Dr. Brown and Pastor Gino Geraci Discuss Myths and Facts About Bible Translations and Bible Interpretation

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the major Bible translations, along with discussing important principles of biblical interpretation. He will dispel some common myths along the way!

Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line:  The Word of God is inviting you. Come and drink, feast, and take in words of life and transformation.  This Word is a tree of life to all who embrace it!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line:  After all of these centuries, God’s Word remains the best selling book world-wide.  There is a good reason! Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away here in this world or forever.”

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The Word of God is inviting you. Come and drink, feast, and take in words of life and transformation.  This Word is a tree of life to all who embrace it!

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: After all of these centuries, God’s Word remains the best selling book world-wide.  There is a good reason! Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away here in this world or forever.”

Special Offer, This Week Only!

Our Hands are Stained With Blood by Dr. Michael Brown for ONLY $12!  PLUS FREE SHIPPING!

Call  1 800 278 9978 to take advantage of this offer, or ORDER ONLINE!

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown Interviews Scientist Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe); and Biblical Mistranslations and Misunderstanding

Can You Trust The Bible? VOR Article by Daniel Kolenda

How God Preserved His Word Through the Ages VOR Article by Shira Sorko-Ram


47 Comments
  1. I sent in this question via the AskDrBrown site:

    The Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, handwritten in Greek around the year 200, contains about half of each of the Gospels of Luke and John. Is there any book, or photographs containing their text? Or is one of the earliest witnesses to the Greek NT locked away in a private library? I would personally like to see if they support a Western, Alexandrian or Byzantine text type. Thanks so much.

  2. Dr.Micheal Brown have you read the Harbinger by Johnathan Cahn the interpretation of Isaiah 9:10 has been establishled on us, America to come back to Him or risk that that happen to Israel on that time to happen to us. Their is a website also called http://www.holybibleprophecy.org the sycamore tree tragedy 9/11 video. Please pray for me and my family ever since I changed my life excepted my Lord as savior I have been delt with many blows that are tearing my spirit down but I know there is something way better than this constant suffering. Please pray for my family and all family not to fall to the ways of this world. Thank you for all that you have done on your website and radio it has awaken me and I know countless other. THank you Dr. Brown God bless you sir may God use me too to be a light towards my family and others Thank you so much!! I’m proud of your courage and hear the power of the Lord come out of you.

  3. Dr Brown what about Romans 7 or 8 this is what someone said:

    The Apostle Paul did not have two natures or a sin nature. As a senior bondservant of Jesus Christ he did not struggle with an “Adamic” nature nor was he a wretched sinner. That was not what he was telling the church in Rome. Pastors and Bible teachers who interpret Romans 7 in this way are blaspheming God.

    And also they said Romans 5:12 was mistranslated “in whom” all men have sinned in the Latin Bible. The Greek word means “because,” not “in whom.”

    So how do you get around these terrible views?

    Hope this can be talk about in your talk! Thanks!

  4. Hello,I am merely an unregenerate Gentile who has some familiarity with Holy Scripture,but,here is a translation comment on John 3:16 by a man who knows the Holy Spirit,Pentecostally,and the Holy Scriptures,objectively – David Pawson. (Michael L Brown has recommended two books by David in the past : ‘Once Saved,Always Saved ? ‘, and ‘When Jesus Returns’.).

    Have you read David Pawson’s MEGA-boatrocker on that sentence ? He calls it …’one of the most mistranslated and misapplied verses in the Bible’. The book is called ‘Is John 3:16 the Gospel’ (‘Unpacking John 3:16’,or ‘The context and content of John 3:16’ would,I feel,be a better book title.)

    The ‘so’ in ‘For God so loved’ is translated in English Bibles as if to convey it as a QUANTITY word (i.e. as if it says ‘For God sooooo deeply loved….’) but,says David,so/houto/houtos (Strong’s Concordance number 3779) is actually a COMPARISON word (‘For in the same way God loved….’).In conveying it as a quantity word,it LOSES the CONTEXT-DEPENDENCY that the comparison word has.

    That is not the only misunderstanding Evangelicals have about John 3:16.The identity of the speaker ; the time and setting in which it was declared ; and the intended recipient of that sentence is also misunderstood,says David. Check it out.

