REVISED STANDARD VERSION

[tanakh]

When I was at School, back in the dark ages, the RSV was the standard bible used in Religious Knowledge classes. I never became a raving heretic by reading it so it can't be that bad.

 

[oldhermit]

The crazy-ape-bonkers number man (the count) is at it again with another thread. This time it's number five. He isn't using the RSV

Funny thing, this guy sent me a pm suggesting that the RSV was not an acceptable translation because it did not fit into his theories of numerics. I just deleted it. Personally, I think this guy needs some professional help. ​

 

[Locutus]

When I was at School, back in the dark ages, the RSV was the standard bible used in Religious Knowledge classes. I never became a raving heretic by reading it so it can't be that bad.

I'd have thought you would have used the NAB...












The Noah's Ark Bible...

 

[notuptome]

When I was at School, back in the dark ages, the RSV was the standard bible used in Religious Knowledge classes. I never became a raving heretic by reading it so it can't be that bad.

It's not the version it's the heart that is reading it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Depleted]

I guess you missed the part about this was May INTERLINEAR Greek I was talking about, not my Greek New Testament. The Greek NT has letters, it outlines the differences in ALL the manuscripts, and which are the best options. A being certain, B almost certain, down to lower letters which are probably from a copyist mistake of some sort, which constitute a large number of manuscripts, particularly the Byzantine, the so called “majority text.” In fact, if we made up a Bible, got a few thousand copyists copying by hand, but many copying later and later generations, incorporating more and more mistakes, till you have the extremely corrupted manuscripts the KJV (and Erasmus) used for the KJV. And they did the best they could! But, they were limited by not having the manuscripts which did not have all the copyists errors.

That, right there, lays waste to the whole “purity” of the KJV concept. Because, if the manscripts are corrupt, how can you possibly produce a “pure” version? But I digress, again!

The interlinear has the Greek on top, and the English below. It is a “pure” word for word, in that it keeps the words directly under the Greek. And it makes assumptions about words, and sometimes, it translates a word in a way, that just isn’t what I learned, and when I double check with BDAG, (Bauer) it is not the right word. So, the RSV, is in a side panel, and it puts the line into proper English and certainly better word choices. Sometimes, I would look at the RSV to see how they handled a difficult grammatical passage. Where the subject is at the tail end of the sentence, all kinds of participles and subordinate clauses.

So, this would be an interlinear, if I can make it work with the spacing.

“Λέγετέ ...μοι, οἱ .........ὑπὸ ..νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε;” Gal 4:21

“[You] say..... to me, the ones ..under .....law .....wanting .....to be, the ....law ......not ...[you] hear.”

As you can see, it is not always direct translating. The first 2 words seem to directly translate, because μοι or moi, is in the dative, which means you can freely add the word “to,” or not! Also, the Λέγετέ “ete” ending on both the first and last words of the verse, are 2nd person plural, meaning that the plural “you” is understood.

The RSV is on the side of the page, here is the same verse:

Gal 4:31

”Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?” RSV.

"Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?" ESV

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" KJV

"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law?" NET

It makes theΛέγετέ Leyte into an imperative, which it is! And θέλοντες is of course a present active participle, which is why I translated it with the “ing” ending “wanting, wishing or desiring.” And yes, the "understand" in the NET under ἀκούετε, is a perfectly valid way to translate akouete. In fact, in my opinion, it makes more sense to translate it as "understand" in this case, than "hear."

So the English words underneath are not really a translation, but rather just translating the words, and not putting them in the correct order. The receiving language, in our case, English is just as important as the original language, in that we get our meaning and understanding in the receiving language.

Which is another reason I so strongly object to the KJV, besides the fact that manuscript evidence is against it. And that is because it really is not our language, and obscurity, while perhaps making it mysterious, is certainly not the way God wants the Word of God to be read. God wants us to understand what we are reading in our own heart language. Not some ancient, dead form of English. So much better to go back to the earliest manuscripts in the original languages, which ARE the what the words were written in, than to set a version with so many manuscript issues, and problems, which is not in our language as the standard!

Yup, yup, yup. I misunderstood. I have an interlinear, but it's just four different Bible versions side by side. (Like you did with Galatians.) Missed the part about it being a Greek Interlinear. So, the English version is trying for a word-by-word play rather than trying to make it logical-sentence-form in English.

 

[Depleted]

Just seems to me you are making much to do about the KJV using the word YE instead of YOU in the 4 versions of Gal. 4:31 you posted. The meaning is clear in all 4 versions you posted.
My formal education ended at my HS graduation, but I have no trouble understand the KJV.
What am I missing here?

