This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Use this sub-forum to discuss various Bible versions, translations, and other Apocryphal books.

James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby Hunter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:50 pm

Before deciding to buy one, none, or both of these translations, I'd really appreciate any opinions, advice or recommendations (whether positive or negative) that someone might care to share regarding either of these two Bibles.

I vaguely recall seeing them occasionally quoted from by notable men of CI when reading some of their material, so I'm under the impression that owning one or both of these Bibles might be an invaluable source.

I already have numerous other English editions of the Bible, so I'd like to avoid procuring unnecessary editions which add no further or special insights. But my gut feeling is that these do, particularly Fenton's.

Image

Image
User avatar
Hunter
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Location: Canada (in the prairies)

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby wmfinck » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:42 am

The Fenton Bible in PDFs is available here:
http://saxonmessenger.christogenea.org/ ... bible-pdfs

I have perused the Fenton Bible on a few occasions, but I have not read it through. From what I have seen, however, while Fenton had a few good ideas, and for those he is loved by many CI adherents, he made just as many serious errors.

For instance, his rendering of elohim in the 82nd Psalm is disgraceful. Okay, if your only perspective is the Old Testament it is fine, but through the understanding which our Savior has provided - which is the best way to understand the Old Testament (Paul: "but we have the mind of Christ", 1 Cor. 2:16), it is terreible. It is terrible because Christ Himself referred to the 82nd Psalm when He said "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" as it is recorded in John 10:34.

Now while the Hebrew word elohim may be understood to mean judges, and there are clearly places where it should be, yet if Christ interprets it as gods in this Psalm (the words are not to be confused in Greek) then how could any man following Christ interpret it as judges? So for this I believe Fenton fails, and this is one example: that he did not consider the greater judgment of Christ in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture. [I do not think I am perfect, and I too have surely made errors, but I pray that I did not miss anything so obvious!]

Where Fenton did do well, I have acknowledged him in my notes, where he correctly understood Paul's "works of the law" phrase to be referring to the rituals, which can also be demonstrated from other Biblical literature (LXX, DSS).

I know very little of Moffat, outside of the few times Comparet quoted him. The only Bible I ever read before I did my own New Testament translation was a King James Version. I never consulted anything else when translating, but only the KJV for comparison when I wrote my translation notes (which are unpublished but are being incorporated for the most part into my podcast commentaries).

It is my opinion, examining the Old Testament, that as many insights as possible, and especially a comparison of those older versions such as the Septuagint, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, is absolutely necessary. But the best way to understand the Old Testament, again, is through the lens of the New (see my paper, On Biblical Exegesis, for a lengthy discussion).

It is also my opinion concerning the New Testament (and I can prove it in many places), that nearly all modern translations will correct the errors of the King James Version where it does not affect the doctrines of the particular translator, and then they will follow the errors of the King James Version (or even exacerbate them) where they are agreeable to their own doctrines.

Hope this helps somewhat.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby wmfinck » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:01 am

One other important Fenton error (or perhaps innovation) I forgot to mention above:

In Genesis chapter 10, in each of verses 5, 20, 31 and 32, he seems to have "missed" a 3rd person plural pronoun. This facilitated his renderings, "amongst the gentile tribes", or "among the heathens" rather than, as the King James and the Greek of the Septuagint would have it, "in their nations", or "after their nations", which the Hebrew certainly supports - and insists upon - according to the resources which I have available.

Fenton's rendering in English seems purposely designed to convey the idea that the Adamic race was purposely settled among other races.

I would agree that there were other hominids here on earth when the Adamic race was created and multiplied. BUT I would not twist the Scripture in order to convey such an idea. And twisting the Scripture here, he causes more damage than good, because he would lead one to believe that it is the non-Adamic nations which are referred to in the balance of Scripture where the phrases "the heathens" or "the nations" are used, and that is not true.

Fenton's rendering in English seems purposely designed to have the Bible acknowledge the non-Adamic races as if they were legitimate members of our society, in the promotion (purposeful or not) of certain British Israel ideas which I, for my part, find rather objectionable.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby wmfinck » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 am

More Fenton Balderdash:

From the KJV, part of 1 Chronicles 4:40: "... for they of Ham had dwelt there of old."

