That would make the seventh day Sabbath one of those God gave mankind and not man making it up.

3. "The Sabbath" is in Vs 8 and 11 as all translators agree - so again as GDL points out the context for vs 10 makes it unambiguous.

 

[reddogs]

Welcome GDL! Nice to see you here. I do not post in here much but popped in and saw your post. I think there is a lot of confusion. I do not think there is a perfect translation although I do most of my readings from the KJV. I like to look at the parallel translations and also the Greek and Hebrew. My personal view though is that we cannot know the truth of God's Word unless God is our guide and teacher which is Gods new covenant promise to all those who believe and obey His Word (John 16:13; John 7:17; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; which is also a part of God's new covenant promise in Hebrews 8:11. Take a look at the Jews for example. They had the perfect translation of God's Word and when Jesus came who the Word testified of they crucified him. So much for the arguments of "the perfect translation". We need to have more faith that God will be our guide and teacher and believe his promises to us.

God bless

Very true, the translation is not the end all be all. But when the meaning is changed, it can make it much harder to understand, and thats all thats needed in a deception or distortion of the truth..

 

[reddogs]

FWIW, I see the points both of you are making.

It is clear from context that this is the seventh day based upon creation. It says this before and after the verse in question. The seventh day being "a" day of rest or "the day" of rest wouldn't make much difference in context, because it's clear what's being expressed.

Based upon all the confusion and issues in our time and upon what the Hebrew Text says, I'd have to agree that "a" sabbath is not the way this should be translated. I probably wouldn't even use "the" sabbath.

It's obviously the weekly seventh day which has a definite stated correlation to creation and is specific both before and after verse 10. Verses 8 and 11 in Hebrew do contain the article. The difference in translations comes from there being no article in verse 10. It simply says, "day the seventh sabbath {to} YHWH" (the seventh day [is] sabbath) and it's written this way in both Hebrew and Greek (Septuagint) in the versions I'm currently looking at.

Yes, various theological positions do end up in translations. Thankfully we have a lot of manuscript evidence to work from.

The thing is, they clearly did it with purpose as they do it over and over, and the mainly Catholic reviews at the time praised the "away from the textus receptucus", so they knew it.

 

[GDL]

The thing is, they clearly did it with purpose as they do it over and over, and the mainly Catholic reviews at the time praised the "away from the textus receptucus", so they knew it.

A little more clarity on your main point, please?