R.J.

DAVID CONKLIN, are you illiterate, or are you harassing us???? I posted your reply in my 1st post!!!!
----------------------------------------------
Incidently, DAVID CONKLIN is a Seventh-Day-Adventist!!!!

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: R.J. ]</p>

R.J.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: R.J. ]</p>

David Conklin

How could you reply to something I just posted? Incidently, I didn't read the post you referred to completely. MEA CULPA!

CX

Please try to refrain from ad hominem remarks in posts. Let's stick to the issues. Secondly David's religious affiliation is really immaterial to the discussion as well. His arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

Thanks,

CX - BC&A moderator

David Conklin

Thank you for having good manners!

David Conklin

The fundamental presupposition of the author is that the English translation is completely accurate in giving us the same meaning as it had in a different language for a completely different culture. It's kind of like the anthropology joke ab't the natives who asked the Westeners why they saved their snot.

For a good starter to understand the differences between the various translations (and its affect) see the following web sites:

1) <a href="http://www.thesumners.com/bible/methods2.html" target="_blank">http://www.thesumners.com/bible/methods2.html</a>

2) <a href="http://www.judeministries.org/Bible/versions.htm" target="_blank">http://www.judeministries.org/Bible/versions.htm</a>

3) <a href="http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/dynamicniv.htm" target="_blank">http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/dynamicniv.htm</a> -- "...translation theorist Eugene Nida suggested that a Biblical translation should have the same dynamic impact on the modern reader as the original conveyed to the first audience. Dynamic Equivalence is now a discipline which uses receptor words that most effectively produce the original dynamics to the modern reader. Unfortunately, this is often difficult because historical and cultural differences need explaining."

4) <a href="http://earth.vol.com/~lmartin/TRANSL.HTM" target="_blank">http://earth.vol.com/~lmartin/TRANSL.HTM</a> -- neat chart

5) <a href="http://www.godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cgi?cart_id=9940795_21571&page=scholar3.ht m" target="_blank">http://www.godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cgi?cart_id=9940795_21571&page=scholar3.ht m</a> -- "... two important principles of closest natural equivalence are:
1) a translation that is not natural in the target language is not equivalent to the source text, no matter how well it may match the source text on a word-by-word basis
2) target language naturalness by itself does not ensure a good translation"

6) <a href="http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/religion/glossary.htm" target="_blank">http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/religion/glossary.htm</a> -- look under Dynamic Equivalence & Formal Equivalence
7) <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html" target="_blank">http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html</a>
8) <a href="http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/mine/tev.txt" target="_blank">http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/mine/tev.txt</a>
9) <a href="http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/</a> -- good for links (a few given above)

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]</p>

NOGO

You seemed to have missed some of the rebuttals to your post as well.

David Conklin

I saw them later. The best one, of those I could actually see when I clicked the links, I responded to, in part, in the post just above yours.

NOGO

If you believe that the translation is faulty then say so and show us where we went wrong. All these links amount to nothing.

Early Christians believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime. This is clearly shown in many places in the NT. GMt24 is but one of them.

If you have anything to support your interpretation you will post it here. I will certainly not waste my time following links which amount to nothing.

Butters

posted by David Conklin,
This is an argument that I hear more and more. We don't know what the Bible means because it was written in a different time and culture.
This only raises more problems.
First, if christianity was practiced in a continuous line, from the apostles on. Where did the meaning of the message get lost? How could the followers of Jesus lose the meaning of his message?
Second, if this is true, then what most people have thought was the word of God has been misinterpreted for at least as long as it has been taught in english. All those poor billions of people led astray, just because no one could remember what the Bible REALLY said.
Third, if this is true, then who can we trust to decipher these lost meanings? Jerry Falwell? David Koresh? Robert Turkel? Amos?
You guys need to pick one set of rules and stick to them.

Of course this supports Thomas Pain's assertion that God WOULD NOT revel his plan, thoughts, etc. in a book written by the hand of man. God knows that some men are liars. God knows that some men will write books claiming to come from God. Therefore God knows that any man has a right to disbelieve ANY of these books. If not, we only fall prey to charlatans and theives.