Comments on: Remnants of the KJV

By: Robert JImenez

Robert JImenez — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:42:28 +0000

Nice observation, not sure if I would have caught it.

By: Kevin Sam

Kevin Sam — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:10:28 +0000

@ES: Amen brother, I agree with you.

By: tc robinson

tc robinson — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:03:33 +0000

Kevin, this comment from El is my reply too:

I see it as liberating. We spend so much time analyzing manuscript sources and obsessing about supposed textual inerrancy when the example has been provided by Christ himself that the meaning is far more important than the preservation of individual physical strokes of the law.

If there is greater support for functional translation than the endorsement and use of the LXX by God himself, I don’t know it.

Well put, El.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:42:30 +0000

@Kevin: being that we protestants don’t believe the LXX is inspired and canonical, Paul and Jesus read from it and even perhaps quoted from it. That really gets me.

If there is greater support for functional translation than the endorsement and use of the LXX by God himself, I don’t know it.

By: Kevin Sam

Kevin Sam — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:11:41 +0000

If the use of rhupos is so scarce, I think chances may be greater that Peter meant to imply dirt dirt rather than moral filth. But the saying “dirty old man!” also carries the same connotation as moral filthy. The context in which the word is used can make all the difference.

ES and Stephen, yes, Paul would have used the Hebrew. But Paul likely would have also used the Greek LXX too. And perhaps Jesus too.
TC, being that we protestants don’t believe the LXX is inspired and canonical, Paul and Jesus read from it and even perhaps quoted from it. That really gets me.

By: tc robinson

tc robinson — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:39:19 +0000

TC, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of the LXX. I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text.

Kevin, here’s the encouraging thing about the LXX: even though it’s not regarded as an inspired work, the NT writers made good use of it.

Biblical scholars are still trying to figure out how Paul used extant translations. It took John Calvin scholars about 200yrs to realize that he did most of his own translation of the Bible.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:01:40 +0000

@Kevin: I think the T/NIV got it right with “dirt from the body”. The T/NIV and most other translations. Only the HCSB and N/KJV (and ASV) have the particular "filth/flesh" combination. Several translate sarx as "flesh" here, but use "dirt" for rhupos to clarify that the context is physical uncleanliness rather than moral depravity. I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text. I assume, as evidently does Stephen, that you meant "the Hebrew" for Paul's main text?

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:42:33 +0000

TC, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of the LXX. I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text.

Does not compute.

By: Kevin Sam

Kevin Sam — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:37:19 +0000

ES, good food for thought. I think the T/NIV got it right with “dirt from the body”.

TC, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of the LXX. I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text.

By: tc robinson

tc robinson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:25:53 +0000

Sorry about that. Where is my scholarship? Job 9:31; 11:15; 14:4; Isa 4:4.