| Author |
Message |
Wolfgang
Registered user
Username: Wolfgang
Post Number: 64
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |     |
Stan thankyou that helps,perhaps it wasnt so much that she wrote it but through the years preached it and it just got carried throughout the years? Im not sure but I'll get to the bottom of this But it was in a Sabbath School class from the SS teacher saying "we've been told" blah blah blah. |
Willy430
Registered user
Username: Willy430
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 2:53 pm: | |
Colleen:
You got me thinking on that one, here is Youngs literal translation.
52and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who have fallen asleep, arose,
53and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many.
Is this a single event? It's placement in the chapter gives me pause,
in vs.50 is his death, 51 the earthquake, 52 the raising, 53 into the city after the resurrection of Christ, then back to Calvery in 54. Now I'll need to spend more time in Leviticus sorting out the first fruits ceremony to see if it's a single event offering or done in stages, thanks Colleen now I've got more studying because of one possible misstatement I made, I'm just kidding I love this stuff, if there is a clue in typology it ought to appear in the reality.
Bill
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1369
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 3:04 pm: | |
Wolfgang,
You have me curious. Maybe if I go dust off my copy of Desire of Ages, maybe I can find what she said about the thief that was saved.
Where are you Jeremy? Have you seen any statement about what Ellen taught about the thief who was saved?
The only reason I can guess what she might have said is that she was a follower of John Wesley's theology, and that would be the conditional view of election, where God elects us based on his foreknowledge of how we are going to respond to the gospel, and how we are going to live the Christian life, and Wesley and EGW took it to the perfectionism extreme, so because we know what her basic philosophy was, then maybe we can predict how she would have written about this.
Stan |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 114
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 3:54 pm: | |
What I know is that Ellen White said that the thief's faith "may be represented by the eleventh hour laborers who receive as much reward as do those who have labored for many hours." (MS 52, 1897), cited in SDABC, vol 5, page 1125.
But the idea is that, if he was called early, he surely will work as those in the parable who were called early. Only circumstances, the late hour, put a stop of the "work" of the thief, because, if he was called early, he surely .....
"This parable does not excuse those who, after hearing the truth, assent to it, saying, "That is all true," and then fail to comply with it. These refuse to walk in the light, because by so doing they would displease their friends or disturb their own satisfied condition of self-righteousness. The parable does not teach that the Lord will vindicate those who, because they wish their own time and their own way, refuse the first call to work. When the householder went to the market and found men unhired, he said, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" And the reply was, "Because no man hath hired us." None of those called later in the day were there in the morning. They had not refused the call.{RH, July 31, 1900 par. 9} |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 420
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 4:50 am: | |
Just curious ? ? those who were raised from the grave when Christ was raised . . . Where had they been while in the grave? Were they "asleep" or were they "pulled" back from heaven to live on earth. I'm not trying to be either funny or arguing. I'm more confused.
confused,
Richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 389
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 7:09 am: | |
Good question, Richard. I have heard that before Jesus' resurrection, the righteous dead could not have been in heaven, but instead were in some waiting place, but this side of the cross, believers are with Christ, which would be in heaven. I'm kind of vague on what I've heard. Maybe we can only speculate, but does anyone know what's supportable by the Bible?
On a related topic, I was reading in I Samuel yesterday, about when Saul had the Witch of Endor bring back Samuel. The Bible plainly states it was Samuel, not an evil spirit pretending to be Samuel. And he asks why he got disturbed. It's interesting that even in death, he still gave a completely accurate prophecy about what would happen to Saul and his family. What I was wondering is this: Obviously it is forbidden to even attempt to bring up anyone's spirit. But if someone did that today, would it be possible to bring back the spirit of a believer? I know Peter brought back Dorcas literally to life, but that was God's power. Mediums don't use God's power, but Satan's power. How could the power of Satan even temporarily bring back the spirit of someone who is in heaven?
It is confusing, and I'm glad we don't have to know all the answers! |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 421
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 8:57 am: | |
Raven,
You said, "It is confusing, and I'm glad we don't have to know all the answers!"
I agree with you, for many of us the temptation is to "know all the answers" and to make sure that no one is a heritic or disagrees with us.  Even if we need to debate them into agreeing with our position. We need to let the Holy Spirit do the convicting for there can be a "religious spirit" outside the SDA church as well as in it.
I pray that I might have the Spirit of Christ in my life as I seek to know His face and quietly rest in His Presence. I ask freedom from that "need" to always be right, I lived with that much of my life and I am determined to know Him and Him alone.
