Hello to you all,
  I like the quote about actually reading the Bible, whatever the translation.  While I know there are some pretty questionable translations out there, it is a shame the links some will go to prove KJV in the ONLY one.  Interestingly, I came to this board because of Bible translations.  I was doing some studying on the subject and read an article by Al Maxey which lead me here. So, some good can come from studying Bible translations.

Translations
Those who would honor the work of translators must not allow their work to say things they did not intend to say. It would be wrong to insist on using an archaic translation which would end up actually affirming ideas opposite to those intended in the original translation:

For example: Exegete the following passages which are all taken from the King James Version:

"Ear his ground." 1Sam 8:12
"Goliath carried a target of brass between his shoulders." 1Sam, 17:6
"Passengers"  Prov 9:15
"In the morning shall my prayer prevent thee." Ps. 88:13
"I prevented the dawning of the morning." Ps. 119:147
"He who now letteth will let." 2 Thess. 2:7
"Conversation"  1 Pet. 3:1, 2 Peter 2:7
"Fetch a compass" Acts 28:13
"Be careful for nothing" Phil 4:6
"Feeble-minded" 1 Thess 5:14
"For why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort?" Dan. 1:10
"Sometimes,"  Titus 3:3
"Anon,"  Mark 1:30
"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing." Ps. 5:6
"We do you to wit of the grace of God...." 2 Cor. 8:1
Define: Almug, habergeon, kab, ligure, wimples, ouches, purtenance, bruit, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, sod, and wot.

Yours for clarity

oops.  I wasn't trying to be funny with the links word.  Lengths is what I should have said.  Kind of funny in retrospect though. :D

Bob. Goliath walking around with a "target" between his shoulders reminds me of a Far Side cartoon  :D

I certainly do not wish to be hard on the KJV translators. They would never have claimed the nonesense for themselves that many folks today have on their behalf.  It is really unfortunate that "The Translators to the Readers" is not printed with modern editions of the AV.  The KJV translators blow the KJV only folks out of the water.

His Mark +
Bobby Valentine
[a href=\"mailto:bvalentine@dixie-net.com\"]bvalentine@dixie-net.com[/a]

P.S. I will be at Magnolia on Sunday morning before going up to DLU for the lectures.

I pray for a better translation.  Does anyone
know of a bible that reads more literal the
passage at the end of John where Jesus is asking
Peter if he loves Him?  The original text gives more meaning
and I don't believe the church would have developed the
rigid , unbearable traditionalist view of MDR had there
been a more literal translation.  


LC

Old Dad, it's tragic that such pettiness is practiced and is so common. Something, as I said in another post, is wrong with the basic message and outlook when this happens so consistently. Call it a "bug in the software," or whatever you like. I have also found that we in the RM do not have a monopoly on this type of behavior.

I heard a minister at a meeting I attended once say that many families were upset because their children were divorcing and splitting up their homes, and they could not understand why. He stated that much of it came from their experiences in church, where if you got "mad" at someone, you never tried to talk about it and work it out, you just left! This gave me much thought, and if this person was anywhere near the truth on this-it is scary!

Bob, I will tread lightly when bringing up the minority report  ;)   "Sarx" is has many uses in the NT as you are well aware.  I happen to believe that that category that is usually designated "the ethical use" of "sarx" most likely refers to unregenerate human nature.  As such I understand the term to be a development of the Hebrew basar which refers to humanity in its frailty and weakness before God.  

Now I absolutely, in one sense, agree that Christians are not Siamese Twins.  Paul makes an absolute distinction between being "in the sarx" and "in the pneuma".  Yet there remains a struggle against the "sarx".  Paul's doctrine of already-not yet clearly colors the picture.  

Whatever "sarx" refers to, it is my view, that because it has not given up on us that we need the Holy Spirit living in us.  We will never overcome sarx with flesh, blood, sweat or legalism.  The sarx will be overcome through the power of God in his Spirit.

A note about Calvinism.  I recall in class with Jack Lewis at Harding Grad (History of the English Bible) the subject of Calvinism and the NIV came up.  It was his opinion that "sinful nature" did not necessarily imply Calvinism and I happen to agree with him.  That term is not without its problems to be sure but I think "flesh" has just as many.   It is my view that because of the traditional use of "flesh" in these passages that folks speak of "saving souls," and the "soul is what really matters" or something like that.  It betrays -- in my opinion -- an unbiblical view of man.  Persons are redeemed not simply souls.  It takes body and spirit to have life.  The Hebrew Bible (and I am convinced Paul agrees) has a far higher view of the body than that.  So I guess I react to the word "flesh" as nothing but Christianized Platonism.

However I was simply using "sarx" as an illustration that a word for word "literal" translation is a far cry from real translation.  

His Mark +
Bobby Valentine
[a href=\"mailto:bvalentine@dixie-net.com\"]bvalentine@dixie-net.com[/a]