OneLight Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, Fran C said: Hi OneLight, Young's Literal Translation is the best we normal folk can do. For John 3:16 it uses the words "that everyone who is believing in Him may not perish." If you're really interested in this, I know someone who taught theology (and is a theologian) and knows koinè Greek. If you Private Message me to remind me, I will ask him - it's no problem, he loves to talk! It's just that I'm a bit under the weather this week. Let me know. Fran I am speaking of the literal writings. Each translation had to be worded so people could understand the language, where extra words were included for clarity, but most of the time, they do not change the meaning of the verse. Unfortunately, this is one verse where they do change the meaning. From my studies of text, these words are not there due to not having a reference. Remove the words "may, should, shall", and you will get what I think the original spoken words were. "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." NKJV "that whoever believes in Him may not perish but have everlasting life." YLT I sure wish I had better tools that represent the original documents/letters. Even today's sites and/or tools do not agree in what the original says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran C Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 minute ago, OneLight said: I am speaking of the literal writings. Each translation had to be worded so people could understand the language, where extra words were included for clarity, but most of the time, they do not change the meaning of the verse. Unfortunately, this is one verse where they do change the meaning. From my studies of text, these words are not there due to not having a reference. Remove the words "may, should, shall", and you will get what I think the original spoken words were. "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." NKJV "that whoever believes in Him may not perish but have everlasting life." YLT I sure wish I had better tools that represent the original documents/letters. Even today's sites and/or tools do not agree in what the original says. My friend would know what the original says! By "original" we can only mean the oldest available... It may or may not be the original. In fact, it most probably is not. Why do you not trust Young's Literal? Also, if you take that word out,it changes the entire meaning. Is this what you're alluding to? What it would mean withough those words?? Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran C Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: "Shall not" in the KJV is better. It is better because it reflects the security of the believer. You cannot put faith in "may" not perish. You may not is not definite. It leaves open the possibility that you could perish "Shall not" leaves no open ended questions about whether or not one could still end up perishing despite putting faith in Jesus. It leaves no question at all. And it is consistent with how Jesus taught. "Shall not perish" is something you can anchor your heart to in perfect faith that the rock will not be moved, so to speak. AMEN Shiloh. I couldn't agree more and I made the same comment a few posts back. When a decision must be made on wording, it MUST go along with the entire concept that is formed within scripture. Scripture teaches us that we may be anchored in Jesus. Your wondeful term. He anchors us, keeps us steady, keeps us there, does not let us float away. Nice. Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 hours ago, Jayne said: I take issue when people claim that modern translations "take out scriptures" as if they are purposefully stripping God's word of it's message. It's not a claim there is proof that newer translation has taken out scripture. And the scripture that they do take out is important scripture 4 hours ago, missmuffet said: Are you a KJV only believer Worthy? https://www.gotquestions.org/Christians-agree-Bible.html No I read the Hebrew ot and the Greek new testament because i know Hebrew and Greek I also read older translation of the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted January 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Fran C said: Isaiah 14:12 The KJV says Lucifer fell from the heavens, son of the morning. The NASB says O Star of the Morning, Son of the dawn. Which is correct? The YLT says that the NASB is correct. Well, here is the thing I think. The NASB and the YLT are doing better there as a literal translation. What the KJV did, was to use a tranliteration. Lucifer, the Hebrew is helel . . . shining one used only one time it the Bible. When something is used once, it can be harder to figure out. Sometimes rendered in in other (non-biblical) texts as light, dawn, and other similar terms. By using star of the morning, the NASB is probably covering the bases, and perhaps, seeing a Hebrew parallelism with the "son of the dawn" phrase. I wish they had left the capitalization off though, that can lead people to conclude things not intended. The word Lucifer, comes to us from the Latin Vulgate, meaning something like "light-bringing morning star" or just simply light-bearing. Christopher (as in Columbus) means Christ-bearer). The "pher" or "fer" in Lucifer, is bearer, and "Luc" comes from the latin "lux" - light! The word there is just old English from the Latin sound, and that is sometimes done it the Bible. When it is done, it often appears to be a name, not a meaning. That is what translators do sometimes, as they see fit. For example we usually say Abraham, forgetting that it is actually a description - father of a multitude. Another example of transliteration, is the word 'baptism'. Baptism is a word that sounds like it's Greek base, 'baptizo', and Bibles