The following is the third lesson in a historical and faithful study
beginning at 7:00 pm on Wednesdays.
at the church of Christ in Carthage, Missouri, south of the Ford dealership
PLEASE JOIN US!
beginning at 7:00 pm on Wednesdays.
at the church of Christ in Carthage, Missouri, south of the Ford dealership
PLEASE JOIN US!
Washington's Culper Spy Ring
| George Washington (Code name: 711) is one of the United States' favorite generals. He was the first commander-in-chief. In continued studies of his effectiveness as a military leader, we find one of Washington's strengths to be his acceptance and strategic use of a spy network. Five spies, in particular, risked everything to serve the cause of liberty. Major George Beckwith, Chief of British Intelligence during the Revolutionary War, remarked, "Washington really did not outfight the British; he simply outspied us." One primary source we could consider is the Culper Code Book. Mount Vernon's website also provides a more readable copy. Washington's spies had to be acquainted with the code in order to communicate secret information within the network. Try your hand at writing a letter using the Culper Code.
|  |
Bible Languages
| | | |
 | Introductory Questions
|
Today, we are compelled to conduct background checks of our own on varying Bible translations. For what are we searching?
Words, Thoughts, and Phrases
The Big Questions
Our focus for this study hinges on answering these two big questions. The goal is to get closer to the answers each week in our class.
Our focus for this study hinges on answering these two big questions. The goal is to get closer to the answers each week in our class.
How did we we get the Bible?
Is the Bible accurate and dependable?
Is the Bible accurate and dependable?
Guiding Questions
In this lesson, we delve into more recent translations of the Bible with a discussion of Chapter 17 in How We Got the Bible.
In this lesson, we delve into more recent translations of the Bible with a discussion of Chapter 17 in How We Got the Bible.
- What considerations are important in choosing a modern English translation of the Bible?
- Is it more important that our preferred translation be easy to understand? Is it more important that it convey the intent of the Spirit? Is there a way to balance the two?
- Do you have multiple versions of the Bible? Do you use different translations for Bible class, worship, and personal study? Why?
- Have you found any versions that fail to pass the test? Which ones? Why?
- Why didn't the Holy Spirit just write the Bible in English in the first place?
| Analyze the chart (right). Look for details.
|  |
While the authors of the Bible are Spirit-inspired, translators into different languages are not, and as such translations are subject to error. A wise student refers to multiple versions of the Bible seeks to understand the shortcomings and strengths of each version considered.
 | Translation VariablesChapter 17 of the Neil Lightfoot book, How We Got the Bible, is titled "Modern Translations of the English Bible". It begins by presenting some of the "weaknesses" of the King James Version. Let's discuss these as they are presented in the text. Other translations are also presented in this chapter, with distinctions being necessary between British English and American English. What from the text stands out for each of the following? |
Tyndale - King James Tradition
|
|
Other Available Translations
|
|
|
Paraphrases
|
|
Any More?
The third edition of the book we are using was copyrighted in 2003, and author passed from life in 2012, so newer presentations of Scripture (including the English Standard Version) have and will continue to be made available from booksellers. Still, our list is fairly complete, and our standards for selecting a version of the Bible remain steadfast.
What are some of the variables in play when people, publishers, or groups decide a different or new translation is needed?
What are some of the variables in play when people, publishers, or groups decide a different or new translation is needed?
Word-for-Word, Literally
Understandably, we hope to know God's Words as God intended. It would seem that translating the original language into our language would be as simple as changing the Greek words to English words, period. However, there are nuances in the Greek that simple do not smoothly translate into the nuances of English.
The late Hugo McCord (1911-2004) provides some commentary concerning a literal, word-for-word approach to translating the Bible. "Is a literal translation possible?" he asks.
The late Hugo McCord (1911-2004) provides some commentary concerning a literal, word-for-word approach to translating the Bible. "Is a literal translation possible?" he asks.
The thought of a word-for-word translation initially appears attractive, but right away the idea has to be discarded. Immediately, as one begins such, he retreats. For example, Matthew 1:18 would look like this:
of her having been betrothed to the mother of him of Mary to Joseph before to come together them she was found in womb having the Spirit Holy.
Not only awkward but confusing is a word-for-word rendering of Luke 3:14:
They were asking and him and soldiering saying, what shall we do and we? And he said to them, none shake through nor figshine, and be satisfied with boiled food bought of you.
A word-for-word translation of 2 Corinthians 9:10 is unintelligible:
The one and chorus-leading seed to the sowing and bread into food a chorus he will lead.
...A literal translation, no matter how much admired and desired, would be unintelligible.
McCord introduces the need for paraphrasing (as he calls it), in which the translator changes the order of the words or yields to more of a thought-for-thought approach in order to salvage meaning from the text. Where McCord calls this a paraphrase, another translator terms as smoothing. McCord:
All translations paraphrase...
Paraphrases conveying the thought of the Greek are not wrong, but sometimes the thought is changed: "Easter" (Acts 12:4, KJV); "Drink ye all of it" (Matthew 26:27, KJV); "horses' bridles in their mouths" (James 3:3, ASV); "women" instead of "wives" (1 Timothy 3:11, ASV); "deaconess" (Romans 16:1, RSV); "layman" (Numbers 16:40, NASB); "you are Peter the Rock" (Matthew 16:18, NEB); "the word was a god" (John 1:1, NWT); and "sinful nature" (Romans 8:3,4,5,8,9,12,13, NIV).
For this reason, a strict word-for-word approach is confusing and makes the Bible virtually unapproachable. As we will soon learn, at the other end of the scale, a paraphrase may mislead a student altogether.
Vocabulary Issues
| In efforts to render as accurate a translation as possible Hugo McCord eliminated some of the common vocabulary that has found its way into so many versions that came before his. Let's divide our group and conquer two of the common words that he eliminated: church and baptism. The readings for two words (taken from McCord's Everlasting Gospel) may be downloaded in the file here (right). | 
| ||
Compare and Contrast
We now shift gears away from the conservative, word-for-word approach to the more liberal paraphrase approach to the Bible. An online blogger built a short list of comparison verses between a paraphrase and the word-for-word and thought-for-thought versions of the Bible. Pondering this list of examples reveals some important issues for the Bible student who wants to read what God intends.
| New American Standard Bible vs. The Message
 | King James Version vs. The Message
English Standard Version vs. The Message
|
Application Question
How important is it?
Is it important to you that the Bible comes from reliable sources, or is it just a collection of wise sayings and advice for living? Many atheists agree that there is wisdom in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but they do not believe that Jesus is a Messiah, that He performed miracles, that He walked out of His own grave, or that He prepares a place where His faithful disciples will be rewarded for eternity.
We contend that the Bible and everything it contains is supported by:
We contend that the Bible and everything it contains is supported by:
|
|
|
So how important is it to you that the Bible can be proven true? Do you believe there is irrefutable evidence to its validity? Is proof something that strengthens your personal faith in the existence of God?
Should faith alone be enough to drive you to drive you to your knees? Is "blind" faith a stronger kind of faith? If so, then why did God provide so much evidence?
Should faith alone be enough to drive you to drive you to your knees? Is "blind" faith a stronger kind of faith? If so, then why did God provide so much evidence?
Go forward with us - or in this case, back to the beginning - as we continue our study next time.
