J
Jason_1977
Guest
this is all awesome, it’s like a little clinic…this is good…lovin’ it!!!
- Status
J
Jason_1977
Guest
Check it out, right? I own about 7 or 8 bibles. I have an NIV, NASB, NASB Inductive Study Bible, and an RSV. On the Catholic side, 9well, we use the same language no matter what I think, but I have the Catholic Study Bible, the NAB St. Joseph Edition, & the NAB. What I find interesting is YES in OUR Bible it says MIGHT in the John 3:16. In the Protestant ones, they vary…
NASB reads, “SHALL not perish, BUT HAVE eternal life”
RSV reads, “SHOULD not perish, but have eternal life”
NIV reads, “SHALL not perish but have eternal life”
NASB Inductive Study Bible reads, “SHOULD not perish but have eternal life”
NOW FOR MY 3 CATHOLIC BIBLES:
NAB St. Joseph Edition reads, “MIGHT not perish but MIGHT have eternal life”
NAB Personal Study Edition: “Might not perish but MIGHT have eternal life”
My straight up NAB “Might not perish but MIGHT have eternal life”
HERE is my question:
It’s quite clear that there are 2 schools of thought on this issue. I know which one I agree with. I suppose there is some sort of LANGUAGE MANIPULATION taking place. If I was a protestant & never saw a catholic bible & a catholic told me MIGHT…Id tell him he was crazy… the same holds true vice versa. We have 2 schools of thought based on 1 word being present or absent in the correct place & that sets a precident. I guess my question is WHICH translation is correct, which one is the oldest & WHY is something as sacred and holy as the bible being manipulated & being used as a tool for manipulation? THANK YOU!!!
NASB reads, “SHALL not perish, BUT HAVE eternal life”
RSV reads, “SHOULD not perish, but have eternal life”
NIV reads, “SHALL not perish but have eternal life”
NASB Inductive Study Bible reads, “SHOULD not perish but have eternal life”
NOW FOR MY 3 CATHOLIC BIBLES:
NAB St. Joseph Edition reads, “MIGHT not perish but MIGHT have eternal life”
NAB Personal Study Edition: “Might not perish but MIGHT have eternal life”
My straight up NAB “Might not perish but MIGHT have eternal life”
HERE is my question:
It’s quite clear that there are 2 schools of thought on this issue. I know which one I agree with. I suppose there is some sort of LANGUAGE MANIPULATION taking place. If I was a protestant & never saw a catholic bible & a catholic told me MIGHT…Id tell him he was crazy… the same holds true vice versa. We have 2 schools of thought based on 1 word being present or absent in the correct place & that sets a precident. I guess my question is WHICH translation is correct, which one is the oldest & WHY is something as sacred and holy as the bible being manipulated & being used as a tool for manipulation? THANK YOU!!!
M
mailmandan
Guest
If John 3:16 is only meant to teach that everyone who believes in Him “might” not perish but “might” have eternal life as if receiving eternal life for those who believe in Him is uncertain, then why does John 3:18 in the same translation of the Bible (NAB) read: Whoever believes in him “will not” be condemned? Why doesn’t it read: “might” not be condemned? Also in John 3:36 we read: Whoever believes in the Son “has” eternal life… why doesn’t it read “might” have eternal life? One other example that I would like to use
is found in Acts 10:43 which states that …everyone who believes in him “will” receive forgiveness of sins… why doesn’t it read “might” receive forgiveness of sins?
In truth and in love,
Dan
is found in Acts 10:43 which states that …everyone who believes in him “will” receive forgiveness of sins… why doesn’t it read “might” receive forgiveness of sins?
In truth and in love,
Dan
P
ProVobis
Guest
The Greek has it: 15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
The Latin has it: 15 ut omnis qui credit in ipsum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam.
The subjunctive follows the ut so that an acceptable translation could also be “would not perish but would have life eternal” or “not to perish but to have eternal life.” “May” or “might” or “let” words convey subjunctivity today, not necessarily the best 400 years ago. “Should” or “shall” or “will” doesn’t fit the subjunctive mood very well today.
D
DPMartin
Guest
Is this about language or the use of language? We all know (Protestant or Catholic) that the Lord Jesus Christ came that there be opportunity to be saved. He who calls on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. Isn’t this true no matter the translation? Isn’t this the experiences of the Israelites through out their history in the OT? All you have to do is read Psalms and or the writing of and on King David and you get that. So maybe the use of the word “might” is in the understanding of the translator seeing that it is an opportunity given by God to the world, through His Son. And the other is the translator’s confidence that the Lord will do as he says. Which both are true.
There is the opportunity to come to the Lord, and there is the result of coming to the Lord.
There is the opportunity to come to the Lord, and there is the result of coming to the Lord.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I can’t say I disagree with you.
Both ways may be “true” but so can approximations of irrational numbers in mathematics.
In all translations there should be legitimate concerns as to accuracy in terms of current usages of words, or in this case, auxiliary verbs; otherwise you’re going to lead into still another Protestant denomination. No translation is infallible and thus the Church has not condemned any particular version of the Bible. But do keep in mind you are always at the mercy of the translator. Some people believe π is 3.14, some just brush it off as 3 when doing math in their heads. But a mathematician just works with π because he can derive other expressions, equations, theories, and what have you. We have the Greek and Latin in front of us. Most Christians at one time believed in the veracity of one or the other or both. God has given us the ability to think and derive things for ourselves. If we want to just get by on translations, then we always take risks of hearing untruths and our understanding may be compromised. This applies in movies, operas, the United Nations, or the Bible itself. If we are to believe in the whole Bible, then definitely we have to believe in the Tower of Babel and that it still applies to us today.
