Just rambling (that’s for sure), but I just bought a KJV, and it’s much more readable than I had originally thought.

Also, is it possible that Satan is using all this as a way to confuse Christians and maybe those who seek Him. We still have the old nature and it is obvious how it is dividing us. If it is human desire that is driving all this, then it is likely an ungodly influence.

So your arguing it should be “a maiden” / virgin that. Or that I should put Luther down in the virgin camp? At least the texts I was working with claimed there is another word entirely for a person who has never had intercourse.

I don’t know German so I’m just quoting in my post.

Eine Jungfrau is “a virgin” or “a maiden.” Eine junge Frau is “a young woman.” The point of course, is the ready connotation of virginity to feminine youth in German culture at the time those words came into common use.

The realization made me smile as I remembered how language works, and how fluid the connotations of words can be between langauges, and even with the same language between communuities and between generations.

I put together a list a while back on how everyone handled Isaiah 7:14 including Luther:

Darum wird euch der HERR selbst ein Zeichen geben: Siehe, eine Jungfrau (young woman with strong hint of virgin) ist schwanger und wird einen Sohn gebären, den wird sie nennen Immanuel.

Well, in that case one might actually hear the words of God and act on them just like Jesus said a wise man does (Matthew 7:24).

1. In purely literary terms, the King James is a gorgeous work. Its Shakespearean language is simply splendid. Still, I appreciate the fact that the language of the early 17th century isn’t the contemporary idiom of 2008 and that it can be alienating. Even so, as a professional literature teacher, I can’t help advocating that folks should, when possible, have as much exposure to the literary language of the KJV as they can because, among other reasons, it’s been so culturally influential.

2. The arguing/debating over the different English translations of the Bible is beginning to sound like a linguistic version of “let’s argue over what color the church carpet should be –because it’s a SERIOUS MORAL-ETHICAL-SPIRITUAL ISSUE and I’m right and you’re not. How can you prefer taupe when I know that beige is the better, holier choice?” What happens when there’s a sense of “my Bible translation is better than yours”? Or, worse, when it’s “this is the popular version, so I must rush out and buy it and use it because it’s ‘in’”?

3. What’s the deal with the current craze for a new “version” of the Bible for every possible ection and subsection of humanity? There’s the archaeological Bible, the teenager Bible, and even a Manga-illustrated Bible. Doesn’t this sort of trend all but make even the BIBLE a source of division-by-pigeonholing?

4. At the utter risk of sounding like a total nerd and language snob: In graduate school I had the great good fortune of having (and taking) the opportunity to learn koine Greek well enough to read the New Testament in it. Learning Greek is like joining the Peace Corps: it’s the hardest job you’ll love. (But you do run a lower risk of catching an internal parasite!) Anyway, I encourage everyone and anyone to learn a little Greek, if only to appreciate the sheer complexity of it and the equally complex issues it brings into the translation question. And if you do manage to learn Greek well enough to read it with any facility, you’ll be blown away by it — and by the humbling awesomeness of being that much closer to the language and reality of the historical time and place of the New Testament.

Personal digression: Frankly, not too long ago, I was on the verge of giving up entirely on this whole church business (I’m in the post-evangelical wilderness), but it was partially the historical and linguistic side of the Greek New Testament that engaged my BRAIN and called me back when I was sick to death of frou-frou religious pablum stuffed full of emotion-soaked, happy-slappy, pat phrases pulled from modern English versions.

5. Different translations aside, there’s also the issue of context and interpretation. A person can have the best translation ever, but if he or she doesn’t have the other tools necessary, there’s still a huge chance of going off the rails. Just look at Joel Osteen’s patented raise-your-Bible-and-chant-this-cheer-after-me routine…right before he launches into the usual doctrinally fuzzy if not outright heretical Gospel of Oprah.

6. Here’s a thought. In the Anglosphere, we have the luxury of multiple translations. What do you do in another country where you might have only one translation into the local lingo?

Best wishes to all,
MM

Honestly, I think our whole concept of “inspiration” is off. The bulk of those who speak of it seem to harbor the idea that God did indeed dictate the writings we call scripture and the various authors just sat there in a trance and wrote down what they heard word for word. There are only a couple of places in the Bible where the writer is told to quote God directly, Revelation and a some of the Prophets come to mind but I may be wrong.

I don’t know that I believe in any form of “inspiration” that hangs on the definition of a single word or phrase written in a different language in a culture 2000 years removed from our own. If I write here “Don’t have a cow.” we all know what it means in our slang. 1000 years from now, the same sentence becomes a prohibition against owning livestock without any cultural references.

If the men writing had no involvement beyond that of human Xerox machine, why do their writings contain slang and other cultural references unique to their era and location? Why did Paul write things like “I say this, not the Lord”, if he was merely taking dictation?

I DO believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that He impressed upon men to write down ideas and concepts and, occasionally, direct quotes.

Just my two cents.

DD

Agreed. I would say more but I can only tread water so long before sinking. (I am out of my depth.)

Mike