I'm sorry but it means that there are days, HERE, when I just "tune out" the rightness/wrongness discussion and rest in His presence.
In Christ,
richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 422
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 8:58 am: | |
I wanted to add that as we dwell in His presence He will draw us into all TRUTH.
Richard |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 970
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 10:34 am: | |
Well said, Richard. We are all pilgrims on a path, and some of us have more active agendas than others. Some, I will venture, have had to deal with religious prejudice more than others have. Some have had to face the righteous long nose (the one that is looked down at sinners from) more often than others. I want to know all truth, if possible, but not so that I can flog others with it. For instance, a few days ago a wonderfully written article on altar calls was posted here. I was deeply touched by it, copied it out, and sent it to almost everyone I know--including my Adventist friends and relatives. The responses have ranged from agreement to cold shoulder, and sometimes it was surprising who responded in which manner. I had to be quick to respond with my personal experience that it was through an altar call that I first came to Jesus personally. As a result of an altar call I was baptized. I have also been wearied by the number of altar calls I have been put through, particularly the ones that are endless (every Week of Prayer at Academy). As one of my former classmates shared with me, each time we were convicted, each time we surrendered our makeup to be burned as a sinful vice, and each break after that we replenished our stocks while we were home. Those calls would drone on until every student had "testified," and there were those who testified so we could finish the thing and get to supper.
I love Jesus. I loved him then. I wasn't as sure of his love for me because I experienced my sinfulness and thought it to be a barrier between us. I'm now aware that Jesus overcame that barrier on my behalf because he loves me. I banquet at his table, and wear the robe of righteousness that he made just for me. Those are the most important details to me just now, but I know that others must sort out things for themselves in a different manner. Their hurts or disillusions were different from mine. I simply hope we won't wound one another while we are fighting off our personal demons. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 614
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 8:10 pm: | |
Richard,
In the Old Testament, the righteous as well as the wicked went to Sheol at death (Gen. 37:35). Those in Sheol are pictured as conversing with each other and even making moral judgments on the lifestyle of new arrivals (Isa. 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek. 32:21). Thus, they are conscious entities while in Sheol. In Sheol, there was no longer any physical life like marrying, eating, and procreating. They are cut off from the living. They have entered a new dimension of reality with its own kind of existence (Ps.6:5; Eccles. 9:10, etc.). There was a lower and higher part of Sheol before the Christ Event. Moses says the wicked experience the fire of Yahweh's anger in the "lowest part of Sheol" (Deut. 32:22).
The bondage of fear which gripped the Old Testament saints expressed itself in different ways. They had a fear of being separated from their living loved ones. They were afraid of being severed from the joys of life (PS. 6). They begged to be delivered from death and Sheol because they did not look forward to death (Ps. 13). This is why they spoke of the "sorrows" (KJV) and "terrors" of death (Ps. 18:4; 55:4; 116:3) instead of the triumph in death which New Testament saints express (2 Tim. 4:6-8). Also, the Old Testament believers knew that Sheol was open to God's sight (Job 26:6) and that they would still be in God's presence and protection (Ps. 139:8). While Old Testament saints knew that they were going to Sheol at death, there were hints that they might be taken to heaven to be at God's throne after death.
In short, the Old Testament describes Sheol as a shadowy place or place of darkness (Job 10:21,22; Ps. 143:3). It is viewed as being "down," "beneath the earth," or in "the lower parts of the earth" (Job 11:8; Isa. 44:23; 57:9; Ezek. 26:20; Amos 9:2). Furthermore, the Old Testament describes Sheol where one can reunite with his ancestors, tribe, or people (Gen. 15:15; 25:8;35:29;37:35;49:33; Num. 20:24,28; 31:2; Deut. 32:50; 34:5;2 Sam. 12:23). This cannot refer to one common mass grave where everyone was buried. No such graves ever existed in recorded history. Sheol is the place where the souls of all men go at death. That is why Jacob looked forward to reuniting with Joseph in Sheol. While death meant separation from the living, the OT prophets clearly understood that it also meant reunion with the departed.
While "kever" is found in its plural form "graves" (Ex. 14:11), the word "Sheol" is NEVER pluralized (ask any Hebrew scholar or teacher). While a grave is located at a specific site (Ex. 14:11), Sheol is NEVER localized, because it is everywhere accessible at death no matter where the death takes place. No grave is necessary in order to go to Sheol. While we can visit the graves of loved ones, nowhere in Scripture is man said to visit Sheol. Given the principle of progressive revelation, it is no surprise that the OT is vague in its description of Sheol and the condition of those in it. Another reason for this vagueness is that a conscious afterlife was so universally accepted that it was assumed by the Bible authors to be the belief of anyone who read the Scriptures. Since it was not a point of conflict, no great attention was given to it.
