Translations.

[Marathoner]

For those who are interested, the King James Version was originally copyrighted (prior to the Act I referenced in a previous post) in order to keep it out of the hands of "Quakers and other heretics." Hehe. 

[Marathoner]

4 hours ago, other one said:

Maybe you should tell that to Biblegateway.

Biblegateway satisfies the Crown Copyright by identifying the King James Version, as the King James Version. Since biblegateway does not hide the KJV behind a paywall (it's free of charge), it's for educational/edification purposes. That also satisfies the requirements of the Crown Copyright.  

Biblegateway has the express permission of the Lockman Foundation to offer previous iterations of the NASB free of charge but notice how they publish "Copyright the Lockman Foundation (applicable date)". The Lockman Foundation has not given the same permission for NASB2020 at this time so it's not available on biblegateway. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Marathoner

[Marathoner]

I don't have any issues with the KJV. Verily, doth yonder verbiage befuddle thee? Not I, saith the simpleton, for not only was I schooled in letters at a tender age, but surely thou knowest also that I am odd! 

My brain is a repository of archaic vocabulary, obscure literature, and a few foreign languages. The latter is not biblical (German and Japanese) but I did excel in linguistics, so linguistic anthropology was a blast in college. Syntax is fascinating.

Anyway, I like the NASB primarily for the footnotes which are a great help.

[Ani Tefillah]

2 hours ago, Marathoner said:

I don't have any issues with the KJV. Verily, doth yonder verbiage befuddle thee? Not I, saith the simpleton, for not only was I schooled in letters at a tender age, but surely thou knowest also that I am odd! 

My brain is a repository of archaic vocabulary, obscure literature, and a few foreign languages. The latter is not biblical (German and Japanese) but I did excel in linguistics, so linguistic anthropology was a blast in college. Syntax is fascinating.

Anyway, I like the NASB primarily for the footnotes which are a great help.

May the Lord bless thee! 

[Starise]

I was raised from childhood on the KJV and as an older man I began reading other versions. I downloaded the ESV for my reader and I have a nice bound version of the NIV.

While I read mostly other versions instead of KJV now, if I come across something I question I can mentally compare it to the KJV and sometimes this leads me into much deeper study.

In a recent study I was exposed to the text in John 10:34 

NIV- Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’?

ESV-Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

This was in response to the accusation against Jesus by Jewish religious leaders in asking Him to state clearly if He claimed to be the Son of God.

If we compare this text to Psalms 82:1

NIV- A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods":

ESV- God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

So what was Jesus really saying here? There are different views on this text. 

In the way I see it, Jesus was saying that He was a representative of God, even though He was God.

In the same way, the Pharisees were supposed to be representatives of God, but they hade severely failed the standard.

I think much of the true meaning has been lost in some of these translations.

Others would side with Michael Heiser is looking at Psalm 82:1 as a reference to a heavenly committee. One in which God sits. 

The text lends itself to much divine imagery, so even though correlation is given to John 10:34 it may not be the best fit for those two texts.

Gnostics will claim the that text makes us all gods.

So a translational question here would be to ask , what exactly is a god in the context of John 10:34 and in Psalm 82:1?\

If men are gods, then we surely need to render a different word in the understanding of most people today.

If there are satellite gods, then a deeper study needs to be done on them.

In my thinking the word god in this case probably needs at the least a better explanation in bible footnotes with accompanying references. 

And this is where cross reference and original texts/ideas are helpful.

 

[Marathoner]

48 minutes ago, Starise said:

I was raised from childhood on the KJV and as an older man I began reading other versions. I downloaded the ESV for my reader and I have a nice bound version of the NIV.

While I read mostly other versions instead of KJV now, if I come across something I question I can mentally compare it to the KJV and sometimes this leads me into much deeper study.

In a recent study I was exposed to the text in John 10:34 

NIV- Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’?

ESV-Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

This was in response to the accusation against Jesus by Jewish religious leaders in asking Him to state clearly if He claimed to be the Son of God.

If we compare this text to Psalms 82:1

NIV- A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods":

ESV- God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

So what was Jesus really saying here? There are different views on this text. 

