Dr. Strauss is a true servant of the Lord. I have long admired his books and interviews and the man himself. Earlier today I sent an email to a friend. I gave him some quotes from Mark's chapter, :Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate. Those quotes dealt with the meaning of interpretation and other matters. I have his excellent book Forty Questions.
Listening to members of the CBT outside of the context of the NIV totally restored my faith in that translation when, as a young teen, the 2011 revision initially made me question it. The theological strength of, for example, Dr. Strauss's *Four Portraits, One Jesus* or Dr. Moo's NICNT volume on Romans gave real comfort to me as a believer and real confidence in the NIV again as a translation (even though there are still places where I think they made the wrong decision!)
🗨 justin 🗨 Wow, you're loaded with adjectives! Are ypu always so intense and dramatic? Intrigued or triggered? The Son of Man's job? Yes! Does the Son of Man do His job without involving sons of men? Yes or No? Saints 😇 vs 👹 Goats Talk to me, friend‼️
I broke up laughing about 15:39 or so when Mark described the difference in Spanish and English because it hits home. "How yourself called?". Like you, I grew up KJV and memorized a lot of verses. When I come across verses I memorized or even if I'm very familiar with, it makes my reading stumble because the words are often in a different order, and in some cases in a longer verse, the bottom of one verse is at the top in the other version. I can't read the Gospel of Mark, for example in the NIV, but I use it, and about 8 other English translations, to better understand what a verse might really mean or say. @21:30, "We should be a truth seeker" Yes, that's why I left KJO and many denominational doctrines, to learn what the Bible actually says and means. @ 25:00 I tested myself in translating the BIble as what I coined "A Ford Scholar". Ford could sit at his desk and press a button. In a moment, the expert for auto transmissions, for example, would come through his door. Wordsearch and LOGOS have all of the experts in their resources. I used these resources to write my own translations of Jude and the first few chapters of John. It was a real learning experience. In his answer to "implicit knowledge", he hit one of the things I learned about real Bible translators, and that is that they must have access to a lot of external resources, such as customs and traditions and phrases they might use to really understand what the original author was communicating. The "hated" tax collector was a great example. I didn't get far into John to realize this. Another modern example is "Out of sight, out of mind". It doesn't mean "blind idiot". I'll bet you understand why I think I living in 1984, even though the year is 2024. I like the idea that we have some translations that are literal, and others that are dynamic equivalent. It really helps in understanding what the truth is, what the Bible is really saying. @ 31:00 "It can be true without being perfect". When Matthew and Mark quote Jesus in the boat, Mark says: beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. Matthew says: beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Herod and Sadducees cannot be the same Greek word. They both can't be a "perfect" quote of Jesus. It tells me that God wants us to understand the message, not be like the Pharisees and get nit-picky about individual words and verses. It only took God two years to get me to understand why this Matthew version of the verse was on my mind. But after having researched what the Pharisees and Sadducees were like, I saw these verses side by side. That's when I realized, I was being Pharisee in my KJO and Bible translation. It was a turning point where I started studying for the messages and not trying to pull out some "Gold nugget" that only the preachers and scholars could give when they use word studies in their sermons. This video has been an absolute blessing to me. He exposed something new to me when Mark answered your question about profiting from the translation and the copyright holder. He certainly dispelled the "translators are doing it for the money" argument. Both of you are a blessing. Thank you
That was a great interview! I have recently added the NASB 2020 to my list of bibles that I read on the daily , and have found it to be more helpful . Although I do not now have a favorite Bible translation ( thanks to Brother Mark ) I find myself gravitating to this NASB 2020 . Id like to know your thoughts on its translation at some point , if you were to get the time for I can’t find a more recent review of it to determine its overall competitiveness.
@markwardlogos It's not that a more formal methodology can be practiced with precision and purity, it's what the two different camps are aiming to achieve, how successfully they are in accomplishing it, and what the implications are for the reader who has no knowledge of the originals. The only thing conservative in Strauss's methodology is his desire to conserve the original meaning being conveyed. But that is the job of the interpreter, pastor, commentator. On the other end of the spectrum, the LSB is trying to conserve concordance, so the reader/interpreter can have a fighting chance to use the analogy of faith in his daily reading. I'm still fine with calling this a liberal/conservative divide, even though it's a vast spectrum with translators and translations being scattered up and down the line. When you look at the extremes on either end, you see very liberal scholars on one end and very conservative scholars on the other.