In summary, the following are additional contrasts to "kever" (grave) and "Sheol":
1. While we can purchase or sell a grave (Gen. 23:4-20), Scripture never speaks of Sheol being purchased or sold.
2. While we can discriminate between graves and pick the the "choicest site" (Gen. 23:6), nowhere in Scripture is a "choice" Sheol pitted against a "poor" Sheol.
3. While we can own a grave as personal property (Gen. 23:4-20), nowhere in Scripture is Sheol owned by man.
4. While we can drop a dead body into a grave (Gen. 50:13), no one can drop anyone into Sheol.
5. While we can erect a monument over a grave (Gen. 35:20, Sheol is never spoken of as having monuments.
6. While we can touch a grave (Num. 19:18), no one is ever said in Scripture to touch Sheol.
7. While touching a grave brings ceremonial defilement (Num. 19:16), the Scriptures never speak of anyone defiled by Sheol.
8. While we can enter and leave a tomb or grave (2 Kings 23:16), no one is ever said to enter and then leave Sheol.
9. While we can beautify a grave with ornate carvings or pictures (Gen. 35:20), Sheol is never beautified by man.
10. While a grave can be destroyed by man (Jer. 8:1,2), nowhere in Scripture is man said to be able to destroy Sheol.
11. While we can see a grave, Sheol is always invisible.
12. While graves can be robbed or defiled by man (Jer. 8:1,2), Sheol is never spoken of as being robbed or defiled by man.
13. While we can, with ease, open and close a grave (2 Kings 23:16), Sheol is never opened or closed by man.
14. While the "kabar" (to bury) is used in connection with "kever," it is never used in connection with Sheol. We can bury someone in a grave but we cannot bury anyone in Sheol (Gen. 23:4,6,9,19,20;49:30, 31, etc.).
CREDIT: The above excerpts were selected from Dr. Robert Morey's book, "Death and the Afterlife." The late Dr. Walter Martin said of this book, "The most comprehensive biblical study of the subject in the last half century!"
Dennis Fischer
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3480
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 11:40 pm: | |
Wow, what a great post, Dennis!
As I read through it, pondering the OT statements on Sheol and the shadowy-ness of the after-death experience, I was reminded again of 2 Timothy 1:8-10 where Paul says Jesus "has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."
Before Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the reality of what happened after death was shrouded in mystery. There's still mystery about the subject, obviously, but the NT is far clearer than the OTóbecause Jesus has broken down the inscrutable wall of death and shown us a bit of what lies beyond.
Colleen |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 440
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 12:08 am: | |
Before Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the reality of what happened after death was shrouded in mystery. There's still mystery about the subject, obviously, but the NT is far clearer than the OTóbecause Jesus has broken down the inscrutable wall of death and shown us a bit of what lies beyond.
-------------------------------------------
Not only that, Colleen, but several things changed with the resurrection of Christ:
1. While absent from this earth, Christ apparently preached to these spirits.
2. Jesus apparently took a lot of these spirits back with Him to heaven.
3. He was able to do this as He now held the keys of death and hades.
4. Satan was judged and cast out of heaven at the resurrection.
So, now Christ has complete control over the afterlife. We no longer go to Sheol, but actually to heaven until the conflict on earth ends. Then, we are given new bodies and a new earth to be our eternal home.
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3484
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 12:45 am: | |
Yes, Loneviking, these deductions seem logical. There are, however, some notable exceptions. Enoch and Elijah, while they didn't die, did go to heaven. Moses, who did die, apparently also went to heaven before Jesus' resurrection. He certainly showed up on the Mount of Transfiguration with Elijah!
We can speculate about what and how and when these things happen, but there are just enough anomalies to keep us from being completely certain we know how it "works".
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 615
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 2:12 pm: | |
What really confuses Bible students sometimes is when they use certain Bible versions (i.e., NIV, KJV, NKJV, CEV, NEB, MESSAGE) that mistranslate "Sheol" to mean grave in one or more instances (as in Gen. 37:35). Still other versions even omit the word "Sheol" entirely (i.e., NLT, THE LIVING BIBLE, NCV, MOFFATT'S). Fortunately, many Bible versions are translated correctly in Genesis 37:35 (i.e., NASB, ESV, NJB, RSV, NRSV, HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE, THE NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE, etc.).