tend to write that into the text, rather than translate it to what it means - immersion. So, with Lucifer, I do not think either version is wrong, but it might not be appropriate to view Lucifer there, as if it is a proper name. When the translation of the Septuagint was made, those Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria, rendered helel as ἑωσφόρος . That word is (Heōsphóros in English letters) the word from which we derive our word phosphorus, and one could go to Google if one wanted to go nuts with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Yowm said: BibleHub has KJV saying 'should not perish'. Not to be too much of a joker here, but for those who place faith in the translators of the KJV (1611, not rewrites), my 1611 says: For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. Looking at Greek texts, I do not see shall or should there, (I am not a Greek scholar, and likely few if any here are - there is a difference between reading Greek, and being qualified to translate it, in my opinion) I just see "not perish", not "shall not perish" nor "should not perish". To which, if either should be inferred, I would say what do other Bible verses imply, and also, note that should and shall, in English, might be a bit different, than what English has evolved to, more that 400 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your closest friendnt Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 7,853 Content Per Day: 2.42 Reputation: 2,761 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/05/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 33 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: "Shall not" in the KJV is better. It is better because it reflects the security of the believer. You cannot put faith in "may" not perish. You may not is not definite. It leaves open the possibility that you could perish "Shall not" leaves no open ended questions about whether or not one could still end up perishing despite putting faith in Jesus. It leaves no question at all. And it is consistent with how Jesus taught. "Shall not perish" is something you can anchor your heart to in perfect faith that the rock will not be moved, so to speak. It was a time that the High Court of England was call to make the distinction of the meaning of the application of the words , may (and may not), and should (and should not), and shall (and shall not), and they gave exactly the same interpretation as you have in your post. As a result the lawmakers when drafting laws they took in to account the interpretation of the highest Court of England. The same interpretation is accepted in the US, and every other Country. In my opinion and it is not Judging, if the translators used the word "may", or " should" , after the decision of the high Court , defining the proper use of the words of "may", "should" or ""shall", and had knowledge of their meanings, and they use the word "should", instant of "shall", as it is use in the Greek, it may reflect the doctrinal position of the group the translators represented, that they did not hold the position of eternal security, and that a believer has to live with the fear that he may be going to Hell, with his faith in Jesus Christ. Using the fear of going to Hell , to make believers live the good Christian life, so they can be worthy to earn their place in Heaven. Thank you for your post, that what I wanted to say. If it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 59 minutes ago, Fran C said: My friend would know what the original says! By "original" we can only mean the oldest available... It may or may not be the original. In fact, it most probably is not. Why do you not trust Young's Literal? Also, if you take that word out,it changes the entire meaning. Is this what you're alluding to? What it would mean withough those words?? Fran If you remove the extra wording, it removes doubt of the meaning. One translation claims it should read "should", which leaves the possibility of yes or no. Others use the words "shall , may, will" which gives a definite yes, they will not perish. Just something to think about on how the translations can change the meanings. As for the Young's Literal, never looked at it to be honest. I just went to the interlinear for better clarity and study tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 9 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. Other than spellings, there is no difference: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Now here is the Greek: Οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. And here is Berry's literal interlinear translation: For so loved God the world that His Son the only begotten He gave, that everyone who believes on Him may not perish, but may have life eternal. Even though the Greek says "may not perish", we have "should not", "shall not", and "will not" in various translations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran C Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, OneLight said: If you remove the extra wording, it removes doubt of the meaning. One translation claims it should read "should", which leaves the possibility of yes or no. Others use the words "shall , may, will" which gives a definite yes, they will not perish. Just something to think about on how the translations can change the meanings. As for the Young's Literal, never looked at it to be honest. I just went to the interlinear for better clarity and study tools. OneLight, I agree with what you've said. SHALL and WILL is affirmative and Leaves not doubt. But wouldn't you say that SHOULD and MAY do leave doubt? May is not affirmative. This to say that I like SHALL the best. If we believe in God's only Son, then we can be sure of our salvation. Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts