I, also really enjoy The Message along with other versions of the Bible. It has really helped to deepen my understanding and to make me think beyond just the doctrines taught to me. If I have questions regarding something, I keep looking. Sometimes I find the answer, sometimes I don't, but it has been a great exercise in thinking.
The main reason for a twi-er to criticize versions like "The Message" is that they are PARAPHRASES,
thus they contain the opinion of the professional working on it, which can change the meaning of a
verse.
Guess what? The so-called "literals according to usage" are all PARAPHRASES, thus they contain the
opinion of the person working on it- and usually they lacked the education the professionals outside
of twi had.
Were they as careful? If so, answer this....
Philippians 4:13, KJV. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."
Philippians 4:13, twi. "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner
strength into me."
My question?
WHY DOES CHRIST DROP OUT OF THE VERSE WHEN THE SO-CALLED "LITERAL" IS GIVEN?
That's one criticism of of the so-called literals:
When twi made their version of verses,
Christ drops out of them.
WordWolf has some great points about the internet and Biblical research. It's very easy to find lots of information online that will help you to understand some of those difficult scriptures.
To me, the literals according to usage were very burdensome to read. They seemed to be filled with twi jargon - and no one in the real world really talks like twi does or did. They attach certain definitions to words that may or may not be true according to the generally accepted definition.
In short, you have it.
Things in there were dropped, things not in there were added.
"Making it your own" is a good example. By looking at that phrase, I would think that it meant that I should study the material so that I could understand it for myself using my own experiences, thought processes, and logic. I might even do my own research so that I could understand the context or the people involved... But that is not the definition attached to it by twi...
LCM used to say that we were to go to all of twi's materials and look at them with the heart that we wanted to be "as convinced of the truth as our teachers." That does not allow for questioning, additional research, additional anything. We were to make their doctrine our doctrine without question. We were to line our thinking up with theirs no matter if they said something as ridiculous as the "all women belong to the King" doctrine that stated that David as the man of God had not sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba. There was to be no questioning that, even if it was downright stupid and against all common sense.
Don't know what vpw did when people dared to question him, right?
They were punished by verbal humiliation in public.
If they didn't repent, they were thrown out, unless vpw was in a bad mood.
If so, they were just thrown out.
That's what lcm was taught, and that's why he did it as well.
Just make sure you think for yourself and read the Bible with THOUGHT behind it and trust your own thoughts - God made you and He made you able to think.
So long as you CHOOSE to exercise that which God gave you.
George Berry, Stanley Newberry and Jay Golden(?) all created Koinne Greek/English Interlinears with the last one also doing it with Hebrew text of Old Testament. Also The Word: The Bible in 26 Translations has been real popular. I personally use several translations and paraphrases when studying scriptures, plus lexicons, concordances, Bible handbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and several different books on Mid-Eastern Culture and Customs beyond Pillai, Lamsa, Errico, Ralph Gower/Fred Wight, James Freeman, etc. But I see this as more of a hobby for in depth study. Personally, I prefer seeing scripture used as pericopes/lectionaires from 3 year Revised Common Lectionary for Sundays and festivals, and 2 year daily lectionary from Lutheran/Episcopalian/Presbyterian worship books along with The Upper Room(Methodist) and Moravian Daily Texts. But that's my personal opinion.
Philippians 4:13, twi. "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner
strength into me."
My question?
WHY DOES CHRIST DROP OUT OF THE VERSE WHEN THE SO-CALLED "LITERAL" IS GIVEN?
That's one criticism of of the so-called literals:
When twi made their version of verses,
Christ drops out of them.
I don't see where Christ dropped out of that verse, but I do see that the pro-noun "him" (i.e. equal to anything through him) which is referring to Christ is being used rather than the noun "Christ" in that verse. That's the answer to the question, but I don't know if that answers (satisfies) your question or not.
I don't see where Christ dropped out of that verse, but I do see that the pro-noun "him" (i.e. equal to anything through him) which is referring to Christ is being used rather than the noun "Christ" in that verse. That's the answer to the question, but I don't know if that answers (satisfies) your question or not.
No.
Obviously, the name "Christ" was replaced with a pronoun.
(This is the version that made it into the song by Acts 29.)
Why take "Christ" and swap it OUT, to replace it with "him",
leaving a question of who the "him" IS?
I see no reason to have done so when explaining this verse.
Supposedly, things are added to and stretched out- but they felt the need to trim it down by swapping
the name "Christ" (or TITLE "Christ" if you're going to object that I called it a "name")
and switching it for "him."
Why?
