Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 3,324
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,551
Posts50,776
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,314
Tom 3,324
chestnutmare 2,870
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 25
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:39 AM
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Christmas
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:01 AM
Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic
by PerpetualLearner. Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 PM
Glorious Bach
by goldenoldie. Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:46 AM
Nothing New Under the Sun?
by PerpetualLearner. Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#54302 - Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:40 PM The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6  
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
PerpetualLearner Offline
Journeyman
PerpetualLearner  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
Tampa Bay, Florida
Is the following good translation and interpretation, or is it going too far reading Christianity back into the Old Testament?

Psalm 8:4-6 (An American Translation by William F. Beck, Lutheran)

"what is man that You should think of him,
or the son of man that You should come and visit him?

You make Him do without God for a little while;
then crown Him with glory and majesty
and make Him ruler over what Your hands have made,
putting everything under His feet:"
(Footnote: Heb 2:6-9; 1 Cor 15:27,28; Eph 1:22)

Luther translated v5 "Thou wilt let Him be forsaken of God for a little while" taken from The Lutheran Study Bible

From The Popular Commentary (1924) by Paul E. Kretzmann (Lutheran) on this passage:

"v. 4. what is man that Thou art mindful of him, that the great God should spend any thoughts upon human nature, so far below Him that a comparison is not possible, and the Son of Man, that Thou visitest Him? The reference, as Heb_2:6-10 shows, is to Christ, who assumed human nature, with all its weakness and lowliness, who was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man, Php_2:7-8. It is to this singular man alone that the next words can apply.

v. 5. For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels, literally, "Thou hast caused Him to lack a little of God," this being fulfilled when the Son of Man, in the depths of His sufferings for mankind, was forsaken by His heavenly Father, as He Himself cries out, and hast crowned Him with glory and honor, with the majesty and glory peculiar to the essence of God, this taking place when Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, entered upon His state of exaltation, when the Savior, who had deliberately waived the right to use the divine power and majesty communicated to His human nature, assumed and practiced this right, also according to His humanity.

v. 6. Thou madest Him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands, as the Ruler of the entire universe, with boundless power and majesty, and that according to His human nature; Thou hast put all things under His feet, Eph_1:22 "


Ned
#54303 - Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:43 PM Re: The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 [Re: PerpetualLearner]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
I'm not sure what you are asking. shrug

But the NT is based upon the OT. In fact, it has been suggested that c. 85% of the NT consists of quotes and allusions from the OT. One doesn't read "Christianity back into the Old Testament" but rather the old adage has it right... "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in New explained." We get our hermeneutical methodology from the inspired NT writers, i.e., how they interpreted and understood the OT, particularly in the fulfillment of OT prophesy and its symbolism.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#54306 - Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:38 PM Re: The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
PerpetualLearner Offline
Journeyman
PerpetualLearner  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
Tampa Bay, Florida
[/i]
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
I'm not sure what you are asking. shrug

But the NT is based upon the OT. In fact, it has been suggested that c. 85% of the NT consists of quotes and allusions from the OT. One doesn't read "Christianity back into the Old Testament" but rather the old adage has it right... "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in New explained." We get our hermeneutical methodology from the inspired NT writers, i.e., how they interpreted and understood the OT, particularly in the fulfillment of OT prophesy and its symbolism.


I believe the NT explains the OT to me a Christian, and as a New Covenant believer I believe the New Covenant takes precedence over the Old Testament so I take the OT as an example. What I had noticed was, I could find no translation other than Lutheran that capitalized "Him" in v5 making clear they believed this was speaking clearly of the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. I also found only Lutheran commentaries that were so strong to insist this was so clear in the OT Hebrew so it would have been understood by the Jews. Did the Jews recognize that v5 was speaking of the coming Messiah as Hebrews 2:6-9 apply it? In the Preface of his translation, Dr. Beck wrote: "The RSV undermines this [i]Heilsplan
(plan of salvation) by cutting down the prophecies of the coming Savior in the Old Testament as well as the important truths about Christ in the New Testament. In this way the RSV forfeits every privilege of being the Bible of the Christian Church. My translation on the soundest textual basis gives the Church every Old Testament promise of the Savior and every doctrine given in the text." I do enjoy Dr. Beck's translation very much even though it is not well known, but did he do in Psalm 8:5 as Luther did in Rom. 3:28 when adding "alone" to faith. Has he leaned too much into interpretation and a dynamic style of translation? There may be another translation that makes clear v5 in the Hebrew speaks of the Son of God, or Son of man but I did not find one.


Ned
#54307 - Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:34 PM Re: The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 [Re: PerpetualLearner]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Luke 24:25-32 is paradigmatic of the typical Jew. Even Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel didn't know how to properly interpret the Scriptures. Doubtless, there were men of God who were given to know at least in part that what God spoke to them transcended their personal experience. Divine revelation was given progressively over centuries and finalized by the inspired NT writers where all things were given their true meaning. But even though that is true, there are yet things which are yet unknown even to the most gifted of this world. The Infinite cannot be fully comprehended by those who are finite. WE are given to know the mysteries of the kingdom which those in the OT yearned to know. Yet, even though the saints of old were given only types and shadows of that which was to come by the prophets (Heb 1:1,2) it was sufficient to elicit true saving faith in God and the hope of a coming Messiah through the regenerating work of the Spirit of God. They knew in part and we are given to know more in part of the things that were, that are now and of the world to come. But we shall have to wait for the full revelation of God's glory, majesty and His magnificent plan that He has ordained from eternity for the sons of God.

