Have you ever heard of the "Wuest" translation

[Khristeeanos]

I would like to point out that most/all of the translations we use today have a "slant" to not only to emphasize the OT prophecies of Jesus, but to over emphasize key doctrines.

Just calling Mary a "young woman" doesn't mean that she wasn't a virgin. Think about it this way.

When we use certain terms (like using the word "gay" for example), some people think of homosexuals, but only 50 years ago, it meant happy.

And in Australia, fag means a cigarette.

Languages change and rapidly. How do we know that the text doesn't actually say "young woman" and it in those days (2,000 years ago) it was literally "virgin?"

I don't know one way or the other what it says. I just think that we should realize that we all realize that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus is God.

And if we are mature enough, we should be able to use it as a tool to gain a fuller understanding of the Scriptures.

Sort of like using the Amplified version.

[stevehut]

Never heard of it.

I do have an interlinear Greek/English Bible, and I can tell you that the guy adds a whole lot of extra words. Sounds like he's trying to prove something about his own doctrinal beliefs.

That link says he came out of the Moody Bible School. So maybe this shouldn't be surprising.

[BobTriez]

That link says he came out of the Moody Bible School. So maybe this shouldn't be surprising.

I don't understand

[Nero's Fiddle]

If you disagree with me, that's fine. Let me know if the post bothers you... I'd rather delete it for now than cause another heated debate today. :down:

I wonder which text he was using... it doesn't matter how well you translate if you are starting with imperfect or tainted material.

Due to the working of Satan (and some Jesuits ), the Alexandrian texts (developed by a cult and later adopted by the catholic church [Vaticanus]) started being used for translations again a century or two ago, after some very dedicated Christians worked diligently to use only the preserved, pure text for the KJV.

Good ole' Textus Receptus... ahhhhhh.

In the name of the Most High God,

NF

Edited August 27, 2004 by Nero's Fiddle

[stevehut]

That link says he came out of the Moody Bible School.  So maybe this shouldn't be surprising. 

I don't understand

D. L. Moody was one of history's most zealous advocates of easy believism and instant conversion. So it is not surprising that one of his colleagues would rewrite the Bible in this manner.

[Khristeeanos]

If you disagree with me, that's fine. Let me know if the post bothers you... I'd rather delete it for now than cause another heated debate today. :down:

I wonder which text he was using... it doesn't matter how well you translate if you are starting with imperfect or tainted material.

Due to the working of Satan (and some Jesuits ), the Alexandrian texts (developed by a cult and later adopted by the catholic church [Vaticanus]) started being used for translations again a century or two ago, after some very dedicated Christians worked diligently to use only the preserved, pure text for the KJV.

Good ole' Textus Receptus... ahhhhhh.

In the name of the Most High God,

NF

I had better not comment on this. :x:

[stevehut]

1- I wonder which text he was using...

2- Due to the working of Satan (and some Jesuits ), the Alexandrian texts (developed by a cult and later adopted by the catholic church [Vaticanus])

1- I've got a hunch that his source text wasn't the problem. It looks to me that he was trying desperately to "prove" his own beliefs with those creative renderings.

2- Since some of those examples (John 1, Acts 2) flatly contradict Catholic doctrine (deity of Christ and baptismal regeneration, respectively), I doubt that Catholic influence was the problem.

[Guest Calamity]

DIME:

Just calling Mary a "young woman" doesn't mean that she wasn't a virgin. Think about it this way.

When we use certain terms (like using the word "gay" for example), some people think of homosexuals, but only 50 years ago, it meant happy.

And in Australia, fag means a cigarette.

Languages change and rapidly. How do we know that the text doesn't actually say "young woman" and it in those days (2,000 years ago) it was literally "virgin?"

I don't know one way or the other what it says. I just think that we should realize that we all realize that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus is God.

I see what you're saying, and will look up "young woman" in Strong's when I get time and see if it is anywhere near what "virgin" is.

It means a great deal to me, that it says "virgin". Because as far as I know, "a young woman" could mean any woman, of any standing, respectable or not, and the virgin birth of Christ is very important. We may know Mary was a virgin, and we may know that Jesus is God, but not everyone does. If someone who doesn't know reads a translation calling Mary just "a young woman", how are they to know about the virgin birth?

[Khristeeanos]

Calamity, I see your point as well.

But really, how many new believers or potential belivers are going to look for a Weust?

Hee Hee Hee.

I think that your points are worth looking into when it arrives. I ordered it Friday, so maybe this week it will show up and I will look it over and point out any "mistakes" according to what we believe.

We believe in almost the exact same thing, with a few differences.

We believe in 1 God, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the crucifixation of Jesus, the bodily resurrection and ascention, and the future judgement of all humans according to if they had faith in Christ.

Will check it out.

[larryt]

I have his word studies and transtlation. Don't use it all that much but when i do I find it helpful. I was told that he was trying to make a literal transtlation to english but didn't limit himself to one word for one word as the KJ tried to do.