Was there something OBJECTIONABLE about the word "Christ"?
Raf has a valid point here the literals seemed to change from year to year even depending on the person teaching the Corps notes.
I will say in the case of Philippians the literals I have read as
Philippians 4:13
"I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Christ who infuses me with inner strength."
VPW
The Aramaic reds I believe "I find strength for everything in the Messiah who strengthens me."
WordWolf and I are, in fact brothers. We just have different mothers. And different fathers. But other than that, we're brothers.
What we are not, I must say, is the same person.
Before I join in my brother's complaint about the removal of the word "Christ" from that verse in Philippians, can I ask whether it appears in the Greek?
Oh geeze. Being one of those in-rez corps persons who tutored Greek, and wrote some of those "literals" please take my word for it. What we did, with what we had, should by no means be considered as the be all, end all, do all for that stuff.
We did the best with what we had, which wasn't enough to be the final authority on anything. Just trust me on this one. We were total novices, compared to the scholastic world which existed outside of our realm.
WordWolf and I are, in fact brothers. We just have different mothers. And different fathers. But other than that, we're brothers.
What we are not, I must say, is the same person.
Before I join in my brother's complaint about the removal of the word "Christ" from that verse in Philippians, can I ask whether it appears in the Greek?
It does not.
George
Philippians 4:13 from the Stephens Text, as printed in the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear Greek English New Testament:
WordWolf and I are, in fact brothers. We just have different mothers. And different fathers. But other than that, we're brothers.
What we are not, I must say, is the same person.
Before I join in my brother's complaint about the removal of the word "Christ" from that verse in Philippians, can I ask whether it appears in the Greek?
Raf it was foreknowledge I just knew that you would have a valid point at some point on this subject
And now you do............. you are not brothers............ Point Taken
Hi there. I am looking for a copy (it can be a fresh copy) of the literals. (Especially II Corinthians). I know items are sold on eBay but I have yet to run across any literals. Anyone out there willing to make me a copy for the copy and shipping price? Drop me a line and we'll talk. Thanks.
There is only a certain number left (I don't know how many). Only graduating Corps receive a copy. Seeing how only about four people graduate into the Corps a year, you're looking for quite a rarity.
"All things___I am strong for___in the_____who empowers___me____Christ."
Sure LOOKS like it appeared.
Perhaps George is reading from the Nestle Text, I've misplaced my Marshall's Interlinear.
I use The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland, et al. Eds., 2nd Edition, 1968. I've had it since high school. If there are significant variations in the text, they are usually listed along with the "best" text. There are no variations listed for that particular verse, although there may be one ore two versions with different text. What I have is:
Most people remember that Wierwille usually used the phrase "literal translation..." But he actualy started out using the word "FREE translations..." The older editions of RTHST all call them "free" translations, while the newer ones always called them "literal." But the "translations" themselves did not change from the earlier to the later editions. They actually were "free" - meaning that Wierwille took a lot of liberties with the text, adding, changing and subtracting words whenever he felt like it. They were not literal or accurate. The "free" thinking led him to write "translations" that left out major phrases that were in the Bible, and mangle them. He contradicted himself in several verses by giving "literal" translations that were wildly contradictory. Here's an example of him mangling the text:
Philippians 3:7-14.
In The New Dynamic Church, Wierwille quoted Philippians 3:7-14, altering and correcting parts
of the King James Version. However, he let verse nine stand as printed, implying that it is
accurate:
"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (pg. 179)
However, years later Wierwille offered a radically different "translation" in the article "The
Knowledge of God'' (The Way Magazine, March-April 1983, pp. 5-6). There Wierwille asserted
that verse nine "properly reads:"
"That I may be found in Christ, having the believing action that Christ Jesus made available, which
is God's righteousness in and to every born-again believer."
This free translation deleted the whole phrase "not having mine own righteousness, which is of
the law'' and adds the phrase "in and to every born-again believer," which Paul never included in
the verse. Wierwille also expanded "faith of Christ'' to "believing action that Christ Jesus made
available'' and replaces some other words.
Wierwille then quoted verse 10, inserting his explanatory words into the King James text within
parenthesis (The New Dynamic Church, pg. 180):
"That I may know him (experientially as my Savior) and the (inherent) power (the dunamis) of his
resurrection, and the fellowship (of His death, burial, resurrection) of His sufferings, being,
(therefore, we are) made comformable (like He was) unto His death."
Wierwille again interpreted the text as he ''translated" it, for instance, limiting his sufferings to
"His death, burial, resurrection," though this may not have been the apostle's intent.