    David’s biography :
    http://www.goodseed.org/about-david-pawson

    Ebook :
    http://www.amazon.com/JOHN-16-GOSPEL-ebook/dp/B004S7FWLS/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1326273559&sr=1-1

    Paperback :
    http://www.amazon.com/John-3-16-Gospel/dp/0981896111/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1326273559&sr=1-1

    Or from his USA distributor :
    http://www.goodseed.org/books.html?limit=all
    Do get the book – in paperback or ebook.

    ————————-
    ( I’d like to see the word ‘church’ removed from Holy Scripture,for it is NOT a translation of the Greek.)

    (With regard to Malachi 2:16 check out David’s inconvenient,unpalatable UNTICKLISH book ‘Remarriage is Adultery,Unless…’ in ebook or paperback.)

    http://www.amazon.com/Remarriage-is-Adultery-Unless-ebook/dp/B00564TNV2/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1326275696&sr=1-1

  5. For thus God loved the world by giving His only begotten Son, that whoever goes on believing in Him should not perish but go on having everlasting life.

  6. Thank you for the very informative program.

    A couple of excellent points were brought up like theological bias and proper translation of certain words.

    One of the most prominent biases is found in the NIV [Nearly Inspired Version] with those texts in John which have been claimed as evidence for the literal preexistence of Jesus. For example, John 13:3, 16:28; 20:17 have been mistranslated to give the impression that Jesus was “going back/returning” to his God & Father (see KJV, RSV). And in Phil 2.6 the Greek morphe [form] is translated as “in very nature” so as to add to the Deity of Messiah. This particular mistranslation is made worst by the fact that in their efforts to be consistent they give the same [mis]translation for v.7, where Jesus takes “the very nature of a servant”.

    And although it is difficult without knowing the original languages of the Bible to know which words are properly translated, I suggest when it comes to the Hebrew to check the LXX. For example, with the often-debated [by SDAs & other Sabbath keepers] word “law”, the LXX writers used the same word the NT writers used, nomos.

    Dr Brown, since you read the Hebrew, could you tell us why translators continue to mistranslate [in my opinion] Ps 110.1 by putting upper-case “L” on both the “lords” there? As you know the 1st Lord is from the Hebrew YHWH, usually translated as “LORD” or “Lord”; the 2nd lord adoni, is ALWAYS translated as “lord” & sometimes as “master, sir”. As far as I know it is never capitalized.

  7. Forgot to add…the other excellent point made was regarding the MSS. attestation where older doesn’t neccesarily mean better. As in the case with the errant reading of John 1.18 where the oldest MSS. thus far found read “the only begotten God”. A reading that most English translators have a problem with.

    Add to this the numerous errant verses appealing to the Deity of Messiah. Most of which have been noted as MSS. errors or flat-out corruptions by biased scribes:

    Mar 3.11 “You are the Son of God” was altered by scribes to read “You are God, the Son of God”.

    Luke 2:26 “That Simeon would see “the Lord’s Christ” was changed to read “Christ, namely God.”

    Luke 7:9 “When Jesus heard this” changed to to “when God heard this”.

    John 19:40 “Jesus’ body” changed to “God’s body.”

    Acts 20:28 “The church of God which He purchased with the blood of His own (Son)” changed to, “The church of God which He [God] purchased with His own [God’s] blood.”

    Gal 2:20 “By faith in the Son of God” was changed in several ways, such as: “in God, Christ,” or “in God, the Son.”

    Titus 3:6 “Jesus Christ our Savior” was changed to “Jesus Christ our God.”

    Heb 13:20 “Our Lord Jesus” was changed to “Our God Jesus.”

    I could go on but you get the drift. For anyone interested in further research/verification see Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of Scripture [written when he was still a believer]; Newton, Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture; Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, it’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd enlarged ed. Oxford Press, 1992 .

  8. David,yes,that’s much closer to a plumb translation.

    The problem is,the mistaken understanding of John 3:16 has perhaps become SACROSANCT,and the John 3:16 juggernaut,so to speak,is fueled by that very misunderstanding ! So a fair bit of Humble Pie,integrity and courage is called for,if future Bibles are to translate it properly (among other verses !),and if Western evangelism is going to be corrected.