Indeed, even one mistranslated word can cause great confusion, misunderstanding, and harm by supposedly supporting an aberrant view. This reveals the falsity of so-called "thought inspiration" instead of viewing all Scripture as being verbally inspired or "God breathed." Words are of utmost importance; after all, the key ingredients of all thoughts are single words. Ultimately, God is the author of his own book, the Bible. We have reason to believe that He had complete control over his penmen.
Dennis Fischer |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 4:21 pm: | |
Dennis,
I liked the fact that you mentioned the ESV as correctly translating those words. The ESV has become the hottest new translation on the market. It is reported to be as accurate as the NASB, but more readable.
Stan |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 443
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 9:54 pm: | |
What is the ESV? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3490
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 10:42 pm: | |
English Standard Version. It was copyrighted in 2001.
Elizabeth Inrig told our Monday night Bible study leaders that Gary (her scholar husband who does ALL his Bible study from Hebrew and Greek and never from the English translations) says what Stan reported above: the ESV is as accurate as the NASB (which is a literal word translation) but is more readable. She said that she's basing our women's Bible studies next year on the ESV instead of on the NIV and has said we should be prepared to obtain at least a paperback version of the ESV.
I know that Richard and Stan both use the ESV in our Friday evening studies, and it does "read" a bit easier than the NASB.
Colleen |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:58 am: | |
I use the NASB as my primary study Bible, but have also been impressed by the ESV. Noted Greek teacher William Mounce worked on the translation team. There are still a couple of spots where they gave a respectful head nod to the KJV where I wish they hadn't (e.g. John 3:16), but overall it's excellent.
I was looking at some stats recently in Chrisitanity Today and I believe that another new translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, is actually outstripping the ESV in terms of sales and growth. The HCSB is also getting extremely good reviews from Hebrew and Greek scholars and is being favorably compared to the NASB. Some have gone so far as to say it better captures the original language nuances then the NASB. Better yet, although the forward says some nice things about the KJV, it doesn't appear that the translation team felt constrained to follow the KJV on certain famous versus. If you want to see what John 3:16 REALLY conveys in the Greek, check out the HCSB.
By the way, I'm not promoting one of these translations over the other particulary. I like the ESV and HCSB a lot, but still find myself using my NASB and NIV somewhat more. It's just nice to have different tools in your tool box. Each has strengths and weakness in their approach to the inherrant problems of translation, but all are the result of the finest scholarship available.
Chris |
Willy430
Registered user
Username: Willy430
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 9:51 am: | |
Dennis:
I enjoyed reading your post, a book I bought a few years ago titled Shades of Sheol by P. Johnston.
In it he offers most every refrence known to the afterlife, he does so with out attempting to force a theological point, at least it's not an overpowering one.
The book allows you to draw your own conclusions about the afterlife, and certianly clears up the meaning of the word Sheol, after reading it I was forced to agree with your conclusions, one must be very careful when using O.T. verses to gain an understanding of the afterlife, now that Christ has lead captivity captive. |
Thomas1
Registered user
Username: Thomas1
Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 5:57 pm: | |
I'll put in another plug for the Holman Christian Standard Bible. It's the first "ground up" translation in more than thirty years. The ESV states that they stand in the KJV tradition. When you read it, you find a heavy KJV influence in a lot of places. I've read the NASB 5 or 6 times, the Holman three times and am in the process of reading the ESV for the second time. I really do not find the ESV that easy to read, certainly not easier than the Updated NASB, but of the three, the Holman is fast becoming my favorite.
In any "real" translation, the gospel is clearly presented. So sad when some folks get locked into translations they do not understand, because they are told that they are the "only true word of God".
God's word is fresh and for TODAY, and should be understood by the people it seeks to reach. The secret of any Bible is to read it. Read it in context. Read it completely, (and not with one of those handy dandy reading plans). And keep in mind that the whole story is about one man and one event. The old points forward and the new gives us our message as a church.
Stay, In His Grace!