In "The Knowledge of God,'' Wierwille produced a free rendering of verse 10 radically different
from either the Greek text or his previous attempt:
"The last part of verse 10: ...the fellowship of his sufferings, being made comformable unto his
death.' It would be tremendous to translate it literally according to usage as Being made as he
was so we might renew our minds, being conformed to being as he is.'" (pg. 6)
This "literal translation" deleted the entire phrase "fellowship of his sufferings." Furthermore,
Wierwille inaccurately converted the phrase "his death" to ''being as he is.'' This "translation" is
not literal, nor is it according to the usage of the Greek (or even Aramaic) words.
Rather, Wierwille forged a new text solely on the basis of his desire for it to read differently.
When he wrote, "it would be tremendous to translate it..." he inferred how excited he was at the
possibility of rewriting the verse in a way that didn't contradict his notions anymore, even though
his rewrite is inaccurate. They were just an excuse for mangling the text and making it say whatever he wanted, which produced false teachings and made his words supercede the apostles'.
An article about his "free translations" is found at www.abouttheway.org in the "Biblical research & teaching" section.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
The main reason for a twi-er to criticize versions like "The Message" is that they are PARAPHRASES,
thus they contain the opinion of the professional working on it, which can change the meaning of a
verse.
Guess what? The so-called "literals according to usage" are all PARAPHRASES, thus they contain the
opinion of the person working on it- and usually they lacked the education the professionals outside
of twi had.
Were they as careful? If so, answer this....
Philippians 4:13, KJV. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."
Philippians 4:13, twi. "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner
strength into me."
My question?
WHY DOES CHRIST DROP OUT OF THE VERSE WHEN THE SO-CALLED "LITERAL" IS GIVEN?
That's one criticism of of the so-called literals:
When twi made their version of verses,
Christ drops out of them.
In short, you have it.Things in there were dropped, things not in there were added.
Don't know what vpw did when people dared to question him, right?
They were punished by verbal humiliation in public.
If they didn't repent, they were thrown out, unless vpw was in a bad mood.
If so, they were just thrown out.
That's what lcm was taught, and that's why he did it as well.
So long as you CHOOSE to exercise that which God gave you.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Raf has a valid point here the literals seemed to change from year to year even depending on the person teaching the Corps notes.
I will say in the case of Philippians the literals I have read as
Philippians 4:13
"I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Christ who infuses me with inner strength."
VPW
The Aramaic reds I believe "I find strength for everything in the Messiah who strengthens me."
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
George Berry, Stanley Newberry and Jay Golden(?) all created Koinne Greek/English Interlinears with the last one also doing it with Hebrew text of Old Testament. Also The Word: The Bible in 26 Translations has been real popular. I personally use several translations and paraphrases when studying scriptures, plus lexicons, concordances, Bible handbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and several different books on Mid-Eastern Culture and Customs beyond Pillai, Lamsa, Errico, Ralph Gower/Fred Wight, James Freeman, etc. But I see this as more of a hobby for in depth study. Personally, I prefer seeing scripture used as pericopes/lectionaires from 3 year Revised Common Lectionary for Sundays and festivals, and 2 year daily lectionary from Lutheran/Episcopalian/Presbyterian worship books along with The Upper Room(Methodist) and Moravian Daily Texts. But that's my personal opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I don't see where Christ dropped out of that verse, but I do see that the pro-noun "him" (i.e. equal to anything through him) which is referring to Christ is being used rather than the noun "Christ" in that verse. That's the answer to the question, but I don't know if that answers (satisfies) your question or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No.
Obviously, the name "Christ" was replaced with a pronoun.
(This is the version that made it into the song by Acts 29.)
Why take "Christ" and swap it OUT, to replace it with "him",
leaving a question of who the "him" IS?
I see no reason to have done so when explaining this verse.
Supposedly, things are added to and stretched out- but they felt the need to trim it down by swapping
the name "Christ" (or TITLE "Christ" if you're going to object that I called it a "name")
and switching it for "him."
Why?
Was there something OBJECTIONABLE about the word "Christ"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WordWolf and I are, in fact brothers. We just have different mothers. And different fathers. But other than that, we're brothers.
What we are not, I must say, is the same person.
Before I join in my brother's complaint about the removal of the word "Christ" from that verse in Philippians, can I ask whether it appears in the Greek?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
It does not.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Oh geeze. Being one of those in-rez corps persons who tutored Greek, and wrote some of those "literals" please take my word for it. What we did, with what we had, should by no means be considered as the be all, end all, do all for that stuff.