    Michael’s link to one of the world’s finest Bible expositors :

    http://www.lineoffireradio.com/?s=David+Pawson

  9. With all the modern computer-generated concordences that show ALL the Hebrew and Greek side-by-side with English translations (Strong’s/ KJV being the most predominant) I am somewhat astonished by the astonishment on John 3:16: sirs, this is not even the tip of the tip of the hidden iceberg. In studying such sources as the Theological Wordbook (which Dr. Brown participated in) for a decade (tedious comparison) and having everything available at the touch of a keypad for a decade, I would say that the wealth of synonyms and nuances is not the problem: it’s not having a place to log the research for consideration. Professors and Church leaders tend to be self-absorbed and self-promoting: by saying “The Scriptures are not of private interpretation”, they mean, if WE don’t endorse it, it doesn’t exist. This Old Wineskin must be discarded for a WORD Reformation.
    In Him, Ron M.

  10. Chuck,

    Once again, please do not try to turn this thread into an argument about the Messiah’s deity. Do you not understand that the purpose of this website is NOT to promote your doctrinal error on every possible thread? I am making one comment, and we are done, although I welcome you to call the program on Friday with any of these questions, and I’ll be more than happy to address them.

    You have to play exegetical games through the whole Bible with abundantly clear passages — in particular passages like Hebrews 1 and John 1 and John 12 pointing back to Isa 6 and 53, among many others — to deny Yeshua’s pre-existence and divine nature, yet you want to quibble about translations of specific words (over which you’re still in error)?

    The unfortunate thing is that, if you hadn’t tried to insert your heretical viewpoint into so many different threads — in complete violation of our guidelines — questions such as the ones you raise here would have been welcomed, but because of your history, you make even questions like this unwelcome.

    If you want answers, feel free to try to get through on a Friday, or perhaps find someone better equipped to argue your point to come on my show as a guest than any of the dear folks I’ve had on the air so far.

  11. Dr Brown

    Do you not understand that the purpose of this website is NOT to promote your doctrinal error on every possible thread?

    How are my comments and questions not relevant to this thread?

    you want to quibble about translations of specific words (over which you’re still in error)?

    Once again, how are my comments & questions not relevant to the subject of this radio show? Simply stating facts and seeking answers.

    And I thought you were “equipped” to deal with these issues since you have programs on it. If not, I welcome anyone else who is. Perhaps some of your fellow Rabbis who read this blog can help me.

  12. (take 2): Chuck, without a Blood Atonement, what is your personal hope of Salvation? I’m interested in your answer. Messiah’s deity is important especially concerning that if GOD is not “personally” responsible to His creation, then He becomes a tyrant. Neither animal nor angel can fulfill that charge: GOD is Love must involve personal sacrifice, or else His kingdom has no real meaning.
    In Him, Ron M.

  13. RDM

    Neither animal nor angel can fulfill that charge

    Agreed, only His uniquely created, sinless Son could be the perfect Lamb. As the NT writers tell us over and over again.

    Jesus entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

    For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.

    And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation.
    Heb 9.12-14; Rom 3.25; 5.9

  14. I was hoping someone would mention the Holman Christian Standard Version and the NRSV. I like them alot, though I have a few reservations about a couple of verses I’ve read in each one. But the HCSB is probably one of my favorites. I also enjoy the 1985 JPS Tanakh, though I much prefer the Stone Chumash by Artscroll. I’m really enjoying the Voice New Testament and the Tree of Life Messianic Bible as well. I’ve also discovered the Besorat HaMashiach of the Word English Bible.

    I never was a NIV reader, King James was the main Bible I had in my youth, which meant I hardly read it at all. I enjoy New King James, but I find it difficult, when teaching, to read it aloud without stumbling over the words. I enjoy reading it in silence however and find it to be a great translation that is greatly overlooked.
    Shalom to all!
    Shalom to all.

  15. Almost forgot, the first Bible I ever really read and loved was David Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible when I was fifteen. However, it is a bit difficult to use during church services with non-Jews as I’m forced to change the terms back into their non-Jewish, translation. But, it is a great resource just to see how Jewish the New Testament really is and that the Gospel message is a Jewish message.

