"Nick, tell you what. Write them, but don't post them. I trust you and it will be a good exercise. Just keep one rule: don't go long. Try one sentence per 'section' as found in a good trans like NIV, or 2 at the most for a chapter. "
"....as found in a good translation like NIV..."
Is determining which is a "good translation" a matter of opinion? Or, is a good translation one which is accurate in finding English words and sentence structure which best fits the Textus Receptus? Or, maybe a "good translation" is not even from the Textus Receptus, but from the Westcott-Hort Greek, or mostly out of the Westcott-Hort. And why would an English translation from the Westcott-Hort be a "good translation?" Because the Westcott-Hort is based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts which are older than the existing Byzantine texts???????
How long ago was the Westcott-Hort rationale written for deciding that the older Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts are best because they are older than the Byzantine texts in existence? And for how long is this preference for the Westcott-Hort Greek text been taught in the Theologically Correct Christian seminaries?
Maybe its better never to have been inside one of these places.
http://www.themoorings.org/doctrine/issues/versions/WH.html
"The Byzantine text is not just a later recension, but contains distinctive readings, going back to the second century..."
"Since the late nineteenth century, when Westcott and Hort dominated textual criticism, scholars have discovered many dozen papyri containing portions of the Greek New Testament. These papyri, dating from the second and third centuries A.D., are much older than the Alexandrian codices that Westcott and Hort relied upon. Although most of these papyri are fragmentary, they contain several of the readings that Westcott and Hort identified as late conflates."
Conflate means to merge two texts together into one text.
And among the three great early English translations, the Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible and the King James Version, about 80 percent of the Tyndale New Testament's verse wordings were used, sometimes exactly, in the Geneva Bible and In the King James.
See:
http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html
"It will be seen that in these nine chapters more than 83% of the words in the Geneva Version were taken direct from Tyndale, and more than 81% of the words in the King James Version. I believe this sample is statistically valid for the whole New Testament."
Tyndale's accuracy in translating the Textus Receptus into English is shown in the use of his English word choices and sentence structures by the committees that created the Geneva Bible and the King James Version. Remember that Tyndxale was one man inspired by God, and he was then part of a very, very small remnant of Israel.
In some instances in which Tyndale uses a different English word consistently than do the Geneva Bible and the King James, as he does for ekklesia, it is because Tyndale is following the principle that says to use an English word closest in meaning at the time of translation to the meaning of the Greek word at the time the original Greek text was written. This is the case with Tyndale's consistent use of congregation for ekklesia.
The Geneva and King James translations consistently use church for ekklesia. Congregation has a meaning much closer to the meaning of ekklesia, as a meeting, assembly or congregation, than does church which the Oxford English Dictionary reveals. See:
http://civ.icelord.net/read.php?f=3&i=63650&t=63650&v=f
"CHURCH: FORMS: (a) cirice, cyrice, chiriche, churiche, chereche, CIRCE, cyrce, chyrce, cirke, etc., etc."
"...there is now a general
agreement among scholars in referring it to the Greek word, properly kurion adj. 'of the Lord, dominicum, dominical' (f. Kurios lord), which
occurs, from the 3rd century at least, used substantively (sc. doma, or the like) = 'house of the Lord.." But the early use of Kurios was perhaps to a pagan house of worship."
The Oxford English Dictionary mentions the Greek goddess circe, and also says in caps in its list of spellings of church, the word CIRCE. The Catholic Encyclopedia lists circe as one spelling of church, but does not mention a possible origin of circe from the Greek goddess circe.
"The L. circus, and a Gothic word kйlikn 'tower, upper chamber' (app. originally
Gaulish) have both been proposed (the latter suggested by the Alemannic chilihha), but are set aside as untenable; "
Early meanings for cirice, chiriche, churiche, chereche, or CIRCE may have been rejected by the churches because of the pagan implications of these meanings.
The churches much prefer the definition of church as Body of Christ than any of the pagan implications attached to the earlier use of this word in various spellings. But ekklesia is a common noun and any word equating to Body of Christ, Saints, the Elect or Redeemed Israel would be a Proper Noun and capitalized. So if Church becomes defined as a proper noun, then it should be in caps.
Whereas the Geneva Bible and the King James consistently use dispensation for oikonomía, Tyndale does not use dispensation at all in any of the texts where the Greek oikonomía appears. This is very interesting and I am not sure exactly why Tyndale avoided the use of dispensation when the earlier Wycliffe English Catholic New Testament of 1382, translated into Middle Ebglish from the Latin Vulgate, consistently used dispensacioun.
Another interesting difference between the Tyndale New Testament and the earlier Wycliffe English Catholic New Testament and the two later great English Bibles, the Geneva and King James, is for II Thessalonians 2: 7.
The Tyndale New Testament for II Thesssalonians 2: 7 says "For the mystery of that iniquity doeth he all ready work which only looketh until it be taken out of ye way."
For II Thessalonians 2: 7 the Geneva Bible says "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: 7 only he who now h letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. "
And the King James for II Thessalonians 2: 7 has "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."
The Tyndale New Testament for II Thessalonians 2: 7 gives us a different doctrine than do the Geneva Bible and the King James. Before dismissing the Tyndale version because it does not agree with the present day church version of the restrainer who restrains the appearing of the man of sin until he, the restrainer, is taken out of the way, consider the credibility of Tyndale as a Bible translator.
Tyndale says in II Thessalonians that the mystery of iniquity works until it, the working of iniquity, is taken out of the way. It does not say anything implying that a restrainer restrains until he or it is taken out of the way.
Of course, this is too long and not suitable for use in the dialectic.