M
mailmandan
Guest
So does whoever believes in Him “might” not perish but “might” have eternal life (John 3:16) in the NAB translation negate “whoever believes in him” WILL NOT be condemned (John 3:18) in the same translation? Both of these verses say “whoever believes in Him” but there is a difference between “might” not perish and “will not” be condemned. In John 3:36 we read: “Whoever believes in the Son” HAS (not might have) eternal life. Acts 10:43 states that “everyone who believes in Him” WILL (not might) receive forgiveness of sins… To use the word “might” twice in John 3:16 and imply uncertainty in receiving eternal life for those who “believe in Him” is not in harmony with “will not” be condemned for those who “believe in Him” in John 3:18 or “has” eternal life for those who “believe in the Son” (same as believe in Him) in John 3:36 or “will” receive forgiveness of sins for those who “believe in Him” in Acts 10:43. I quoted the NAB for each of these verses.
In truth and in love,
Dan
In truth and in love,
Dan
D
DPMartin
Guest
ProVobis
thanks for the reply
Surly what you say is true ( and I like the part about another Protestant denomination) and what I find is interesting in scripture as far as languages used in the new and old testaments to convey the message. is Pontius Pilate wrote “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” (John:19:19-20) in three languages Hebrew, Greek and Latin, so that all viewers, or those who would come to this Cross, would understand, who is on this Cross. And if you notice that these three languages are the core references when trying to understand what was exactly written. But basically the Lord overcame the world, the sins of the world, and therefore overcoming human error is easy for Him.
What bothers me on the (another Protestant denomination) though back in the day it can be understood considering the conditions that were there at the time, in the starting of Protestant churches in the desire for reformation. Though many have been saved via the Protestant ministry which is awesome. Many souls came, but reformation never came, and that is verified by the constant reformation of another denomination. Every time Israel in it’s history was less then what the Lord would have of them, it was about restoration that was to be desired. You can’t restore a house if you leave the house.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Excellent point and notice St. John went out of his way to tell us this, or whoever his interpreter was at the time. So it had to be important if we feel everything in the Bible is important.
Now I’m not going to be like St. Thomas More and condemn all translations into English but one can bring upon much better understanding if he at least compares (see how it’s derived, etc.) the English to any of those three mentioned languages. Even if you don’t understand any of them at all, here’s a good chance to learn a little ancient language. And thank the Lord that we have enough web tools today to do that.
That said, I know of at least two Protestant radio ministers who are knowledgeable in Latin and Greek and will use that to explain some of the passages. (By the way they are Dr. Boice (who is deceased now) and Dr. Sproul.) Excellent presentations.
D
DPMartin
Guest
ProVobis
thanks for the reply
My friend though languages are given so that man can understand, or in the case of the tower of babble, not understand one another. But even animals understand one another, and there method of communication doesn’t change, nor the meanings thereof (Hence recognized intent, and the confidantes therein, to act upon recognized intent.). But man can’t seem to achieve that level of understanding between one another, do to his own desire, in his heart, to get what he wants, from another.
So languages are only as good as the honest use thereof, by the user. But note, that what God says gives form to that which had no form, gives Light to that which has not Light, and order to that which had no order. So the Power of God’s Word gives Life to that which has no Life. History may dictate were we start from, but it does not dictate our destiny in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the Word of God is honest and forthright and to the point, that is the Truth the Way and the Life. Not a unknown, to those who seek.
Though yes there is value of insight in the means of words and there use in the days they were written. But in the end it is the Word of God that prevails, of which is evident in the Power in the Holy Spirit to give Life in the Presence of the Power to give Life, the Lord our God.
Therefore the words and languages of man are useless in the Truth the Way and the Life of God without the Presence of God.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is very true. However, even honest eyewitnesses have provided different points of view to the same accident scene in the same language yet.
The rest of your post is spot on.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
No, because you are misunderstanding how the word might is used in this passage. You’re thinking of might as it is more often used nowadays, to convey an uncertain possibility (e.g., “It might rain,” or “I might come to the party if I can get off work.”) That’s not how it’s used in John 3:16, however.
In John 3:16, might is used in the sense of something made available. See, for example, the same type of usage below in John 10:10 (KJV):
“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
It’s just a matter of grammar, not a conspiracy on the part of Catholic Bibles to distort the passage.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It also is trying to use a business and trade language (which English has now evolved to) to study theology. Computer programming has different languages to perform certain and different tasks. I think we better start learning the limitations of each language in the real (and spiritual and philosophical) world as well.It’s just a matter of grammar, not a conspiracy on the part of Catholic Bibles to distort the passage.
D
DPMartin
Guest
ProVobis
thanks for the reply
Please don’t get me wrong my friend, there is great value in the concern for a more accurate reading of Scripture, and for some it’s a calling and dedication, that is a gift to others that don’t have such desire, but can receive incite from, or the meat thereof, to strengthen the Church Body.
The Lord be with you always. Truly my friend, it is a gift of God, to have a Burning desire for His Holy Word.
- Status