  16. “uniquely created…” I assume you are referring to Rev. 3:14? Tough one; my interpretation goes back to Gen. 1:3: GOD Said! The WORD proceeding from the RWcH (Breath; Spirit) is both GOD and “the beginning of creation”: scientists’ “big bang” that makes no sense without a Supreme Being, or else out of nothingness came everything (luciferian gobbledegook). Substantially preincarnate. Don’t underestimate The WORD.
    In Him, Ron M.

  17. RDM

    I assume you are referring to Rev. 3:14?

    Not really. More to his “origin” [genesis, Mat 1.1, 18] & “coming into existence” [gennao, Luke 1.30-35] via God’s holy spirit.

    By the way the noted textual critic Bruce Metzger noted that “the majority of textual scholars agree that [some MSS. read] gennesis [but this] represents a textual corruption”. [Textual Commentary, pg. 8]

    Both genesis and gennesis can mean “birth”, so that either one could be appropriate in the context. But unlike the corrupted reading, genesis can also mean “creation”, “beginning” and “origination”.

    When one now asks why scribes might take umbrage at Matthew’s description of the genesis of Jesus Christ, the answer immediately suggests itself: the original text could well be taken to imply that this is the moment in which Jesus Christ comes into [existence]. In point of fact, there is nothing in Matthew’s narrative, either here or elsewhere throughout the Gospel, to suggest that he knew or subscribed to the notion that Christ had existed prior to his birth. Erhman, Orthodox Corruption, pgs. 75-76

  18. Chuck and Ron and others,

    To repeat: This is NOT the thread to discuss Yeshua’s deity or God’s triunity. (For those new here, some folks try to intrude their particular theology into thread after thread, in violation of our guidelines.)

    So, before we start removing posts, I’m making it as clear as I can that you need to take this discussion to another thread. Thanks!

  19. Dr. Brown,
    Agreed; but re. M. Romney’s Mormonism, it needs to be discussed soon somewhere. Spirit of Truth v. spirit of error: Christ has come in the flesh. We overcome by the Blood of the Lamb and word of our testimony. These “interpretations” are on-thread. Post-Scripture tradition is not (like “separate but equal”); I know this gets complicated, and is why we all need a bigger moderated forum.
    In Him, Ron M.

  20. Thanks for doing this. Is English the language which has the most translations? I’ve listened to both hosts now for years, and continue to be discipled by Jesus through their insights. Many Protestant speakers seem to use the New American Standard, which seems to be concerned with accuracy, does it not? But one insight seemingly stated in the hosts’ conversation is that accuracy has both a lens of hearing and doing, as well as an original intention. Greek passages however are sometimes difficult to piece together into current idioms and current expression.

    One thing which was not raised, and perhaps may be in a future discussion, is how the American English language has become very relevant to individual experience in life and subcultures more than of a common meaning. E. Stanley Jones wrote in the 1950s that the Gospel and New Testament had so saturated the population of the USA that American English words had almost continental meaning and comprehension.

    Today, with feelings given more affirmation in commentary in the world on this or that phenomena, experience, or idea–and words taking on subcultural relevancies–there simply will not be a universal USA comprehended English translation, thought by thought. Why? Because reading anything in depth is generally not appreciated in post modern thinking processes.

    So,it seems the challenges in coming to a common heart among believers have increased. What of calling for a Council of No. American believers to determine what is common to the faith? Would this then become as preference driven and divisive as all the critical feelings believers in supposed different “camps” maintain about others? I wonder too if the present preference for only good news and affirming esteem has legitametly come from other out of balance values propogated by religion and the marketplace of American being so intertwined for so many years?

    Bryan Purtle has a challenge for all believers to come apart to the quiet place of time spent with an attentive eye and heart of single devotion, in the quiet and solitude of listening and praying,to hear our Father. Then most translations can come alive, no matter how imperfect, or human in limitation. The limitless One would speak to us through time spent with the written word, and listening and heeding the will of the Spirit in our prayer closets. Let a zeal for truth yield to a heart for hearing directly what it is God would do to heal our experience and our Land.

  21. Dr Brown

    I’m making it as clear as I can that you need to take this discussion to another thread.

    I get the feeling that wherever I go you will follow…like the song says. 😛

  22. Hi Jabez!

    I haven’t heard from you. Did you get your website up and going? Drop in on me at: info@calltohischurch.com I’m going to start a teaching series this Spring–locally.

    Just a bit off subject–that.

    On topic–I use the ESV, KJV, NIV and NLT to study for the most part. That way I get a well rounded interpretation. I always go to the original definitions and how the word is used in context and in other verses in both the Hebrew and Greek concordances.

    I really wish the BibleGateway site would offer more. They don’t have commentaries for each chapter–that I’m aware of–I left off using them a while back only because I have a program I use for myself.

    I do use the BlueLetterBible site but their commentaries are slanted, either with seeing the Church in everything or other strange doctrines–one I think is extreme Dispensationalism. There is even something about the Pyramid coming into play at the end of days! I haven’t figured out where in the world that comes from…

    There is one program (CD) that came free with a study book I had ordered, can’t remember which one now, but it is called “Lightning Study Bible” program. It’s really nice, especially considering it came at no extra charge.

    I think using all that’s available to us is the best way to get the original and the more correct interpretation.

    For those new to the Faith, the New Living Translation serves well because if they don’t understand what they’re reading they may leave off reading altogether. I find the ESV as the closest to the KJV which is what I cut my teeth on, so to speak, and having memorized the wording in that translation it’s hard to search for the verse in any other. I do my search in “olde English” and then pull up the others. :0

  23. Biblesoft has worked well for me; but they keep changing their prices. I don’t need everyone’s commentary on everything; but the simple copy-and-paste is better than others I’ve used.
    Assuming Jabez and Sheila are on-topic, I just went to VOR and find it mostly dormant; austerity measures? (please smile) BECAUSE I am a Christian, I tend to see secular politics as a reflection of the Church. So here’s a general statement: firing thousands of teachers to pay for one man’s personality and popularity becomes the fruit of only the senior pastor’s voice being important. This may be the last year the voice of the common (wo)man is heard on the internet, no matter who wins the election. So this becomes a driving initiative to get the message out while we can, rather than a doctorate program of “precept on precept” to earn a certificate that Isaiah says CAN lead to the ruin of a nation.
    This is only my 3rd blog, and I am asking for a larger (Rehoboth) well.
    In Him, Ron M.

  24. Chuck,

    No. My biological mother was Cherokee Indian, from the Reservation in North Carolina, my father was a coal miner in West Virginia where I was born at home, delivered by a medicine doctor. He was Scots/Irish/1/4 Cherokee. They had 10 lttle Indians–literally–five girls, five boys. I was the next to the youngest. I lost my younger sister this past Spring. I was raised in a foster home in New Jersey. Hence, I do not touch the “fire-water” anymore!!

    And you?

  25. p.s. Me and two sisters were given over to the same foster family, I never saw my older brothers and sisters again.

    I thank the Lord for rescuing us from what would have been the product of our lives having to deal with their alcoholism and abuse. Praise God!

  26. Each has a story and history, and a discovery process of connection to the Lord of Life and redemption as well. How did you come to faith in Jesus? Thanks.

  27. Jabez,

    I gave my testimony back a year and half ago maybe. I don’t mind telling it, I just don’t want to divert the blog discussion. (more than I already have) If I get the go ahead I’d be glad to share my experience of meeting the Lord of Life!

    I wish there was a forum where we could each give our testimonials, perhaps a separate standing forum.

    I would certainly like to hear your story and that of Chuck, who I know almost nothing about.

    What do you say Dr. Brown?

  28. Chuck,

    You said you are simply seeking answers. If that’s the case why is all your time here attempting to refute what we “trinny’s” believe? A true seeker of truth knows how and when to put his arguments and opinions aside and humbly seeks not needing to be heard.

    Not to mention it’s very irritating to try and glean from these threads when they are littered with your posts that detract from the topic at hand. Please have respect for us who are interested in the topics the threads are created for.

  29. DL

    If that’s the case why is all your time here attempting to refute what we “trinny’s” believe?

    Asking questions about the Trinity is not a refutation of the doctrine. Faith is based on understanding and believe it or not, after all these years, I am still open to the possiblity that it might be biblical. But all I keep getting is shut down or kicked out by loving, so-called Christians. I don’t see how that is a spirit of truth, let alone God, at work.