There are, actually, places where the Greek might use "aner" rather than "anthropos", and in such cases, to translate as "person" (which would be valid for "anthropos") would be wrong. If the context or language does suggest exclusive masculinism, then gender neutrality in translation is an error.
Why do we have to change anything about the original writing of the word. The older the better.. just explanations of the word in question, ie Greek Hebrew.
Excellent discussion. Just some of my personal thoughts, if I may. NIV is fine, but I typically mention to others that it is still more ‘paraphrase’ than the translation itself admits to. Keeping that in mind keeps me more ‘calm’, if you will. Functional equivalent certainly has its good but how can we be sure it has been applied too far? There are definite cases where this has been done in the NIV. That said, I tend to lean more toward the formal equivalent translations, especially for personal study. The “gender” thing... Yes, there are times when there is even a need to translate ‘men’ into ‘people’ or ‘persons’ but on the other hand, bible students ought to be taught and understand that in biblical culture ‘men’ can sometimes mean ‘people’ in those times. It is helpful that bible students understand the culture, circumstances, etc. was different way back then and, and that, certain biblical scriptures can be more easily understood by learning some awareness of the culture of the bible as it is from any book one reads from. This, rather serendipitously, widens the scope of people’s thinking, which certainly has its advantages as well. The ‘genderism’ in the English 2013 NWT is considered on a verse-by-verse content basis, so there is kind of balance. As for the other 230+ languages the NWT has been translated into, I can’t say for certain, since I don’t know those languages, but I expect it is safe to say, such verses are considered with the same approach. As far as money, the NWT is always available free of charge or for a willful donation that may help with printing costs. Bottom line, as we say enough, using multiple translations is still the best way to go.
Why are the scriptures about the Antichrist distorted and vague? I discovered this when reading the scriptures. Among many many other scriptures being left out and distorted. Do we not regard what is says in Revelation ch 22?
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Grateful for Dr. Strauss. Studied under him in San Diego. Great teacher.
Dr. Strauss is a true servant of the Lord. I have long admired his books and interviews and the man himself.
Earlier today I sent an email to a friend. I gave him some quotes from Mark's chapter, :Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate. Those quotes dealt with the meaning of interpretation and other matters.
I have his excellent book Forty Questions.
“You should never attack a view until you can defend it.” Mic drop
Listening to members of the CBT outside of the context of the NIV totally restored my faith in that translation when, as a young teen, the 2011 revision initially made me question it. The theological strength of, for example, Dr. Strauss's *Four Portraits, One Jesus* or Dr. Moo's NICNT volume on Romans gave real comfort to me as a believer and real confidence in the NIV again as a translation (even though there are still places where I think they made the wrong decision!)
Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹⭐🌹⭐
I fully appreciate that Mark has fondness for the Seiko that the Lord hath made.
Mark is fond of anything that blends, confuses or compromises 😇😇😇
@@rayhchc6451your camp are the ones sowing dissentions and confusion, not Mark
🗨 Justin 🗨 How is it not a good thing for sheep to separate themselves from the goats? 😇
@@rayhchc6451 that is blatantly, clearly, undeniably the Son of Man's job, not yours. Go read Matthew 25 again
🗨 justin 🗨 Wow, you're loaded with adjectives! Are ypu always so intense and dramatic? Intrigued or triggered? The Son of Man's job? Yes! Does the Son of Man do His job without involving sons of men? Yes or No?
Saints 😇 vs 👹 Goats
Talk to me, friend‼️
I broke up laughing about 15:39 or so when Mark described the difference in Spanish and English because it hits home. "How yourself called?".
Like you, I grew up KJV and memorized a lot of verses. When I come across verses I memorized or even if I'm very familiar with, it makes my reading stumble because the words are often in a different order, and in some cases in a longer verse, the bottom of one verse is at the top in the other version.
I can't read the Gospel of Mark, for example in the NIV, but I use it, and about 8 other English translations, to better understand what a verse might really mean or say.
@21:30, "We should be a truth seeker" Yes, that's why I left KJO and many denominational doctrines, to learn what the Bible actually says and means.
@ 25:00 I tested myself in translating the BIble as what I coined "A Ford Scholar". Ford could sit at his desk and press a button. In a moment, the expert for auto transmissions, for example, would come through his door. Wordsearch and LOGOS have all of the experts in their resources. I used these resources to write my own translations of Jude and the first few chapters of John. It was a real learning experience.
