Footnotes in Translations: Good or Bad?

It is a poor argument to say we must include a certain rendering or textual variation due to its effect on doctrine. It can reaffirm a teaching as much as it wants, but it doesn't matter if the reading is an inaccurate translation or if the passage is not original.

 

No, but certainly doctrine could have played a part in the creation of variant readings, in which case an understanding of scribal motivations can help determine which reading is original. In this particular case (Matt 1:25), heavyweight textual critics (Mill, Wettstein, Griesbach) have accepted the traditional reading based on the probability of doctrinal motivations to remove the words rather than a temptation to add the words from Luke 2:7.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

So all translators from 1500 forward have done what modern translators have done using modern textual criticism techniques? Really? Consider the quote you gave from the NIV translators. They assume that because a word was not in the older manuscripts they have that the TR inserted them from another text. Is that science? Is that sound practice? Who says the older manuscripts didn't leave the word out and it should have been in there? Nobody can say that because nobody saw the original manuscripts, and there is the great failing of textual criticism.

 

AMEN!!!!! :applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

Really? I am saved coming up on forty years and my faith has never been affected by a footnote. Never. Not once.

What kind of faith is affected by a translator's footnote?

 

Anybody had their faith affected by a footnote?

Those poor ignorant KJV translators thought they were essential. I wonder if their faith was affected?

 

Agreed. Lets stay on topic. Further deviations will be deleted.

 

I didn't change my stance, you simply misread what I posted early on.

You say verse are man-made. Ok, let's discuss this. Verse typically follow the traditional format. I've never seen an english translation that had verses in it and did not contain 39 verses in Romans 8, for instance. Traditionally the 7th verse of 1 John 5 was the so called comma. The NIV took the whole thing out because they felt it wasn't authentic enough for inclusion. Then they took verse 8 and split it up into two verses so that they still had the traditional number of verses in 1 John 5. Then they took the traditional verse 7 and placed it in the footnote.

 

That view completely contradicts the views of the KJV translators. They felt that even the worst translation was still the word of God. By them going out of their way to make that point seems to imply that they felt that attacks any translations would greater negatively "affect faith" in the Word of God.

And this goes both ways, I have seen others attack the KJV pointing out verses with "errors", pointing out that the Holy Spirit is referred to as "it", and so fourth. Myself personally (we preach from the KJV exclusively in my church) it always bugs me slightly that Jesus when referred to as Him, He etc is not capitalized in the KJV. However I don't go around pointing it out, or act like the KJV demeans Him in any way, it is just how they did it back then I guess. Nothing more nothing less.

IMHO all the effort that goes into searching for a select few verses used to attack the Word of God regardless of translation does far more to negatively effect faith. There is nothing wrong with anyone stating they prefer to use any one translation for their study or preaching. However once that crosses over to spending time and energy for the sole reason of attacking another translation, it changes to something that IMHO grieves the Holy Spirit, and time that could be much better spent trying to edifying Gods word instead of undermining it.

The way this entire version controversy has evolved over the last fifty years is just saddening. I wonder what a difference it would have made if all the time, money and effort that has gone towards it, instead would have gone towards outreach instead. I guess only God knows that answer.

 

My first Bible after I was saved was the RSV. I lapped it up and never lost my faith. I did ask for and get a Scofield Reference KJV for Christmas that year because I wanted the same Bible our preacher used. Scofield's notes "shook my faith" more than the footnotes in any Bible since has!

 

I'll have to admit, the concept that footnotes have the power to affect one's faith is a new one to me.

I agree with the KJV translating team as they gave us their magnificent work - marginal notes are vital to help us understand the sense of the manuscripts.

This really concerns me. How strong is a faith that can be affected by a translator's notes?

 

As to footnotes- "if it was good enough for the KJV translators to include them and be honest about their translation, then it's good enough for me!".

Many of the verses that we debate about today were more than likely footnotes in some saint's Bible!

 

That was not what I was referring to, and I think you know that! I'm talking about........some passages are IN some translations......some passages are NOT IN some translations...anyone that doesn't think that causes DOUBT about what IS or ISN'T the Word of God, IMHO, isn't very honest. After all, if one passage can be doubted by some to be the Word of God, why not other passages as well. It's basic COMMON SENSE to me.