A forum to discuss Bible Translations
Skip to content
Post by TWTY-Admin » Fri May 25, 2012 4:43 pm
Anyway, TWTY-Admin... ( is your name Steve also ...? )
Sorry I came on your forum here in a confrontational manner.
Post by Rob » Thu May 24, 2012 5:07 pm
Post by steve » Thu May 24, 2012 1:40 pm
Post by Rob » Thu May 24, 2012 10:17 am
Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact".
Post by TWTY-Admin » Thu May 24, 2012 8:28 am
He'll often give a few different ways and possible renderings of the words and he'll lean towards which seems to flow with the context of what is written around that verse.
As far as Psalm 119... no I have not dissected all 176 verses and compared every Hebrew word in the order they were written against Craig's amplified version of that psalm. (I could not do that at present for a few reasons one being I do not yet have the tools to do so nor have I developed the language skills needed to do that)
But I will say this... even if Craigs rendering of Psalm 119 has a few errors in it... they are not intentional and I strongly feel that he has done the best he can with his current abilities and understanding... and the result is you can see the heart of David and his perspective towards the Towrah. Reading it vs. the KJV rendering is like drinking from a fresh stream vs. a stagnant pond.
What's wrong with that? It's not like he's pushing some crazy, bent, religious theology based on his renderings.
Post by steve » Thu May 24, 2012 12:19 am
Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed May 23, 2012 6:48 pm
Post by Guest » Wed May 23, 2012 1:24 pm
Post by steve » Wed May 23, 2012 12:53 pm
Post by Rob » Wed May 23, 2012 8:03 am
Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed May 23, 2012 7:20 am
"Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"? Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?" ok... I see now. It's all about you. Sorry. Carry on.
Awesome! Had me grinning ear to ear! A man after my own heart!
Post by Royce » Wed May 23, 2012 3:04 am
I wouldn't really care at all if it was just CW's opinion being flouted on his own websites - there's more than enough sites that do that about themselves. But when his "translations" are quoted as if they were 100% accurate, and his commentary on them posted as if he was writing Scripture, that's when I start having a problem with it - hence my comments when, in response to Δυναμις, T quoted from CW's Questioning Paul's rendition of sections from Matthew, which I know to be completely and utterly wrong; not to mention the fact that I demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek to save his life in QPR - Part 1, yet people *still* quote his Greek "translations" as if he'd translated them correctly. Further to that, I've yet to have a single person point out anything wrong I'd written in The Great Galatians Debate, which demonstrates that Paul never wrote a single word that is found in the fraudulent letter known as Galatians, which is where most people's "problem" with Paul stems from. Now I concede that T "might not know" that CW can't translate Greek, as T himself states that he hasn't read the QPR, but then why is T quoting from QP, knowing that it's been more than well demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek? Oh that's right, because according to T he "won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings." First to point out: if he hasn't read QP, why is he quoting a huge section from it (and how did he know that section was there to begin with if he hasn't read it?), and why is he really refusing to read the QP reviews? Because he'd rather study the TPP rather than the RC/NT? That's such a pathetic excuse when you quote from QP as if it was 100% true. It is "wilful ignorance" on T's part because then it calls into question all of CW's translations, and therefore all his commentary. It also doesn't help that T appears to be unable to read Hebrew, therefore making the "study" of the TPP an impossibility. Someone may have the Logos Bible Software package, but that means jack-all when it comes to being able to study the Hebrew and Aramaic text (and Greek text I might add) of the TPP. Being able to use Logos Bible Software does not a translation - nor a translator - make; which is also CW's problem also, hence why his translations of the TPP don't actually follow the text as it is fully written in the TPP. Unfortunately, whether willingly or unwillingly I am unable to pass judgement, CW has been turned into a kinda "Pope" figure, with his own ambassador bishops, forum deacons, and personal laity, who hang onto his every word and spout his translations and commentary as if CW was himself Yah's representative on earth, or as you've said Royce, "he is something special". Whatever's speaking to CW, it seems to be incapable of getting its facts right or to CW properly, or inspiring translational competence. Doesn't sound like Yah to me. How about the rest of you?
Post by steve » Wed May 23, 2012 1:42 am
Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed May 23, 2012 12:26 am
so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?
btw... I do not "follow" CW... I do respect the man and I have found much of his studies enlightening... I have shared some of his Scripture renderings, his translations of Hebrew mainly. So what?
It's kind of lame to insult the man behind his back...
or to call people who have gained some knowledge and insights in the Towrah and Hebrew through his studies, groupies or sheep following the man instead of YHWH.
Post by steve » Tue May 22, 2012 11:11 pm
Post by Rob » Wed May 16, 2012 9:40 am
Post by TWTY-Admin » Sat May 05, 2012 7:14 pm
Post by Rob » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:08 pm
Post by Royce » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:00 pm
Τ: And if you seriously think Yah would ever 'command' His children versus intruct them, then you don't even know Him.
Top