She has a different kind of mind than us. We are semantically-inclined. We can see context within how words play out. She's more linguistically-inclined. She can see the mathematics of language. She's more able to absorb multiple languages than I can. (I can't get any other language without just memorizing words.) But it also stops her from getting archaic at all.

It's sort of like that old question of "Are you an English/history kind of person, or more math-science?" We need both kinds in the world, but the one kind will never understand what it is to be the other kind.

I get a kick out of how she can learn so many languages, and yet she has trouble with KJV and Spurgeon. I think she gets a kick out of me because I can understand KJV and Spurgeon, but can't write out something as simple as "school children" in German. lol

 

[Depleted]

By your own words, you have much more education that most of us. It seems that you believe, because of that formal education, you have an understanding that is impossible for people like me to have.
Formal education is great, but some of the wisest men in the Word of God I have ever met were uneducated by your standards. And sometimes those very educated make very poor teachers to those many believers that also lack education.
You may do very well in your neighborhood, but where I live, you would not.

If someone smarter than me wants to teach me something I'm never even going to think out that I even should have learned, I'm not going to spend ample time thinking they think they're smarter that I am. They are smarter than I am. Instead, I'm going to try and figure out what they said, (which is oft times hard, because I'm not as smart), and see if I can't apply what was taught to my own life.

Angela isn't out to prove how smart she is. She gets excited about what she learns so likes to share it with people.

 

[Depleted]

If I did not express my thought well please forgive me.
I do admire all who have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain the education she has.
But formal education does not always lead to a greater understanding. Often it does, but not always.
Maybe I read here wrong, but it seem she believes herself above others based on her education.
It seems to me that she believes she should not be questioned because, after all, she is educated and I am not.
Her style of teaching would be a failure with the people in my neighborhood.
No doubt, she is very successful in her neighborhood.

Question for you. Would her style of teaching not work in your neighborhood, because people in your neighborhood are taught "book-smarts are bad?" And, assuming that is true, is that not a failure of yours that you didn't teach people in your neighborhood that stuff learned is very good no matter where it is learned?

Your city-folk, like me. One of the big failures within the large cities in America is that we try to dumb-down the population. Cater to the lowest denominator. Why can we not, instead, raise them up, and everyone up with knowledge?

And, you're older, like me. Surely you realize the younger generations tend to roll their eyes at us because they were taught both that book-smarts is bad and old means "forgot what it was like." Have you forgotten what it was like? No? Then why put down someone just because she's educated? What's the difference between "old" and "educated?"

Yup, truly is a thing where knowledge is frowned on. Stop perpetrating the myth! Isn't 40 years of that junk way too long already?

 

[SpoonJuly]

Question for you. Would her style of teaching not work in your neighborhood, because people in your neighborhood are taught "book-smarts are bad?" And, assuming that is true, is that not a failure of yours that you didn't teach people in your neighborhood that stuff learned is very good no matter where it is learned?

Your city-folk, like me. One of the big failures within the large cities in America is that we try to dumb-down the population. Cater to the lowest denominator. Why can we not, instead, raise them up, and everyone up with knowledge?

And, you're older, like me. Surely you realize the younger generations tend to roll their eyes at us because they were taught both that book-smarts is bad and old means "forgot what it was like." Have you forgotten what it was like? No? Then why put down someone just because she's educated? What's the difference between "old" and "educated?"

Yup, truly is a thing where knowledge is frowned on. Stop perpetrating the myth! Isn't 40 years of that junk way too long already?

I am not putting down anyone. I respect those who have taken advantage of higher education. I respect Angela even though I do not agree with everything she teaches. I have two children who have masters degrees in education and teach school.
My children teach in a rule school district. Country folks. They are very careful as not to place themselves as better than others because they have that education. Country folks may not have a formal education, but are not stupid nor are they dumb. They can teach city folks thing they may not know or understand. They want to learn, but will reject you in a moment is you have a I'M SMARTER THAN YOU SO I'M BETTER THAN YOU attitude. In other words, don't teach down to them.
Also, teach in words they understand.
Angela is obvious a very smart woman, but if she began to throw Greek and Hebrew words at my neighbors, or began to quote from a multitude of translations, she would loose them very fast.
The art of teaching is not to dumb down, but to teach in a way that those you are teaching are learning and are excited about what you teach. Some times the teacher is the one who needs to adjust their style. Not what they teach but HOW they teach it.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

She has a different kind of mind than us. We are semantically-inclined. We can see context within how words play out. She's more linguistically-inclined. She can see the mathematics of language. She's more able to absorb multiple languages than I can. (I can't get any other language without just memorizing words.) But it also stops her from getting archaic at all.