From Brenton's LXX, part of 1 Chronicles 4:40: "... for there were some of the children of Cham who dwelt there before." (The LXX Greek agrees.)

From Fenton, part of 1 Chronicles 4:40: "... For the previous inhabitants there were Blacks."

This is, in my humble opinion, another Fenton innovation, and a ridiculous one at that. First, the word for "Blacks" in the Hebrew of this passage is not plural, but singular, and it is in the same exact grammatical construction as it appears throughout the earlier portions of Genesis as indicating a proper name, Ham. Here the only valid reading is that which the King James provides, "they of Ham", and the Septuagint interprets as "children of Ham", which is legitimate.

Ham was not black, and neither were his legitimate descendants, simply because of the meanings of the Hebrew word by which he was named. Strong originally defines Ham's name as "the same as 2525" which is "hot, warm" (I am convinced that it is the word which our word chemical is derived from). Another word derived from this word means "anger, fury". Another group of words related to 2525 mean "delight" or "desire" (where I would think we have the same idea in the profane expression "to have the hots for [someone])."

But none of this means that Ham was black, unless one has an agenda, as Ferrar Fenton obviously did!

I do not like the Fenton Bible. As Paul said in Romans, "Indeed if the truth of Yahweh were increased by my lie for His honor, why then am I still judged as a wrongdoer?"
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby Hunter » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:58 pm

Thank you, Bill, for clearly pointing out these particularly important errors from Fenton's translation. Considering the examples you offered and judging by all of what you said, indeed, Fenton seems to demonstrate he had a propensity to twist scripture to fit his world view held by that of British Israel - which is as you said best "purposely designed to have the Bible acknowledge the non-Adamic races as if they were legitimate members of our society, in the promotion (purposeful or not) of certain British Israel ideas".

I'll refrain from buying a copy of the Fenton Bible (and stick to the PDF link you provided), as it doesn't appear to be worth the price (pun originally unintended) of having to stumble through his particular style of 'scripture modification' or "innovation" as you call it.

What I really found detestable is, as you put it well, "that he did not consider the greater judgment of Christ in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture", using the 82nd Psalm as the example. Surely, I will never forget the first time I heard you say that the best way to understand the Old Testament is through the lens of the New Testament.

Thanks for being a good shepherd, Bill.
User avatar
Hunter
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Location: Canada (in the prairies)

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby NicoChristian » Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:26 pm

I've read through the entire Ferrar Fenton Bible. I think he had some good verses, but obviously he made some errors. One thing that comes to mind is that he said that some Israelites had mulatto children with some groids. That was probably his assumption, not a fact.
YHWH bless.
NicoChristian
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby Nayto » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:38 am

NicoChristian wrote:I've read through the entire Ferrar Fenton Bible. I think he had some good verses, but obviously he made some errors.


I read it as well and it was worth it in my opinion. There are some insightful footnotes. Obviously there are glaring errors as well, but we are no strangers to rightly dividing Scripture after all.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby PhilNotChristian » Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:10 pm

I too have read that the FFV is polluted because it was written from the LXX manuscripts. Now I am not knowledgeable when you start talking MSS vs. LXX. I would like to get to the bottom of it. If the FFV is so unworthy why does it get so much praise from the CI community ?
PhilNotChristian
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: James Moffatt or Ferrar Fenton Bible Translation?

Postby Kentucky » Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:37 pm

Christian wrote:I too have read that the FFV is polluted because it was written from the LXX manuscripts. Now I am not knowledgeable when you start talking MSS vs. LXX. I would like to get to the bottom of it. If the FFV is so unworthy why does it get so much praise from the CI community ?

Probably because he dared to not play the game of universalism as much as other translations. I wouldn't call it polluted as much as just another tool that a good White man attempted doing for his race.

I've tried to explain a concise difference between the Massoretic and Septuagint here at this link:

http://kinsmanredeemer.com/inspired-word-part-4

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am


Return to Bibles and Biblical Apocrypha

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron