Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
Okay, so what about Psalm 8:4-6? Was Dr. Beck correct in translating "man" and "him" in v4 and then go to "Him" and "His" in vs5,6? Dr. Beck translates that as clearly referring to Christ as given in Hebrews 2:6-9, but I do not know of another translation that does such. Was Dr. Beck misleading to translate that to fit the Hebrews quote?

Yes, I believe he was unwarranted in using upper case letters for "man" and "him". As I stated above, interpretation is not to be added to nor replace translation.

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
I think of Isaiah 7:14 when the uproar over the traditional "virgin" was changed to "a young woman" in the RSV. For many years I was taught those Communists in the NCC corrupted that verse and they were going straight to hell. The RSV foot note reads "Gk virgin". The KJV used the LXX translation/interpretation of "virgin" and the RSV/NRSV used the literal word for word Hebrew "young woman". The New English Translation (NET Bible), which is a conservative translation, which also translates it as "young woman" has an interesting footnote on that word:

From my knowledge of Hebrew, the word 'almah is never used to refer to a married woman, one who has been sexually active. Edward J. Young has an excellent section on how this word is to be translated:

At the outset we may confidently assert that the word 'almah is never employed of a married woman. At least one of these occurrences makes it clear that the word may designate one who is truly a virgin (Gen. 24:43). Rebekah is called an 'almah, but she is furthermore designated a bethulah, and it is said of her that a man had not known her. In one passage, namely, Provergs 30:19, the word 'almah may possibly signify an immoral girl, but it does not indicate a married girl. Perhaps the closest equivalent in English is the word damsel or maiden. Neither of these is generally emplyed of a married woman. Yet even these worlds may not be precise equivalents, for whereas they could possibly refer to married women, 'almah does not do so. For, these reasons it may be wisest, after all to render 'almah in English by "virgin."

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
An interesting note on this question of translations, the Orthodox Study Bible uses the LXX for the OT and the NKJV for their NT, since Jesus used the LXX.

Just because Jesus or any of the writers of the NT might have possibly alluded to a text as translated in the LXX is no warrant for us to base our interpretation of any of God's Word upon the LXX. Those who were given the special gift of the Spirit (inspiration 2Pet 1:19-21) wrote what God had intended to be known by His infinite wisdom. That inspiration was specific to them and no other man, woman or child has that gift, ability and thus warrant to search outside what has been written for truth, especially when it contradicts the Scriptures. We may look to uninspired writings for study purposes from those who are recognized as orthodox believers, but they are never to be made to be a primary source. Scripture interprets itself and thus is the "sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice." Today, more than any other time in history, rank individualism is esteemed as the standard... "Me and the Bible is all that is necessary." However, it was God's will that the Church should be the source of receiving the truth through pastor/teachers. And they are to be held to the standard of Scripture for all men do err.

There is an interesting web page showing many parallel passages in the KJV NT, KJV OT and the LXX. I agree, to go off on an autonomous tangent of theology and ignore the teachings of men of God down through the centuries is very arrogant. It is to think one has more illumination from the Holy Spirit than men of God in the church have had through the centuries. Along those lines, I belief what was true in the 1st century remained true all through history, so I do tend to prefer writings of men of God out of the past. Even the Lutheran Dogmatics I quoted on another thread was a Lutheran theologian of the latter 19th century. I have at times referred to myself as a "Confessional Baptist", and that raises not a few Baptist eyebrows. laugh