Let translation be true. And let the Spirit teach the meaning of the translation through the means ordained by God. Translation should NOT be interpretation. A man born and raised in some remote place may never even heard of an animal called a "sheep". The translator has no warrant to substitute the name of a different animal in order to bring "clarity" to those such as that man. For to do so is to blaspheme God Who in His perfect wisdom chose that animal in order to reveal the LORD Christ Who was as a lamb led to the slaughter... The lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Today, one's theology or lack of one dictates how translations are done. But the truth is, one is to derive their theology from a translation. And that is where the root lies..... bad translations produce bad theology. And the Lord knows there is surely a plethora of bad theology being taught and believed in our day by those who claim to be servants of God and who hold positions of authority, e.g., pastors and teachers. Lord, come quickly for even thine elect would be in jeopardy of being led astray were it not for the power and preservation of the Spirit of Truth.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#54311 - Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:36 AM Re: The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
PerpetualLearner Offline
Journeyman
PerpetualLearner  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
Tampa Bay, Florida
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Luke 24:25-32 is paradigmatic of the typical Jew. Even Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel didn't know how to properly interpret the Scriptures. Doubtless, there were men of God who were given to know at least in part that what God spoke to them transcended their personal experience. Divine revelation was given progressively over centuries and finalized by the inspired NT writers where all things were given their true meaning. But even though that is true, there are yet things which are yet unknown even to the most gifted of this world. The Infinite cannot be fully comprehended by those who are finite. WE are given to know the mysteries of the kingdom which those in the OT yearned to know. Yet, even though the saints of old were given only types and shadows of that which was to come by the prophets (Heb 1:1,2) it was sufficient to elicit true saving faith in God and the hope of a coming Messiah through the regenerating work of the Spirit of God. They knew in part and we are given to know more in part of the things that were, that are now and of the world to come. But we shall have to wait for the full revelation of God's glory, majesty and His magnificent plan that He has ordained from eternity for the sons of God.

Let translation be true. And let the Spirit teach the meaning of the translation through the means ordained by God. Translation should NOT be interpretation. A man born and raised in some remote place may never even heard of an animal called a "sheep". The translator has no warrant to substitute the name of a different animal in order to bring "clarity" to those such as that man. For to do so is to blaspheme God Who in His perfect wisdom chose that animal in order to reveal the LORD Christ Who was as a lamb led to the slaughter... The lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Today, one's theology or lack of one dictates how translations are done. But the truth is, one is to derive their theology from a translation. And that is where the root lies..... bad translations produce bad theology. And the Lord knows there is surely a plethora of bad theology being taught and believed in our day by those who claim to be servants of God and who hold positions of authority, e.g., pastors and teachers. Lord, come quickly for even thine elect would be in jeopardy of being led astray were it not for the power and preservation of the Spirit of Truth.


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? 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:

Isa 7:14 (NET Notes)
"3 tn Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place."

I find it interesting, the NRSV in Zechariah 12:10 translates "look on the one" from the LXX with foot note "Heb 'on me'". The KJV follows the Hebrew "look upon me". So, the two translations reverse whether they stay with the Hebrew or go with the Greek. The KJV with the Greek in Isa. 7:14 and the Hebrew in Zech. 12:10, the RSV with the Hebrew in Isa. 7:14 and with the Greek in Zech. 12:10. I prefer the way the REB (Revised English Bible" translates Zech. 12:10 -

"but I shall pour a spirit of pity and compassion on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then they will look on me, on him whom they have pierced, and will lament over him as over an only child, and will grieve for him bitterly as for a firstborn son." (Zech 12:10, REB) Again the NET Bible has a clarifying note on that verse:

"2 tc Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, many mss read אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ale ’et ’asher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ela ’et ’asher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear – they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable – and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.
tn Or “on me.”

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. I was never a full 'KJV only', but for years I held it as the standard by which others were judged. When I realized that Jesus quoted from the LXX instead of the KJV, smile I began to look more closely at reasons for translation choices, looking at the literal word for word and comparing the more dynamic thought for thought translations. The first time I noticed this was Jesus' quote in Matt. 19:5 where Jesus quoted the word "twain" but that is not in the Hebrew of the KJV OT. Jesus was quoting from the LXX Gen.2:24 - "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." A question comes to my mind though, Pilgrim, do you have a single translation you think is the most accurate in all passages of Scripture? For me, I would go with the American Standard Version of 1901, but I don't think it is always the perfect translation.


Ned
#54321 - Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:48 AM Re: The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 [Re: PerpetualLearner]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
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:

Quote
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.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#54352 - Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:04 PM Re: The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
PerpetualLearner Offline
Journeyman
PerpetualLearner  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 63
Tampa Bay, Florida
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:

Quote
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


Ned

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 18 guests, and 98 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
667,024 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.042s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 2.6140 MB (Peak: 2.8975 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-17 17:53:54 UTC