Public Comments | First Followers

RE: What Can We Learn from Old Books?

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:25:38 -0500

thanks!

RE: What Can We Learn from Old Books?

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:29:41 -0500

Comments on a modern translation

You asked about the value of Mr. F Coulter’s translation of the Bible. My own opinion is shaped by a concern about his knowledge of New Testament texts. He states that his translation is based on the Byzantine texts, but appears to not understand the term. The Byzantine texts are what are referred to today as the Majority Texts and if his translation was based strictly on the Majority texts it would be worth consideration as no other modern translation solely uses this text. However, what Coulter appears to understand as the Byzantine text is the Textus Receptus, the text used by Erasmus for his Greek New Testament which became the basis for the King James Version of 1611. It is also referred to as the Received Text.

While the Textus Receptus strictly belongs to the family of texts known as the Byzantine or Majority texts, it was a poor exemplar of the family and was also incomplete. Erasmus rounded out the text by translating from the Latin to fill the lacuna’s within the text. Hence the Textus Receptus becomes an eclectic text rather than a good example of the Majority texts. So to claim that the New Testament translation is based on the Byzantine texts when the Textus Receptus has been used indicates a misunderstanding of a basic fact.

My second reservation would be the same for any translation that has been done by one person. Such translations can be great for reading but don’t start to build doctrines on his understanding of the language unless it is well supported elsewhere.

RE: What Can We Learn from Old Books?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:30:13 -0500

Have you any thoughts or comment on Fred Coulter's new English version? Wondering if it was worth looking into.

RE: Catholics Instructed to Avoid Use of the Tetragrammaton!

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400

To All Who Love God's Name:

The new directive from the Vatican to stop using the Divine name YHWH (Yahweh) in songs and prayers has no authorization from Scripture.

The truth is, no one knows the exact pronunciation of even the Hebrew name "Jesus" which was most likely "Yeshua." This doesn't keep us from expressing the name of God's Son does it?

It goes without saying we must have deep reverence for God but where in Scripture are we authorized to pluck out God's name? We can't point to the traditions of the Jews because Jesus said they made the word of God "invalid" because of their man-made traditions. (Matthew 15:1-6)

Jesus, on the other hand, came to make God's name known. (John 17:26) He knew the third commandment tells us not to use God's name "disrespectfully," but not to stop using it.

Beyond that, there are many Bible examples in the Bible of God's servants of old, like Abraham and David, using and saying God's name frequently in song and prayer. Apparantly the angels felt it was fine to praise God using his name. Hallelujah actually means "praise Jah," Jah being an abbreviated form of Jehovah. (Revelation 19:1)

The LXX had God's name, YHWH, all over it before it was eventually removed. This can easily be seen by comparing LXX early manuscripts with later ones.

The big question is. Where were scribes given permission to do this? They weren't but did anyway. The Vatican should reexamine their decision to hide this most wonderful name that reigns supreme.

Sincerely,

Nick Batchelor