In the way I see it, Jesus was saying that He was a representative of God, even though He was God.

In the same way, the Pharisees were supposed to be representatives of God, but they hade severely failed the standard.

I think much of the true meaning has been lost in some of these translations.

Others would side with Michael Heiser is looking at Psalm 82:1 as a reference to a heavenly committee. One in which God sits. 

The text lends itself to much divine imagery, so even though correlation is given to John 10:34 it may not be the best fit for those two texts.

Gnostics will claim the that text makes us all gods.

So a translational question here would be to ask , what exactly is a god in the context of John 10:34 and in Psalm 82:1?\

If men are gods, then we surely need to render a different word in the understanding of most people today.

If there are satellite gods, then a deeper study needs to be done on them.

In my thinking the word god in this case probably needs at the least a better explanation in bible footnotes with accompanying references. 

And this is where cross reference and original texts/ideas are helpful.

 

To be fair, brother, the gnostics were collectively a bizarre lot, and we are blessed that very little of their babble survives to this day. Scholars know of only a handful of gnostic schools, and evidence indicates there were a plethora of them. Each gnostic school differed from (and competed against) other gnostic schools, so the impression we have of Gnosticism today represents the most pernicious of that lot.

The belief that we are "gods" in the classical sense relates to the equally bizarre doctrines and teachings of Mormonism. To the Mormons, we are embryonic gods. God the Father was once a man, and in their "afterlife" men become gods who rule over a planet attended by their "celestial" wives. That's what the Mormon temple marriage is all about... the woman becomes a celestial wife.

Utterly off topic! My apologies. 

[Starise]

7 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

To be fair, brother, the gnostics were collectively a bizarre lot, and we are blessed that very little of their babble survives to this day. Scholars know of only a handful of gnostic schools, and evidence indicates there were a plethora of them. Each gnostic school differed from (and competed against) other gnostic schools, so the impression we have of Gnosticism today represents the most pernicious of that lot.

The belief that we are "gods" in the classical sense relates to the equally bizarre doctrines and teachings of Mormonism. To the Mormons, we are embryonic gods. God the Father was once a man, and in their "afterlife" men become gods who rule over a planet attended by their "celestial" wives. That's what the Mormon temple marriage is all about... the woman becomes a celestial wife.

Utterly off topic! My apologies. 

Hey Marathoner!

As I understand the gnostic traditions, many exist today in secret societies. Some eastern religion teaches progression to god status.

I would never even think to put myself on the same page as a god, even though the bible tells us men will judge angels. I believe any true believer put in such a position would defrock himself immediately. We are all sinners in need of God.

Men who reach thoughts like this have reached the epitome of ignorance.

"Gods" I guess technically is anything someone else worships. Maybe the Jews at the writing of John 10 were regarded much like the pope and therefore a form of "god".

Yet the text is Jesus making the statement about them being gods. Overlords might be a better translation there.

[Mama Etna]

Gnosticism is very bizarre.  I have encountered it on a number of websites.  Years ago there was one fellow I ran across that was in a gnostic cult of one. He said he found a sword in a river in Jerusalem with the peace sign welded at the tip making it useless as a weapon.  Everyone on the site thought he was ridiculous.

[Ani Tefillah]

8 hours ago, Marathoner said:

To be fair, brother, the gnostics were collectively a bizarre lot, and we are blessed that very little of their babble survives to this day. Scholars know of only a handful of gnostic schools, and evidence indicates there were a plethora of them. Each gnostic school differed from (and competed against) other gnostic schools, so the impression we have of Gnosticism today represents the most pernicious of that lot.

The belief that we are "gods" in the classical sense relates to the equally bizarre doctrines and teachings of Mormonism. To the Mormons, we are embryonic gods. God the Father was once a man, and in their "afterlife" men become gods who rule over a planet attended by their "celestial" wives. That's what the Mormon temple marriage is all about... the woman becomes a celestial wife.

Utterly off topic! My apologies. 

Off topic or not, I appreciate that the delusion of the mormon doctrines is exposed. 

[other one]

1 hour ago, MonicaWife said:

Off topic

Good conversations here often seem to take diversions at times.  One of the reasons I enjoy being here.