It's sort of like that old question of "Are you an English/history kind of person, or more math-science?" We need both kinds in the world, but the one kind will never understand what it is to be the other kind.

I get a kick out of how she can learn so many languages, and yet she has trouble with KJV and Spurgeon. I think she gets a kick out of me because I can understand KJV and Spurgeon, but can't write out something as simple as "school children" in German. lol

Indeed we all have different talents, different strengths and different skill-sets.

 

[Locutus]

It's good to have different skillets.

 

[Depleted]

I am not putting down anyone. I respect those who have taken advantage of higher education. I respect Angela even though I do not agree with everything she teaches. I have two children who have masters degrees in education and teach school.
My children teach in a rule school district. Country folks. They are very careful as not to place themselves as better than others because they have that education. Country folks may not have a formal education, but are not stupid nor are they dumb. They can teach city folks thing they may not know or understand. They want to learn, but will reject you in a moment is you have a I'M SMARTER THAN YOU SO I'M BETTER THAN YOU attitude. In other words, don't teach down to them.
Also, teach in words they understand.
Angela is obvious a very smart woman, but if she began to throw Greek and Hebrew words at my neighbors, or began to quote from a multitude of translations, she would loose them very fast.
The art of teaching is not to dumb down, but to teach in a way that those you are teaching are learning and are excited about what you teach. Some times the teacher is the one who needs to adjust their style. Not what they teach but HOW they teach it.

And that is how to teach when the student has no choice but to be a student. How about how to teach people who never think to learn this stuff? (And I am one of those people.)

There are a couple of people on this site I usually don't get because they talk bigger than I think. Angela is one. Post-human is another. But I know enough to work at what they're trying to say in hopes some day I'll get above my thoughts to grasp theirs. No idea if, once grasped, I'll agree or not, because I can't grasp half of what they're saying to know.

I suspect I will though, because both do teach so we can learn something about God. And, out of the stuff I do get, I do agree with most of the time. So, sometimes thinking higher than we can helps us learn higher than we thought we could. With trying to understand God the best I can given my brain limits, (and oddly enough I ain't stupid either), I'm usually willing to get the headache to learn. (I'm not, if I already have a headache before I start reading. lol)

I really do get Angela sounds cocky when you first start to see her. But once you get past that first impression, she really isn't. She's a student trying harder than most to learn more. (She's still taking classes. How many people do you know our age still doing that?) And, when she gets something she wants to share it with everyone who will listen.

Most people come on this site and start preaching their message. We have absolutely no idea who they are, so don't know if it's worth learning the message or not. The different thing Angela does is tell how she came this far for her message. Because, even though some of us have been around long enough to know where she learned what she learned, there are always new people who don't know coming on every day.

I'd rather learn from those who did the studying than those who dreamed they saw God and this is what he said.

Whereas I can add, "Still a woman, but no lady" as a first hint of who you're talking to, Angela cannot fit in all the ways she learned what she knows into a signy. Not enough room, or, if there was, who would read that all first? lol

 

[SpoonJuly]

And that is how to teach when the student has no choice but to be a student. How about how to teach people who never think to learn this stuff? (And I am one of those people.)

There are a couple of people on this site I usually don't get because they talk bigger than I think. Angela is one. Post-human is another. But I know enough to work at what they're trying to say in hopes some day I'll get above my thoughts to grasp theirs. No idea if, once grasped, I'll agree or not, because I can't grasp half of what they're saying to know.

I suspect I will though, because both do teach so we can learn something about God. And, out of the stuff I do get, I do agree with most of the time. So, sometimes thinking higher than we can helps us learn higher than we thought we could. With trying to understand God the best I can given my brain limits, (and oddly enough I ain't stupid either), I'm usually willing to get the headache to learn. (I'm not, if I already have a headache before I start reading. lol)

I really do get Angela sounds cocky when you first start to see her. But once you get past that first impression, she really isn't. She's a student trying harder than most to learn more. (She's still taking classes. How many people do you know our age still doing that?) And, when she gets something she wants to share it with everyone who will listen.

