Translational Inconsistencies

[heb13-13]

Edited by Vic >source for book image > http://www.theovercomer.org/PICTURES/Haz...r_cart.jpg > Hazardous Materials > Greek & Hebrew Study Dangers > The Voice of Strangers > by Gail Riplinger

Have not read this, but it looks interesting. Just ordered it.

Book Reviewing Lexicons, Concordances, Dictionaries, etc.

http://www.avpublications.com/

[sheep wrecked]

(10-08-2009 12:17 PM)heb13-13 Wrote:  Have not read this, but it looks interesting. Just ordered it.

Book Reviewing Lexicons, Concordances, Dictionaries, etc.

http://www.avpublications.com/

Hmmmm - I went to the site where this book is promoted and I would be extremely careful of the "conclusions". What troubles me is that Gail Riplinger is the author. Her language skills are not peer accepted and are questionable, which means that the scholarly venue will not accept this book as having much validity. I would give two thumbs down, just because she wrote it.

It also appears that the group who are pushing this book are King James Onlyists, and that also presents a big problem because they hold to the view that only the King James version is pure, infallible and inspired. God's Word is infallible, not the King James Bible.

I believe that the KJV is a premier translation and prefer it above the others, but I am concerned that they are out to diss every single lexicon and concordance. What is *their* agenda to do so?

If one wants to pick apart everything based on associations, then we truly do not have God's Word. Most of the King James translators were secular men, not Christians. So have the promoters of this book dug into each of the translators backgrounds to see what agenda and heresy they introduced into their "infallible" translations for the KJV?

The statement was also made that the Bible translates itself and so it does - but that is by the work of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing wrong with going to a concordance or lexicon to read definitions and then find other texts to see how the word is used for greater understanding if one chooses to do that. I fear that they are using this concept to promote a KJ only position and there is much danger in raising up a translation to the pedestal that they have placed the KJV upon. I do not see pure motives at all.

Just my worth

[heb13-13]

(10-08-2009 01:47 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  

(10-08-2009 12:17 PM)heb13-13 Wrote:  Have not read this, but it looks interesting. Just ordered it.

Book Reviewing Lexicons, Concordances, Dictionaries, etc.

http://www.avpublications.com/

Hmmmm - I went to the site where this book is promoted and I would be extremely careful of the "conclusions". What troubles me is that Gail Riplinger is the author. Her language skills are not peer accepted and are questionable, which means that the scholarly venue will not accept this book as having much validity. I would give two thumbs down, just because she wrote it.

It also appears that the group who are pushing this book are King James Onlyists, and that also presents a big problem because they hold to the view that only the King James version is pure, infallible and inspired. God's Word is infallible, not the King James Bible.

I believe that the KJV is a premier translation and prefer it above the others, but I am concerned that they are out to diss every single lexicon and concordance. What is *their* agenda to do so?

If one wants to pick apart everything based on associations, then we truly do not have God's Word. Most of the King James translators were secular men, not Christians. So have the promoters of this book dug into each of the translators backgrounds to see what agenda and heresy they introduced into their "infallible" translations for the KJV?

The statement was also made that the Bible translates itself and so it does - but that is by the work of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing wrong with going to a concordance or lexicon to read definitions and then find other texts to see how the word is used for greater understanding if one chooses to do that. I fear that they are using this concept to promote a KJ only position and there is much danger in raising up a translation to the pedestal that they have placed the KJV upon. I do not see pure motives at all.

Just my worth

That is why I am going to read this. There is no pure messenger and I am not going to shoot Gail for being KJV Only. That does not bother me as much as someone else saying the KJV is archaic and worthless.

I am interested at looking at the message in this book. I am sure many things are valid and will trust the Holy Spirit to guide me.

"Her language skills are not peer accepted and are questionable, which means that the scholarly venue will not accept this book as having much validity."

Since when did "peers" ever bother you? You sound just like James White with that remark.

Wouldn't it be more fair to read the book then critique rather than the path you are taking?

Doesn't matter to me what you do, but does not seem very fair-minded.

[sheep wrecked]

(10-08-2009 03:18 PM)heb13-13 Wrote:  That is why I am going to read this. There is no pure messenger and I am not going to shoot Gail for being KJV Only. That does not bother me as much as someone else saying the KJV is archaic and worthless.

I am interested at looking at the message in this book. I am sure many things are valid and will trust the Holy Spirit to guide me.

"Her language skills are not peer accepted and are questionable, which means that the scholarly venue will not accept this book as having much validity."

Since when did "peers" ever bother you? You sound just like James White with that remark.

Wouldn't it be more fair to read the book then critique rather than the path you are taking?

Doesn't matter to me what you do, but does not seem very fair-minded.

Gail has no degrees in any kind of languages - that is the issue, so she is not qualified to write this book - which is the bottom line for me. She is teaching what she does not know. I do not recall saying that she is KJ only - I have seen information pro and con on that, so I don't know. The website that is promoting her book is KJV only.

