The King James Version

[ViaCrucis]

Translation: I’m offended by what I read.

The article you linked to is simply wrong though. It claims that the personal pronoun "my" is in the Greek text, but it's not. The Greek of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is as follows:

παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

There is no first person pronoun present in the text, but instead the article τὸ, meaning "the", "that", "which", etc.

As such "the spirit" is an appropriate translation here. However it can also be used as a weak pronoun, in which case it is in the posessive here, meaning "their", "his", "her", or "its".

το - Wiktionary
Strong's Greek: 3588. ὁ, (ho, hé, to) -- the
Greek Word Study Tool

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

Translation: I’m offended by what I read.

Yup.

Heresy offends me. Ignorance of Greek in people commenting on translations offends me. Going against 2,000 years of Church teaching offends me.

 

[Radagast]

The article you linked to is simply wrong though. It claims that the personal pronoun "my" is in the Greek text, but it's not. The Greek of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is as follows:

παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

There is no first person pronoun present in the text, but instead the article τὸ, meaning "the", "that", "which", etc.

As such "the spirit" is an appropriate translation here. However it can also be used as a weak pronoun, in which case it is in the posessive here, meaning "their", "his", "her", or "its".

And indeed the possessive use is the only one that makes sense here, because the Holy Spirit doesn't need saving.

A parallel construct would be 2 Corinthians 5:6: "in the body" (ἐν τῷ σώματι), which means "in our body."

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The article you linked to is simply wrong though. It claims that the personal pronoun "my" is in the Greek text, but it's not. The Greek of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is as follows:

παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

There is no first person pronoun present in the text, but instead the article τὸ, meaning "the", "that", "which", etc.

As such "the spirit" is an appropriate translation here. However it can also be used as a weak pronoun, in which case it is in the posessive here, meaning "their", "his", "her", or "its".

το - Wiktionary
Strong's Greek: 3588. ὁ, (ho, hé, to) -- the
Greek Word Study Tool

-CryptoLutheran

What are you talking about? It says the personal pronoun is not present in it. Perhaps you are mistaking verse 4 which has the personal pronound for "my."
1 Corinthians 5:4 Interlinear: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ -- ye being gathered together, also my spirit -- with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

And indeed the possessive use is the only one that makes sense here, because the Holy Spirit doesn't need saving.

A parallel construct would be 2 Corinthians 5:6: "in the body" (ἐν τῷ σώματι), which means "in our body."

Ya'll just know everything so you don't need to read anything carefully or understand what an author says to make an effective argument against him? The context is clearly the preservation of the Holy Spirit in a church. Not the Holy Spirit needs "salvation." As Jesus himself said. Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come. 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell. Matthew: 5: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell. NET Bible

The context of the verse in question is a little bit of yeast will ferment the whole loaf. Paul determined that extreme measures were necessary in this particular case. Not just "shunning." You would have seen that had you just read the article though.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Yup.

Heresy offends me. Ignorance of Greek in people commenting on translations offends me. Going against 2,000 years of Church teaching offends me.

Breaking out the "heresy" and "all of " church history card as bit early aren't you? And I'm not allowed to comment on Bible translations when half of them properly do not add a personal pronoun to the verse? Which you would have seen in the article if you actually read it. You know there are some pretty harsh judgments in the NT that people don't really think very much about. This one is not out of character when compared to the others. Paul just did what Jesus said here. Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come. 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell. Matthew: 5: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell. NET Bible

 

[faroukfarouk]

Same here. I read the NIV for years but never felt like I was filling up spiritually. Every time I needed to check something I found myself going back to the KJV. It was the first bible I bought as a new Christian but had a hard time when I started reading in Leviticus and numbers so I got an NIV. Wish I had never of done that. When you compare verses its just not saying the same thing. "Things that are different are not the same"

I myself use and appreciate the King James.

 

[FireDragon76]

I believe the NKJV is translated from the same manuscripts as KJV. Technically, the KJV-only debate hinges on different manuscripts used for it, than other translations, such as the ESV. Historically, I'm not sure the KJV-only movement really emerged until other translations, such as the NIV, became more common in evangelical circles. Preferring the KJV over other translations is fine. KJV-only goes to far.

I prefer the NKJV, and the traditional Greek texts and Textus Receptus, just because it's what Christians have tended to use over the centuries. But I'm OK with other texts being used (even the Vulgate, with qualifications, since that is what Luther initially used). They don't change the essential meaning, usually.

