In this episode, Kirk and Dan illustrate some of the philosophical (or methodological) differences we find in the various translations. They also discuss some of the pros and cons of these differences.
Kirk and Dan continue their series on Bible translation by looking at the major reason for the differences in our available translations, namely, translation philosophy. We look at the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent methodologies, and where on the spectrum the various popular English translations tend to fall.
Kirk and Dan begin a new series on Bible translations. Today they talk about some introductory matters on Bible translations, as well as why this is an important topic for us to consider and understand.
This post is a re-blog of my post at Rolfing Unshelved.
This post is part of a series entitled Key Bible and Theological Reference Tools. This series seeks to provide one with an introduction to some key Biblical and theological reference tools. In this series one will find basic explanations, significant examples, and other information about these reference tools.
English Bible translations are publications that seek to faithfully render the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text of the Bible in the English language.
In Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed, Dr. Carson presents a Biblical investigation and evaluation of the title “Son of God,” and specifically the title “Son of God” as it is used to refer to Jesus.
He breaks up the short book into three chapters.
In chapter 1, “‘Son of God’ as a Christological Title,” he investigates the various Biblical uses of “Son of ___,” then focuses specifically on “Son of God,” and then focuses even more specifically on how the “Son of God” title is employed in reference to Jesus. Clearly, many “Son of ___” uses do not express a biological relationship, but presume some other kind of relationship or shared trait. Having established this point, Carson teases out its implications for the use of “Son of God” in reference to Israel’s kings who are called “Sons of God” and eventually the ultimate “Son of God” in this sense–Jesus.