The reason I have a problem with KJV onlyists is that it's cultish. They believe that every comma, period and capital letter, every word and every phrase is inspired by God in the KJV. It has become their doctrine. They are as serious about the KJV as any person who believes that their way is the full truth and only through that way gains eternal life. I have been told by KJV onlylists that I am going to hell - by their own members because I refuse to agree that the KJV is infallible.

Peer review has to do with scholarly appraisals determining one's ability [per their writings] to translate or write about any language by heads of language departments in universities world wide.

James White does not have much credibility. The whole debate between him and Gail was a farce [in my opinion]. It was simply two pots calling each other a black kettle

[heb13-13]

(10-08-2009 05:17 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  

(10-08-2009 03:18 PM)heb13-13 Wrote:  That is why I am going to read this. There is no pure messenger and I am not going to shoot Gail for being KJV Only. That does not bother me as much as someone else saying the KJV is archaic and worthless.

I am interested at looking at the message in this book. I am sure many things are valid and will trust the Holy Spirit to guide me.

"Her language skills are not peer accepted and are questionable, which means that the scholarly venue will not accept this book as having much validity."

Since when did "peers" ever bother you? You sound just like James White with that remark.

Wouldn't it be more fair to read the book then critique rather than the path you are taking?

Doesn't matter to me what you do, but does not seem very fair-minded.

Gail has no degrees in any kind of languages - that is the issue, so she is not qualified to write this book - which is the bottom line for me. She is teaching what she does not know. I do not recall saying that she is KJ only - I have seen information pro and con on that, so I don't know. The website that is promoting her book is KJV only.

The reason I have a problem with KJV onlyists is that it's cultish. They believe that every comma, period and capital letter, every word and every phrase is inspired by God in the KJV. It has become their doctrine. They are as serious about the KJV as any person who believes that their way is the full truth and only through that way gains eternal life. I have been told by KJV onlylists that I am going to hell - by their own members because I refuse to agree that the KJV is infallible.

Peer review has to do with scholarly appraisals determining one's ability [per their writings] to translate or write about any language by heads of language departments in universities world wide.

James White does not have much credibility. The whole debate between him and Gail was a farce [in my opinion]. It was simply two pots calling each other a black kettle

Yeah, I don't know if she is KJV Only, either. Sorry to infer that you were saying that. I was not aware that I did that until you pointed it out.

She has quite possibly put more time in research (thousands of hours) and studying than many people with degrees. Degrees are not necessarily a certification of expertise/knowledge, yet, many degreed people think they automatically have the high road over someone that is not. It just means they have finished a course of study, but does not necessarily give them any leverage over someone who has invested thousands of hours of self-study.

I have learned in my time not to give degreed people any advantage at the beginning of a debate over non-degreed people. I used to teach in an adult vocational school and onc of my students going through a mid-life career change, had a Phd in Economics. He was on President Reagan's Economic commission. Although, he had a degree, (a Phd, at that), he had terrible self-discipline, logic and reasoning skills and I always saw him after class, wanting tutoring. It was not until a couple of tutoring sessions that I realized he was just looking for answers. I have also learned that a person with self-discipline and no degree can smoke a degreed person, any day.

Now, step back and look at what some of these so-called Greek and Hebrew "Scholars" today, are trying to get us to swallow and tell me that you are impressed with their degrees. In short, they really mean nothing. It's the man or woman behind the degree.

Anyway, Gail can defend herself quite ably and it was never my aim to draw attention to her, but rather to her new book which I find interesting and intend to read it. I suspect I will draw my own conclusions as I do with all things. I have already read several of her books and although I don't agree with everything (who does), I do agree with the majority (more than 50%).

I liked "In Awe of God's Word" and the "KJV Built-in Bible Dictionary", very much. Fascinating and well researched, works.

[Vic]

(10-08-2009 10:42 AM)Princess of Heaven Wrote:  HI all, long time no see ....

i was doing some research on the early church fathers and first Bibles etc,

i would like some input on Wycliffe and if this is a good version, if so why? if not why? thank you in advance for your input...

Hi Princess,

There's a three part series you might like to read on my site:
Wycliffe Bible Translators, John Mott & Rockefeller Connections

http://www.seekgod.ca/rockefeller.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/wycliffe.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/mott.htm

Also if you do a search you see people involved in Wycliffe -there's 24 hits with wycliffe
ex:
http://www.seekgod.ca/petersonecumen.htm

Not sure about the Bible per se...

[sheep wrecked]

(10-08-2009 05:37 PM)heb13-13 Wrote:  Yeah, I don't know if she is KJV Only, either. Sorry to infer that you were saying that. I was not aware that I did that until you pointed it out.

She has quite possibly put more time in research (thousands of hours) and studying than many people with degrees. Degrees are not necessarily a certification of expertise/knowledge, yet, many degreed people think they automatically have the high road over someone that is not. It just means they have finished a course of study, but does not necessarily give them any leverage over someone who has invested thousands of hours of self-study.