    Please have respect for us who are interested in the topics the threads are created for.

    How am I being disrespectful by coming on a thread on a radio show that just talked about this very topic? If anyone hasn’t seen it yet it is clear that Dr Brown does not want his audience to get the “other side” of his arguments. You have to ask yourself why. If not, then I guess you belong here.

  30. Chuck (and all others reading)

    Your post should really be pulled here — it is a false, personal accusation — but instead I will simply set the record straight.

    First, it is a lie that we don’t want anti-Trinitarian viewpoints expressed here. Yes, a lie. I have debated anti-Trinitarians on my radio show several times as well as on TV, and we have allowed hundreds and hundreds of posts on threads here over the years on this subject (probably thousands in total).

    Second, Chuck is constantly in violation of our commenting policies, trying to intrude his doctrinal views into threads where they don’t belong, as if the purpose of this website was to provide him and others a platform to promote their heretical views. And no matter how many times he is admonished about this, he continues to violate our policies.

    Because of that, Chuck, we will have to moderate your comments before they appear. Of course, you will see this as proof that we’re not open to other viewpoints here, which is a complete joke. But since you crossed the line this time with a false, personal accusation — against me or anyone else — you leave us no choice.

    May the Lord open your eyes to His truth and to the eternal glories of His Son.

  31. I believe Tim Tebow was mentioned on this show so Ill add this info:

    Coincidence or Divine:
    Media sources noted Tebow’s passing yards (316) and yards per completion (31.6) evoked the Bible’s John 3:16. Ben Roethlisberger’s interception was on 3rd and 16. The Nielsen ratings for the game also peaked at 31.6. John 3:16 was the top search item on Google after the game.

  32. Sure, Dr. Brown, pass mine along to anyone that would like to hear it! Or, in fact, they can go to the website we sponsor by clicking on my name and email me. I believe our personal witness is powerful and the effect is that it moves people to want to hear more about the Lord Jesus that changed our lives!

    Thanks.

  33. Sheila, what is your website and contact name?
    Mine: cherubcalf@earthlink.net (those reading this: no spam please- I’ll change account name if necessary).
    The reason I’m asking is that we live 5 mi. from Cherokee, close to Kituwah (the Motherland). Cherokee means “Keeper of the Flame”; did you know? GOD’s FIREWATER is greater than alcohol:
    HE WILL BAPTISE YOU WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.
    In Him, Ron M.

  34. I have been reading Dr. Skip Moen, and I would like to know your opinion of his proposition that the English Translations have been corrupted by Greek philosophy. He expouses the original languages and a Hebraic philosophy. Further more the new covenant rather a renewed covenant. Further He expounds that Y’shua was slain before the foundation of the earth, thus Abraham was saved just as we are.

  35. One big accusation I hear is “You Christians mistranslates the Hebrew”. that’s one thing I get sick of hearing. One example i have heard from orthodox Jews (an sometimes Muslims) is “It pleased HaShem to bruise him with disease”, and they try and say “Since Jesus was not bruised with disease, Isaiah 53 is not about him.”. That’s one argument among many.

  36. Hey all you Greek scholars. Check this out and let me know what you think:

    http://www.academicroom.com/article/let-everyone-discern-body-christ-colossians-217

    Have our English translations been unjustly tainted by our preconceived theology instead of our theology corrected by solid and accurate translation?

    Should the Greek of Colossians 2:16-17 be translated with the same methods that Romans 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 10:24 have been?

    Colossians 2
    16 therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.
    17 these are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (RSV)

    16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
    17 which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ; (YLT)

    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ. (KJV with the added words removed)

    Troy Martins traslation:

    “Therefore do not let anyone critique you by [your or herlhis?] eating and
    drinking or by [your or herlhis?] participation in a feast, a new moon, or sab-
    baths, which things are a shadow of future realities, but let everyone discern the
    body of Christ by [your or herlhis?] eating nnd drinking or by [your or
    herlhis?] participation in a feast, new moon, or sabbaths, which things are a
    shadow offirtzire realities.”

    Please read the article that I gave the link to before critiquing Martin’s translation.

    Shalom

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*