Most people come on this site and start preaching their message. We have absolutely no idea who they are, so don't know if it's worth learning the message or not. The different thing Angela does is tell how she came this far for her message. Because, even though some of us have been around long enough to know where she learned what she learned, there are always new people who don't know coming on every day.

I'd rather learn from those who did the studying than those who dreamed they saw God and this is what he said.

Whereas I can add, "Still a woman, but no lady" as a first hint of who you're talking to, Angela cannot fit in all the ways she learned what she knows into a signy. Not enough room, or, if there was, who would read that all first? lol

If you will allow me to address what you have posted---

A good teacher will find a way to stir an interest in the stuff you never think of. That is their responsibility.
It seems that Angela has done that with you. Now if she would talk at the speed you think, think how much more you might understand. Maybe a lot of us would learn more.

Personally, I think most of what is posted here is not worth learning. Some strange people and ideas here. My opinion.

I agree that we should avoid those who dream they saw God. No, run from them.
We can only learn from those who have studied.

One more thought. I have met some Bible teachers with years of Bible College education who have no idea what they are talking about. Churches, TV and the internet are full of these people. And I have met some teachers with no or little formal education that were outstanding in their understanding of the Bible. Some very smart people just have never had the opportunity to go to college.

It is my opinion that we should listen, pray, and then check the Bible, no mater what credentials the teacher has or does not have.

As you can see, I am not all that great with words, but, hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.

 

[MarcR]

19th century, or 1900s? I mostly went to school in the 1960’s no grammars, just blackboards full of conjugations. And we did study Shakespeare, and I think a bit of Chaucer, but no grammars, just the plays, or stories. And a fascination with Romeo and Juliet, which had just come out in a movie, as well as Taming of the Shrew, with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

I also studied Bunyan in Seminary. But the language was a bit more modern, if I remember correctly, amazing book!

Do you know the name of an English grammar that might have this, that I could buy on-line? That would be very interesting to read. But, I still wouldn’t read the KJV. I’ve been reading the NET, with 60,000 footnotes explaining their word choices. I’m just doing the Psalms. It is a long study, but it is making me realize I need to work on Hebrew again!

19th century 1800-1899

 

[MarcR]

19th century, or 1900s? I mostly went to school in the 1960’s no grammars, just blackboards full of conjugations. And we did study Shakespeare, and I think a bit of Chaucer, but no grammars, just the plays, or stories. And a fascination with Romeo and Juliet, which had just come out in a movie, as well as Taming of the Shrew, with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

I also studied Bunyan in Seminary. But the language was a bit more modern, if I remember correctly, amazing book!

Do you know the name of an English grammar that might have this, that I could buy on-line? That would be very interesting to read. But, I still wouldn’t read the KJV. I’ve been reading the NET, with 60,000 footnotes explaining their word choices. I’m just doing the Psalms. It is a long study, but it is making me realize I need to work on Hebrew again!

https://www.press.umich.edu/15238/nineteenth_century_english

 

[MarcR]

19th century, or 1900s? I mostly went to school in the 1960’s no grammars, just blackboards full of conjugations. And we did study Shakespeare, and I think a bit of Chaucer, but no grammars, just the plays, or stories. And a fascination with Romeo and Juliet, which had just come out in a movie, as well as Taming of the Shrew, with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

I also studied Bunyan in Seminary. But the language was a bit more modern, if I remember correctly, amazing book!

Do you know the name of an English grammar that might have this, that I could buy on-line? That would be very interesting to read. But, I still wouldn’t read the KJV. I’ve been reading the NET, with 60,000 footnotes explaining their word choices. I’m just doing the Psalms. It is a long study, but it is making me realize I need to work on Hebrew again!

Sorry this is a separate post. It didn't show up on my first search.

The actual school grammars are now collectors' items costing hundreds of dollars. these are affordable


https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/nineteenthcentury-english/6ECA64E767B764C897D478DAE424129E

 

[laura_charlotte]

They want to learn, but will reject you in a moment is you have a I'M SMARTER THAN YOU SO I'M BETTER THAN YOU attitude. In other words, don't teach down to them.

Your point is easily understood and one that has been observed multiple times in the past to the present. "Oh but God I had more posts than them, a higher number of rep points and studied the bible in this many languages" clearly the nature of God's word has not been absorbed. The only thing that God will be concerned about which all those ideas contradict entirely, are the ever standing "fruits of the spirit". The most important thing on judgement day God is going to be concerned with is how we treated our fellow brethren. Only the most arrogant and obtuse fail to see that no amount of posts, points or languages will supersede the assessment of our conduct in this life from the Lord.