terminology

[Jcsogls]

In the King James versions and the like. In the book of Romans I believe the word circumsized and uncircumized is used to symbolize believer and unbeliever. Like the cutting of the heart.

IN the newer versions of the Bible well one that I read..Reads instead of using circumsicion term it just says believer and non-believer a friend of mine said thats its a piece of trash because the God said circumsicion not just believer..and by doing that we are taking away from his Word and adding our own..

Can I have some opinions about this please...

 

[HypnoToad]

In the King James versions and the like. In the book of Romans I believe the word circumsized and uncircumized is used to symbolize believer and unbeliever. Like the cutting of the heart.

IN the newer versions of the Bible well one that I read..Reads instead of using circumsicion term it just says believer and non-believer a friend of mine said thats its a piece of trash because the God said circumsicion not just believer..and by doing that we are taking away from his Word and adding our own..

Can I have some opinions about this please...

Without looking up the specific verses to see the context - this is just the difference between "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence". Those are different translation methods.

"Formal equivalence" is word-for-word. Each word (almost each word, it doesn't quite work perfectly) is translated from the original language into English. So, if the Greek word meant "circumsized", then that's what appears in the English.

"Dynamic equivalence" is thought-for-thought. Sort of phrase-by-phrase. They will take a whole phrase/sentence and ask "what thought are they trying to convey?" and write that thought in English. So, if the Greek word literally meant "circumsized", BUT the orignial MEANING behind the word means "unbeliever", then "unbeliever" will be the English translation - because that is the IDEA the Greek writer was trying to convey.

There are benefits to both sides. "Formal equivalence" tends to be more "accurate", but it can lead to very awkward renderings in English, or phrases that don't mean anything to us.** (see below)

"Dynamic equivalence" is usaully easier to understand, because it words things in our modern figures of speech. However, they can also sometimes lead to a translator puting his own theological biases into the translation. But, if the translator is fair, I believe dynamic equivalence is better.

It's also a good idea to have a good translation of BOTH types. It makes it easier to understand some things by looking at both methods in trying to comprehend some passages.

** An example of an awkward "word-for-word" translation - in Spanish, there is a saying "el mundo es un panuelo". Literally (word for word), it means "the world is a handkerchief" - which doesn't mean much to us in English. What the phrase means (it's "dynamic equivalence") is "it's a small world" - a phrase we use all the time in English and is readily understandable to us.

 

[Nazaroo]

Excellent idea: Get Young's Literal translation and the KJV, then also have the NIV or another modern translation to help you when you get stuck.

I had a four-in-one bible once which was really awesome when I was first studying the Word of God. But it was a bit more awkward to drag around. Still, I wish I had it again now.

Peace.

Good talk on dynamic equivalence etc.

 

[WAB]

XianJedi.... you did a good job answering Jcsogls... would like to just add my 2c in the same vein.

In the Gospel According to St. Matthew (in the KJV), there are 25 verses/quotations from the O.T. that qualify as "dynamic equivalency", fourteen of which are attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Will not list them all here, but may post the whole thing if anyone would like to see it.

In addition, the definition of "dynamic" and "equivalence" might be interesting to some, so here they are: "dynamic... fr. Gk. dynamikos powerful... 1a: of or relating to physical force or energy b: of or relating to dynamics: ACTIVE 2a: marked by continuous usu. productive activity or change... b: marked by energy: FORCEFUL..."
(caps in orig.)

"equivalence... 1a: the state or property of being equivalent... " i.e. equal.
Both from Webster's Dictionary.

(Of course any KJV Only fan will disagree... esp. Jack Moorman)

 

[OPAL]

In the King James versions and the like. In the book of Romans I believe the word circumsized and uncircumized is used to symbolize believer and unbeliever. Like the cutting of the heart.

IN the newer versions of the Bible well one that I read..Reads instead of using circumsicion term it just says believer and non-believer a friend of mine said thats its a piece of trash because the God said circumsicion not just believer..and by doing that we are taking away from his Word and adding our own..

Can I have some opinions about this please...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Circumcision represents the cutting away of the sins of the flesh.

Colossians 2:11, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

Some versions of the Bible are also leaving out the blood. Your friend is right. Pretty soon you will not be able to know the glorious Power of the Resurrection.

Circumcision is also the seal of the promise of righteousness by faith.

Romans 9-10, "...for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."

Psalms 25:12, "What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose."

 

[WAB]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Circumcision represents the cutting away of the sins of the flesh.