We did the best with what we had, which wasn't enough to be the final authority on anything. Just trust me on this one.
We were total novices, compared to the scholastic world which existed outside of our realm.
Pax.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Philippians 4:13 from the Stephens Text, as printed in the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear Greek English New Testament:
(transliterated using English letters)
"Panta______ischuoo_________en too_____endunamounti___me____christoo."
"All things___I am strong for___in the_____who empowers___me____Christ."
Sure LOOKS like it appeared.
Perhaps George is reading from the Nestle Text, I've misplaced my Marshall's Interlinear.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Raf it was foreknowledge I just knew that you would have a valid point at some point on this subject
And now you do............. you are not brothers............
Point Taken
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Are you discussing a song or a literal here if a literal then the ones I have read
Philippians 4:13
"I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Christ who infuses me with inner strength."
VPW
I don't see where Christ was dropped looks like it is there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There is only a certain number left (I don't know how many). Only graduating Corps receive a copy. Seeing how only about four people graduate into the Corps a year, you're looking for quite a rarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I had all of Corinthians from my in residence years - but I think they got burned in my BBQ .....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I use The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland, et al. Eds., 2nd Edition, 1968. I've had it since high school. If there are significant variations in the text, they are usually listed along with the "best" text. There are no variations listed for that particular verse, although there may be one ore two versions with different text. What I have is:
"Panta______ischuoo_________en too_____endunamounti___me."
"All things___I am strong for___in the_____who empowers___me."
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Most people remember that Wierwille usually used the phrase "literal translation..." But he actualy started out using the word "FREE translations..." The older editions of RTHST all call them "free" translations, while the newer ones always called them "literal." But the "translations" themselves did not change from the earlier to the later editions. They actually were "free" - meaning that Wierwille took a lot of liberties with the text, adding, changing and subtracting words whenever he felt like it. They were not literal or accurate. The "free" thinking led him to write "translations" that left out major phrases that were in the Bible, and mangle them. He contradicted himself in several verses by giving "literal" translations that were wildly contradictory. Here's an example of him mangling the text:
Philippians 3:7-14.
In The New Dynamic Church, Wierwille quoted Philippians 3:7-14, altering and correcting parts
of the King James Version. However, he let verse nine stand as printed, implying that it is
accurate:
"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (pg. 179)
However, years later Wierwille offered a radically different "translation" in the article "The
Knowledge of God'' (The Way Magazine, March-April 1983, pp. 5-6). There Wierwille asserted
that verse nine "properly reads:"
"That I may be found in Christ, having the believing action that Christ Jesus made available, which
is God's righteousness in and to every born-again believer."
This free translation deleted the whole phrase "not having mine own righteousness, which is of
the law'' and adds the phrase "in and to every born-again believer," which Paul never included in
the verse. Wierwille also expanded "faith of Christ'' to "believing action that Christ Jesus made
available'' and replaces some other words.
Wierwille then quoted verse 10, inserting his explanatory words into the King James text within
parenthesis (The New Dynamic Church, pg. 180):
"That I may know him (experientially as my Savior) and the (inherent) power (the dunamis) of his
resurrection, and the fellowship (of His death, burial, resurrection) of His sufferings, being,
(therefore, we are) made comformable (like He was) unto His death."
Wierwille again interpreted the text as he ''translated" it, for instance, limiting his sufferings to
"His death, burial, resurrection," though this may not have been the apostle's intent.
In "The Knowledge of God,'' Wierwille produced a free rendering of verse 10 radically different
from either the Greek text or his previous attempt:
"The last part of verse 10: ...the fellowship of his sufferings, being made comformable unto his
death.' It would be tremendous to translate it literally according to usage as Being made as he
was so we might renew our minds, being conformed to being as he is.'" (pg. 6)
This "literal translation" deleted the entire phrase "fellowship of his sufferings." Furthermore,
Wierwille inaccurately converted the phrase "his death" to ''being as he is.'' This "translation" is
not literal, nor is it according to the usage of the Greek (or even Aramaic) words.
Rather, Wierwille forged a new text solely on the basis of his desire for it to read differently.
When he wrote, "it would be tremendous to translate it..." he inferred how excited he was at the
possibility of rewriting the verse in a way that didn't contradict his notions anymore, even though
his rewrite is inaccurate. They were just an excuse for mangling the text and making it say whatever he wanted, which produced false teachings and made his words supercede the apostles'.
An article about his "free translations" is found at www.abouttheway.org in the "Biblical research & teaching" section.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
johnj
Good post. Thanks for that site reference. I'm going to look at that a bit later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.