I have learned in my time not to give degreed people any advantage at the beginning of a debate over non-degreed people. I used to teach in an adult vocational school and onc of my students going through a mid-life career change, had a Phd in Economics. He was on President Reagan's Economic commission. Although, he had a degree, (a Phd, at that), he had terrible self-discipline, logic and reasoning skills and I always saw him after class, wanting tutoring. It was not until a couple of tutoring sessions that I realized he was just looking for answers. I have also learned that a person with self-discipline and no degree can smoke a degreed person, any day.

Now, step back and look at what some of these so-called Greek and Hebrew "Scholars" today, are trying to get us to swallow and tell me that you are impressed with their degrees. In short, they really mean nothing. It's the man or woman behind the degree.

Anyway, Gail can defend herself quite ably and it was never my aim to draw attention to her, but rather to her new book which I find interesting and intend to read it. I suspect I will draw my own conclusions as I do with all things. I have already read several of her books and although I don't agree with everything (who does), I do agree with the majority (more than 50%).

I liked "In Awe of God's Word" and the "KJV Built-in Bible Dictionary", very much. Fascinating and well researched, works.

I think you just made my point If one cannot trust non-credentialed Hebrew Roots scholars [they don't have degrees, which is the bottom line] and their lack of knowledge, then why would you trust anyone who is not credentialed when it comes to Biblical sources? Language is a science - it's not something that is up for grabs as far as translation goes. It has rules and proper techniques to translate. That's why there is so much confusion on the modern and HRM Bible "translations" - they are done by pseudo self-taught scholars - which Gail Riplinger exemplifies. If she doesn't have the "goods" to write factual information, then what is the point of her book? It makes me nervous when one shuts down the ability for the layman and scholars to source definitions that have been defined by the experts.

What I read in the little blurb about the book is that ALL concordances and lexicons are in error. That is a pretty broad statement coming from someone who does not know Biblical languages. I think the Jewish people call that "chutzpah"

[Vic]

I think the issue of whether someone is capable of translating scripture has been shown to be a HUGE issue. We have seen the abilities or lack thereof of claimed scholars throughout Hebrew Roots for example: Nomad man (Jeff Benner) on this thread, James Trimm, Marshall Koniuchowsky, the Shem Tov Matthew fiasco, CJ Koster (ISR) Rood's Imaginary version, the list crosses into the scholarly realm, with people who deny Christ giving their "reviews" and versions and doctrines which are blatant heresies. Even Kittels stuff so revered by Christians is bogus from a Biblical perspective because he provided Hitler with the "final solution" and in my opinion has nothing to offer anyone--regardless the voluminous material first put together by him. His understanding of scripture appears to be below zero, because of that act and justification for it, and that's totally my personal opinion. I researched him.

I have always maintained that Christ promised to give all we need in order to do His will---with or without worldly credentials.

1 Corinthians 1:4-9 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; 5. That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; 6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: 7. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

That said, there are specific things that can be known and understood about the languages necessary to understand the manuscripts. Whether one needs to be fluent in all---if they aren't, where are they sourcing their linguistic information? Someone else? Some other book? We've seen that a lot.

I don't know about Gail Riplinger-if she isn't fluent but sourcing other sources-what's the point? I know there's controversy over her, and at one time I was given a quote by her to use in an article--and I don't recall if I used it. The thing is, one can get reviews by those FLUENT in biblical Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic on such forums as B-Greek I believe it's called--and these people do know what they are talking about.

If one eliminates all sources except what---Gail Riplinger and what other sources?---isn't that the same as what HR scholars are doing by saying no one else has it right---so they are needed to interpret the Scriptures for us--and they are the ones to have the knowledge and understanding?

That said, The image of the book has to go---it's too large for one thing and unnecessary. Just put the title in and any information you feel needed. If the issue is to promote/discuss that book--then a separate thread should be started. However, I would prefer unknown quality and validity of books or other resources not be promoted until they have been reviewed and an opinion offered and thereby discussed. I don't want the board to be used as an advertising agency. Discussion of the resources yes. But not just a promotion.

Thanks for your understanding on this.

[Princess of Heaven]

(10-08-2009 06:33 PM)Vic Wrote:  

(10-08-2009 10:42 AM)Princess of Heaven Wrote:  HI all, long time no see ....

i was doing some research on the early church fathers and first Bibles etc,

i would like some input on Wycliffe and if this is a good version, if so why? if not why? thank you in advance for your input...

Hi Princess,

There's a three part series you might like to read on my site:
Wycliffe Bible Translators, John Mott & Rockefeller Connections

http://www.seekgod.ca/rockefeller.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/wycliffe.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/mott.htm

Also if you do a search you see people involved in Wycliffe -there's 24 hits with wycliffe
ex:
http://www.seekgod.ca/petersonecumen.htm

Not sure about the Bible per se...

awesome i will check them out thank you

[Mark]

Just wondering about the NKJV and whether it is a good translation to use.