-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Fellow dispys
- Thread starter Jerrysch
- Start date
- Status
Jerrysch said:
While I am not KJVO it is rather difficult to beat that gold standard. I am attempting to pick up the Greek but in the mean time ...
The Wesscott and Hort thing doesn't give me a basis for acceptance of the newer translations ...
Why do we need a "new" anything? Can you imagine a "new" Shakespeare? Maybe a Rap version of Chaser?
Gag ...
Perhaps we should teach our young people to read ...
Upvote
0
Here is a reasonable article on the ESV ...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html
It seems to be somehow sponsored by J. I. Packer ... who I am familiar with. Packer is a decidedly Covenant theologian and not Dispensational (for what its worth). I do like Packer but it helps to know where he is coming from.
.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html
It seems to be somehow sponsored by J. I. Packer ... who I am familiar with. Packer is a decidedly Covenant theologian and not Dispensational (for what its worth). I do like Packer but it helps to know where he is coming from.
.
Upvote
0
Tychicum said:
Thanks for the link... I did see a paragraph which I would like to present to the group to see if any "red Flags" go up in responce to it.
"...This passage is in the RSV a good example of that version's tendency to interpret the Old Testament without reference to the New Testament. The true Christological meaning of the blessing and the prophecy given here is simply ruled out by the RSV, though it is practically required by a New Testament passage (see Galatians 3:16) which interprets the blessing of Abraham as a prophecy of Christ. The ESV restores this interpretation, on the authority of the Apostle Paul. A similar revision is made in the related passages, Genesis 12:3, 22:18, 26:4, and 28:14. See also "offspring" in Psalm 89:4, 29, and 36 in relation to John 12:34 (to which the ESV points in a cross-reference note at Psalm 89:4)."
See the red text.
Upvote
0
Well it is foolish to interpret the Old Testament in anything other than it's own context.
That is precisely why so many can not see the forest for the trees. They read back into the Old Testament things which simply aren't there ...
This common practice is certainly inconsistent with the way which God revealed His Word. And it changes it's plain meaning ...
That is precisely why so many can not see the forest for the trees. They read back into the Old Testament things which simply aren't there ...
This common practice is certainly inconsistent with the way which God revealed His Word. And it changes it's plain meaning ...
Upvote
0
LamorakDesGalis
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2004
- 2,198
- 235
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Jerrysch said:
Its not really a new translation based on the originals.
Its basically a "political Bible" because its purpose was mainly a reaction to the supposedly more "Gender-neutral" versions (NRSV, TNIV). Its mainly an updated RSV, with only about 5% of the RSV text changed for the ESV. So personally I'm not very excited about a slightly different English version of the RSV. Its ironic to me that this is the same RSV text which was villified by conservative Christians in the 1950s. So perhaps 40 years from now we'll see "upated" Bibles of versions being villified today, such as the NRSVs or TNIVs.
It is somewhat popular among conservative Christians and is endorsed by a wide range of folks with different denoms and theologies.
Upvote
0
- Status