At Christmas the pastor tends to read from the King James to add a sense of gravity and grandeur to the reading (and the language of the Nativity texts are not too difficult or arcane). Which is cool, though in some ways it's a bit anachronistic in a Lutheran church, of course (we don't tend to hail so much from Jolly Olde England), but most of us no longer speak our ancestral languages.

KJV-onlyism does indeed go too far. St. Paul did not speak early-modern English. If taken seriously, I would tend to think it would mean that the Church only speaks English, which is absurd. I understand the desire to believe in a faithful transmission of the text, but usually it's not articulated coherently or clearly. And having the exact original manuscripts handed down is less critical in our tradition, than in Reformed and Baptist-type traditions.

I'm no fan of dynamic translations for serious study of what the text actually means, most have heavy theological bias. The story of the Wedding at Cana in John 2, is one example, where even the RSV or NRSV is much more faithful than most dynamic translations. Many dynamic translations have Jesus talking back to his mother (which fits certain Protestant biases), whereas in other translations its more ambiguous.

 

[Radagast]

The context is clearly the preservation of the Holy Spirit in a church. .

That's not "clear" at all. I don't think the Greek can be sensibly read that way. From Chrysostom on, if not earlier, it's been understood as the spirit of the person in question. That's what the Greek means. That's why most modern translations, done by people who know Greek, have "his spirit" for clarity.

You would have seen that had you just read the article though.

I did read the whole article. The reasoning is fallacious and the theology is unsound. It's garbage.

And, quite frankly, if you have 2,000 years of the Church on one side, and some guy with a website on the other side, I would go with the Church.

 

[Radagast]

The story of the Wedding at Cana in John 2, is one example, where even the RSV or NRSV is much more faithful than most dynamic translations. Many dynamic translations have Jesus talking back to his mother (which fits certain Protestant biases), whereas in other translations its more ambiguous.

Jesus is certainly "talking back to his mother" to some extent. But here are 3 translations. One is so-called "dynamic," and one is Catholic. Which is which?

NABRE: [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”

NIV: Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

ESV: And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

 

[1stcenturylady]

There still are dinosaurs today, we just usually call them birds. The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous around 65 million years ago.

-CryptoLutheran

So how many years ago was Adam created?

 

[faroukfarouk]

My modernized Tyndale New Testament is expected to arrive tomorrow. I can't wait to compare it to the KJV.

There is an edition of it by David Daniell, issued by Yale UP.

Wisconsin UP also did a similar edition many years ago.

 

[1stcenturylady]

There is an edition of it by David Daniell, issued by Yale UP.

Wisconsin UP also did a similar edition many years ago.

Yes, that's the one that arrived. Very interesting differences. Like in Mark 16, instead of "pick up serpents," it says "kill serpents."

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes, that's the one that arrived. Very interesting differences. Like in Mark 16, instead of "pick up serpents," it says "kill serpents."

Interesting; might be a textual variant or influence of the Vulgate.

 

[gordonhooker]

Translation: I’m offended by what I read.

No not offended but will take what is written with a grain of salt.

 

[JackRT]

So how many years ago was Adam created?

Well, as a character he goes back some three thousand years.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus is certainly "talking back to his mother" to some extent. But here are 3 translations. One is so-called "dynamic," and one is Catholic. Which is which?

NABRE: [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”

NIV: Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

ESV: And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

"And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come." (John 2:4 Douy-Rheims 1889)

compare that with the Good News version:

"You must not tell me what to do,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”"

Of the two, the Douay Rheims is much more accurate to the original Greek text. The Good News is frankly a translator putting his own spin on what he wants Jesus to be saying.

The point of the exchange isn't that Jesus is "putting his mother in her place", he's warning her that this will be the beginning of his "hour" and it will involve both of them (as evidenced in John's Crucifixion narrative). This "hour" of Jesus, where he is glorified, is a recurring theme in John. The wedding at Cana marks the beginning of the hour, with a mysterion (a mystery, a sign), which culminates on the Cross.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So how many years ago was Adam created?

Assuming Adam was a literal-historical figure? The last few hundred thousand years is probably reasonable, anatomically modern humans arose about 200,000 years ago.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What are you talking about? It says the personal pronoun is not present in it. Perhaps you are mistaking verse 4 which has the personal pronound for "my."
1 Corinthians 5:4 Interlinear: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ -- ye being gathered together, also my spirit -- with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

I was tired and I misread what was being said. I thought the author was claiming that v. 5 has the first person pronoun "my".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

The Good News is frankly a translator putting his own spin on what he wants Jesus to be saying.

Agree. I would call the GNT a paraphrase, not a translation.