In his answer to "implicit knowledge", he hit one of the things I learned about real Bible translators, and that is that they must have access to a lot of external resources, such as customs and traditions and phrases they might use to really understand what the original author was communicating. The "hated" tax collector was a great example. I didn't get far into John to realize this. Another modern example is "Out of sight, out of mind". It doesn't mean "blind idiot". I'll bet you understand why I think I living in 1984, even though the year is 2024.
I like the idea that we have some translations that are literal, and others that are dynamic equivalent. It really helps in understanding what the truth is, what the Bible is really saying.
@ 31:00 "It can be true without being perfect".
When Matthew and Mark quote Jesus in the boat,
Mark says: beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
Matthew says: beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Herod and Sadducees cannot be the same Greek word.
They both can't be a "perfect" quote of Jesus. It tells me that God wants us to understand the message, not be like the Pharisees and get nit-picky about individual words and verses.
It only took God two years to get me to understand why this Matthew version of the verse was on my mind. But after having researched what the Pharisees and Sadducees were like, I saw these verses side by side. That's when I realized, I was being Pharisee in my KJO and Bible translation. It was a turning point where I started studying for the messages and not trying to pull out some "Gold nugget" that only the preachers and scholars could give when they use word studies in their sermons.
This video has been an absolute blessing to me. He exposed something new to me when Mark answered your question about profiting from the translation and the copyright holder. He certainly dispelled the "translators are doing it for the money" argument.
Both of you are a blessing. Thank you
That was a great interview!
I have recently added the NASB 2020 to my list of bibles that I read on the daily , and have found it to be more helpful .
Although I do not now have a favorite Bible translation ( thanks to Brother Mark ) I find myself gravitating to this NASB 2020 . Id like to know your thoughts on its translation at some point , if you were to get the time for I can’t find a more recent review of it to determine its overall competitiveness.
Question 42: when is a Catholic edition of the NIV going to be released? 😊
The debate will not end because, just as there are liberals and conservatives in every other part of life, so it is in this case.
@markwardlogos It's not that a more formal methodology can be practiced with precision and purity, it's what the two different camps are aiming to achieve, how successfully they are in accomplishing it, and what the implications are for the reader who has no knowledge of the originals.
The only thing conservative in Strauss's methodology is his desire to conserve the original meaning being conveyed. But that is the job of the interpreter, pastor, commentator.
On the other end of the spectrum, the LSB is trying to conserve concordance, so the reader/interpreter can have a fighting chance to use the analogy of faith in his daily reading.
I'm still fine with calling this a liberal/conservative divide, even though it's a vast spectrum with translators and translations being scattered up and down the line. When you look at the extremes on either end, you see very liberal scholars on one end and very conservative scholars on the other.
There are, actually, places where the Greek might use "aner" rather than "anthropos", and in such cases, to translate as "person" (which would be valid for "anthropos") would be wrong. If the context or language does suggest exclusive masculinism, then gender neutrality in translation is an error.
Why do we have to change anything about the original writing of the word. The older the better.. just explanations of the word in question,
ie Greek Hebrew.
Excellent discussion. Just some of my personal thoughts, if I may. NIV is fine, but I typically mention to others that it is still more ‘paraphrase’ than the translation itself admits to. Keeping that in mind keeps me more ‘calm’, if you will. Functional equivalent certainly has its good but how can we be sure it has been applied too far? There are definite cases where this has been done in the NIV. That said, I tend to lean more toward the formal equivalent translations, especially for personal study.
The “gender” thing... Yes, there are times when there is even a need to translate ‘men’ into ‘people’ or ‘persons’ but on the other hand, bible students ought to be taught and understand that in biblical culture ‘men’ can sometimes mean ‘people’ in those times. It is helpful that bible students understand the culture, circumstances, etc. was different way back then and, and that, certain biblical scriptures can be more easily understood by learning some awareness of the culture of the bible as it is from any book one reads from. This, rather serendipitously, widens the scope of people’s thinking, which certainly has its advantages as well.
The ‘genderism’ in the English 2013 NWT is considered on a verse-by-verse content basis, so there is kind of balance. As for the other 230+ languages the NWT has been translated into, I can’t say for certain, since I don’t know those languages, but I expect it is safe to say, such verses are considered with the same approach.
As far as money, the NWT is always available free of charge or for a willful donation that may help with printing costs.
Bottom line, as we say enough, using multiple translations is still the best way to go.
Why are the scriptures about the Antichrist distorted and vague? I discovered this when reading the scriptures. Among many many other scriptures being left out and distorted. Do we not regard what is says in Revelation ch 22?