We have the audio sermons coming on our church website again. You can listen and download both now at the same location. Just click on the sermon to get the download function. However, there is an audio player you can listen to right at the site.Also I've invited Thomas Ross to be a guest columnist any time that he writes something fit for What Is Truth. One article that I'm not going to print here, because I don't have Hebrew fonts or else I would, is this article that pertains to the King James Version. However, look for Thomas Ross articles here in the future.
Br Brandenburg,
ReplyDeleteThank you and the others responsible for making these messages available!!
Congratulations Br Ross. Look forward to your articles in the future.
Respectfully Submitted
Br Steve
Gal. 2.20
Congratulations Ross. His materials are quite substantial, but absolutely necessary. Glad to hear this news.
ReplyDeleteI guess I can comment here to respond to Ross' article.
ReplyDeleteBriefly, I don't think the argument is that the KJV's rendering of "God forbid" is a mistranslation. If you find non-KJVO saying that, I'd disagree. I think it is a suitable translation. The real argument is this: following many a KJVO argumentation, "God forbid" would have to be thrown out since, no matter how you justify it, it is not a literal translation of the Greek in question. Here is a King James Only double standard, which oddly enough here is more accented since the arguments used to support it employ the LXX and "modern Greek." What happens when Christians who defend modern readings make use of the LXX and/or modern Greek? I can only imagine the things that would be said in response to me if I claimed, "yeah this verse here in ESV is different from the KJV, but that's what they say in modern Greek now, so it's ok. Oh, and the LXX supports it, too." I think it's obvious that the article doesn't justify the example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV.
Now, I did say that I'm ok with the rendering, but the reason is because, like most of us modern version users, I'm ok with dynamic equivalence. So it is possible my comments here are only good for the KJVO who hate EVERY bit of dynamic equivalence, not realizing it is found in the KJV. If that is not the position of Mr. Ross, then my double-standard argumentation doesn't apply to him in that sense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou would never find my criticizing your reference to LXX as a basis for studying how words are used. That is a legitimate usage of it, even as it would be if you studied the pseudepigrapha or other intertestamental materials. You're missing the point there. I'm even for looking at Homer for studying how Greek was used in the day. When we use a Lexicon, that's what they have done too. So you're crying wolf here.
ReplyDeleteDamien,
ReplyDeleteBrother Ross's argument is made by many other commentaries, none of which are pro KJV. An example is found in John Murray's commentary, The Epistle to the Romans, from the NICNT on page 94. I cannot post it here because of the Hebrew and Greek fonts. I do not think that this would be called "dynamic equivalence". The argument is that both the Hebrew & the Greek phrases are understood to have a reference to God.
G. Webb
Dear Pastor Webb,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reference from the commentary! I agree, and it's a blessing to find out that scholars agree with what I concluded independently of your sources.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteIn a recent post I recommended my readers to install Biblical fonts on their computer. It is easy to install these fonts. It is also helpful because it will allow you to show Biblical languages in your post.
You can download Biblical fonts here
thanks for the suggestion Dr. Mariottini.
ReplyDeleteDamien,
ReplyDeleteDid you happen to check the reference from John Murray's commentary. If you do not have that commentary, I would be glad to send the quote to you. But, if you check some other technical commentaries, you will probably find similar statements.
G. Webb
Gary,
ReplyDeleteNo I haven't, but that's fine. Your and Kent's point is made, and I grant it. You can reproduce the reference and I'll check it out, but not necessary as you'll find no argument from me. Sorry I didn't respond in a while.