<><
Thomas |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 10:15 am: | |
Thanks all for the info on the Holman Christian Standard. I read it advertised somewhere and got concerned another special interest group might be putting out their Biblical spin. Glad to hear the good reports! |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 10:42 am: | |
Okay -- I have to ask, what's wrong with the KJV or NKJV? After the FAF retreat, I noticed most people had the NASB. I had thought that the KJV was the most accurate? All through school, that was the Bible that we needed to have, and all the memory verses memorized were in that translation. I've noticed comments here and there on other posts referring to the KJV somewhat negatively, but haven't really deciphered what that negative thing is. I'm looking to get a new Bible soon, and had just assumed I would get the NKJV again because that's all I know. So I'd love any input. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3501
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 1:29 pm: | |
Grace, the KJV was translated in the early 1600's from the manuscripts available then. The Latin vulgate in wide usage by the Catholic Church was part of the manuscript pool from which the translators worked.
Since 1610, however, MANY much older manuscripts in original languages have been found, including the Dead Sea scrolls during the 20th century. The newer translations are much more accurate than the KJV because they are based on far older manuscripts instead of on manuscripts already translated perhaps several times, as the Latin vulgate had been translated.
The manuscript "families" on which the NIV, NASB are based are older and more accurate than those behind the original KJV.
The reason the SDA church required the KJV is that the Investigative Judgment doctrine is completely exposed as unbiblical without the KJV. In the KJV, Daniel 8:14 reads, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
Adventists use this text to support the teaching that Jesus' blood "transferred" our sins to the Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary. In 1844, then, when the IJ supposedly began, Jesus began "cleansing" the heavenly sanctuary of the sins "stored" there since the cross. When he completes this "anti-typical day of atonement", the sanctuary will be completely "cleansed", and our fates will be sealed.
In reality, however, the Hebrew word behind that word translated "cleansed" in the KJV is actually a word that means "reconsecrated" (as it's rendered in the NIV) or "restored" (NASB) or "restored to its rightful state" (ESV).
Further, NIV and NASB and ESV all say 2,300 "evenings and mornings" instead of "days" (KJV).
In fact, these more accurate translations support the explanation suggested in the rest of Daniel 8, that the temple was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes IV, a Greek monarch, who commanded that a pig be slaughtered on the temple altar. Jewish historian Josephus confirms that Antiochus defiled the temple and ordered the daily sacrifices to end (the "evenings and mornings" mentioned in 8:14).
Judas Maccabeus recaptured Jerusalem from Antiochus and rededicated the temple 1,150 days after Antiochus defiled it. During that 1,150 days, 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices were not offered.
In short, Adventist theology depends upon the KJV translation even to have a breath of a chance of surviving.
Modern translations are based on older, more accurate manuscripts in addition to being rendered in modern instead of Elizabethan (or James-ian!) English.
Colleen |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 281
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 5:54 pm: | |
I grew up KJV-only, and memorized a lot of verses, so it was with great surprise that I started reading other translations and found out what the verses actually said!
(If anyone claims to understand the KJV, I ask them to explain what "if that I may apprehend that for which I am also apprehended" is. Hint. It is in Phillipians. I spent a significant period of time drumming those seemingly random words in my mind just to memorize the chapter)Many of the words in the KJV are either archaic or their meanings have changed. The sentence structure is also difficult. My husband and I both like the New Living Translation, even though it is not "word for word" translation like the NASB.
Alternatively,
Hannah |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 6:47 pm: | |
Snowboardingmom, I would also add that while the NKJV has had some of the language updated, it is still primarily based on the same less reliable family of manuscripts that the original KJV was. Although I think the NKJV is a decent translation (I've read the entire NT and parts of the OT in this version) in many ways I think it represents the worst of all worlds. Here's why:
1) Although updated the language at times is still stilted and archaic sounding. It is tranlated into a much more formal English style then the common language used in the original Greek. Worse yet, some of the lofty beauty of the original Elizabethan English is lost so all you're left with is very formal stilted psuedo-modern English.
2) It is still less accurate than modern translations based on better manuscripts.
3) It is less "literal" then the original KJV which allows somewhat more room for translater interpretation (something that is inherant in all translation, but should be minimized in scripture).
Quite honestly, if you're a fan of the KJV, then I tend to prefer the original over the NKJV. Still I think there are a large number of better options out there.
You might find this page helpful in understanding the various approaches to translation and how those approaches are used in today's most popular translations BIBLE TRANSLATIONS. I think the comparisons on this page are exceptionally useful for selecting your tool of choice.
I really do see various English translations as tools with different uses. If you don't read Hebrew or Greek then you're not reading the Bible, not really. Regardless of the approach taken to translation, some meaning will be lost and some hard choices will have to be made. This is just the nature of all translation. So you take one approach and get one kind of tool and another kind of approach and get another kind of tool, but they're all only translations of the original. I hope the link is helpful.
Chris |
|