Colossians 2:11, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

Some versions of the Bible are also leaving out the blood. Your friend is right. Pretty soon you will not be able to know the glorious Power of the Resurrection.

Circumcision is also the seal of the promise of righteousness by faith.

Romans 9-10, "...for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."

Psalms 25:12, "What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose."

I may be mis-reading your post, but it looks as if you might be a KJV only fan. Understand that I have absolutely no problem with the KJV... except in certain places...for example, "Easter".

I also may be mis-reading your references to circumcision as something that believers are to be obedient to in the flesh? Hope not, for a "...circumcision made without hands..." is not literal.

Also, "...faith was reckoned to Abraham...in uncircumcision..." and then he received circumcision that he might be the progenitor of believers who came after him "...though they be not circumcised;"

To confuse things that were required for Abraham and then the nation of Israel under the old covenant with requirements for New Covenant believers is not a good idea.

I HOPE I did mis-understand.

 

[son]

There are some times when we just cannot look exactly what it says in the bible. It is not that the bible is wrong, but the way of expressing is different. Like in our daily life, having cold sweat does not mean that the weather is cold, but that the person is afraid. It can be the same in bible too. In KJV, the ones who can truly understand the writting are sadly, only those who are really well-versed in words and understanding. They are able to look in depth, as they can understand the words used and the true meaning behind.

However, sometimes, having the translated versions, like NIV, can lose the suspense and the widerness of the view. Like when explaining love or anger, in the KJV version, it is very long and deep to exlplain the feelings . But in NIV, they will translate into a more simplified version. In this way, the original meaning of the words may be not that wide anymore.

Anyway, the versions are not a matter, it is just whether you are used to it. For me, I use NIV, because I cannot understand the deep meaning of KJV. However, when there is something in the verse that I am not happy with, I will still use other versions to check on it. ^^

 

[OPAL]

Dear WAB,

I hope you did not misunderstand me. I have read the 'KJV' of the Bible spiritually for so many years that I did not dream that any one would take my reference to circumcision as a literal one, I hope no one elce did.

Of course I would hope that Christians know that they are not under the law but under GRACE.

As for the KJV, yes I love the book. It has satisfied and fulfilled my every desire, which is to stand unashamed before him at his coming.

 

[WAB]

Dear WAB,

I hope you did not misunderstand me. I have read the 'KJV' of the Bible spiritually for so many years that I did not dream that any one would take my reference to circumcision as a literal one, I hope no one elce did.

Of course I would hope that Christians know that they are not under the law but under GRACE.

As for the KJV, yes I love the book. It has satisfied and fulfilled my every desire, which is to stand unashamed before him at his coming.

Dear Opal... SISTER in Christ... I just mis-understood. I too love the KJV, and have completely worn out two, and have two more that are well used. That is not to say that I don't use other translations, I do. Comparison helps, and also gives insight when considering someone else's opinions re the Scriptures.

Please forgive me if I offended you... certainly did not intend such. Your brother because of Calvary, Bill

 

[Dale]

jcsogls in OP:
<< IN the newer versions of the Bible well one that I read..Reads instead of using circumsicion term it just says believer and non-believer a friend of mine said thats its a piece of trash because the God said circumsicion not just believer..and by doing that we are taking away from his Word and adding our own.. >>

It would help if you would specify which newer translation you are talking about.
The widely used NIV does contain the word "circumcision" quite a few times in the Epistles.



Romans 2:25
Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.
Romans 2:24-26
Romans 2:27
The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
Romans 2:26-28
Romans 2:28
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
Romans 2:27-29
Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:28-30

Romans 3:1
[ God's Faithfulness ] What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands.
Galatians 2:12
Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Galatians 5:11
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

Galatians 6:11
[ Not Circumcision but a New Creation ] See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

Galatians 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Ephesians 2:11
[ One in Christ ] Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)—
Philippians 3:3
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—
Colossians 2:11
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
Titus 1:10
For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.

 

[OPAL]

Dear Opal... SISTER in Christ... I just mis-understood. I too love the KJV, and have completely worn out two, and have two more that are well used. That is not to say that I don't use other translations, I do. Comparison helps, and also gives insight when considering someone else's opinions re the Scriptures.

Please forgive me if I offended you... certainly did not intend such. Your brother because of Calvary, Bill

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your kind reply. I took no offence what so ever. I pray that God will enlighten us to anything that is lacking in our faith.

Judy

 

[justified]

Well I hate the KJV. No offence to anyone, though.