A question for TR people

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Dale-c, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many of you are King James only people based on the TR and the Masoretic text.

    That is certainly the most respectable of all of the KJVO positions in my opinion even though I do not agree.

    Here is my question:

    Two different translation committees gather and each produces their own translation.
    THey both use the exact same mss basis for their translation.

    they both use the same literal approach to the task.
    They both come up with very similar translations but they do differ slightly in places.

    Which one is the inerrant Word of God?
     
  2. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or, what is the accepted version for a person of another language? Are they to deal with the Middle English or should they emulate the rationale of the translators of 1611 and give each people a translation in their own tongue?
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Both!

    It happened to the the KJV translators themselves (actually within the same committee). I have detailed posts on this issue in the BB archive. KJVOs that make the claim that two translations of the same ancient text cannot be different and yet both still be correct do not know their KJV well.
     
    #3 franklinmonroe, Aug 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2010
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Edited by Phillip (see post below), I accidently quoted the wrong person by clicking on the wrong post. I am sorry and I will let the following stand alone based on other posts above that I truly don't remember who I was trying to quote.

    ======================================================================================

    I would say that it has just as much to do with misunderstanding that when I translate from one language to another I have to make compromises due to the language structure itself. If I translate Spanish to English, the words are all mixed up (to me--in Spanish), but to a Mexican, the English is all mixed up. For instance, in some languages there are more tenses than we have in English. I'm not an expert at Greek, but it is my understanding there are more tenses in Biblical Greek than in English--how do you change a word to a single word in English when they do not mean the same. It is my understanding the Japanese language has many worrds for one of our words and vice versa.

    Then there is street language. No matter how hard we try to teach our kids the structure and grammar of English, they have their own way of talking. Do we ignore that and tell them tough, you must understand KJV language or you cannot read the Bible--plus, kids are not educated in reading in the U.S. as well as 20 years ago. I can pretty much prove this. Graduate students struggle because they cannot read the book, not because they cannot understand the concepts.

    There are many issues involving translation and these are just a few.

    I do agree that there may be a difference in manuscripts, but todays theologians have narrowed down the errors, to (I believe Doc says) 1%. That 1% is not changing the "Words" of God. It is simply the medium where things are transmited. (As an example I left a "t" out of the word transmitted, which is an error; how many of you were smart enough to figure out what I meant?)

    I culd writ a wole bunch o worrds wiht erors.

    That was way more than 1% error we have found in comparing manuscripts. Could you read that sentence?

    Just another example of what might be meant as a difference or error when a scholar studies manuscripts. I know it is more complex than that, but I'm trying to open some eyes as to what a scholar means by 1% error among manuscripts.

    That line was probably between 10% and 20% in error of spelling, but you could still read it.

    Ever watch a kid write a text message? No vowels, among other short cuts. Language changes and errors do not always make for an unreadable manuscript. (That's two points I'm trying to make, by the way!)

    Just some thoughts to mull over; and yes, I respect and read the KJV myself and understand many, many Christians have used the KJV over the years--does that mean we sit down and quiit working to modernize the languages of our translations? I don't think so. In 1611, the result was to modernize the Bishop's Bible among other English translations so the common folk could read it. Do we speak that way today? :thumbs:
     
    #4 Phillip, Aug 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2010
  5. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    The translation of the KJB was far more complex than two committees.

    From A Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr. Laurence M. Vance

    The amazing thing about the KJB is the number of men who worked on the translation, yet they came to agreement. This is similar to the scriptures themselves, one of the greatest arguments that the scriptures are the Word of God is that many men over thousands of years agreed perfectly with each other.

    If you think that is meaningless, get a group of intellectual scholars together and discuss almost any subject. If there are 100 scholars there, you will very likely end up with 100 different opinions.
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hi Phillip. You began your post by quoting mine. I did not really see a close connection between them. Did I miss something?
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOU didn't miss anything. I'm TDY (Army for Temporary Duty away from home) and I'm using a mini laptop that if I had connected my mouse instead of using the mouse pad which is very touchy, I wouldn't have clicked on the wrong post.

    I am very sorry and since I can edit in this will just remove the quote leaving the statements from me.

    Is that okay? I am, Very Sorry!

    Good example of a typo during translation I guess.

    Thanks for pointing it out and have a good day!
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hi Winman. I will speculate that you placed all that info about the KJV translators because you thought I was not aware of the history. I assure you that I am quite knowledgeable and was careful in my word selection when I wrote "committee" in my post.

    But my point was that they did NOT "perfectly" agree even within their own English text.
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,233
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Actually they didn't. In fact their disagreements sometimes got so violent that others had to get between those having the disagreements to avoid bloodshed. All such differences of opinion were turned over to the final revision committee to make a final determination. If they could not reach a consensus they would put the reading with the most votes in the text and the alternate reading in the margin.

    Remember my dad's sage advice: When you don't know what you are talking about it is a good time to stop talking. :)
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marginal Notes?

    It looks as if according to Dr. Vance that number four;

    6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

    says that marginal notes will have to be used otherwise the Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated clearly in the King's English. If this is true, then do those explainations become canon?

    If these rules are followed to the letter it is obvious that they would have to be carried forward in newer versions of the KJV. By the way my copy of a 1611 is chocked full of margin notes. I guess I need to start studying them or I will not read an accurate Bible.

    This sounds a LOT like the way the first NIV was translated; with one BIG exception that they were not to take an old English translation and make as few changes as possible. I do believe that the work done even on the weak NIV was probably much more accurate considering both our increase in knowledge and location of older manuscripts to compare to the very few documents the KJV crew used.

    Please note, I am not saying they did a good job for the date it was done and capabilities of that period. By comparing multitudes of documents both fairly new (like the KJV) with old ones we have obviously, according to Doc found that we can pretty much duplicate the originals within 1% accuracy. I would imagine that many of these are now scanned and compared using computers, thus not requiring the manpower of 1611. The key would be to just spit out the results and let the committees make the final decisions on each verse. I do like the footnotes that mention that some manuscripts may or may not contain certain words or even a few verses which don't change God's Word one iota when you consider that God's Word is a Living message to us from God Himself.

    If I miss the last few verses of Mark, it certainly doesn't change my theology. I know good and well that the early Christians who were close to Jesus could do miracles to show that He was the Son of God, I don't need to be told that someone can survive a snake bite, but I'm not going to pick up a snake today because someone might have added that verse to make a point. It's obvious that the ending of Mark is a little bit, well, doesn't sound quite right?

    How do you explain that there were no manuscripts used for the last few verses of Revelation. Why did the translators choose to retranslate the Latin Vulgate to English to finish it off? Why not just translate the Vulgate since it was obviously older than the manuscripts they used?

    Who is this Dr. Vance anyway and where did he happen to find this list of rules? (He may be a GREAT and well-known scholar--Vance rings a bell, but my brother was an instructor for jet fighters at Vance Air Force Base, so therefore, I think Vance rings a bell since I saw it many times on the entrance signs.) Yes, I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, sorry, just had to say it.

    It appears to me to be a something created to try to explain how they thought the process worked for a history lesson. Remember the rules for revolution by the communists handed out in the 60's? A list of things they would do to America and although many may be true, nobody proved anybody would find a written list of revolutions to take over the United States. If they did find some, they would be classified and kept in the CIA vaults; because only a turn-coat could get hold of an original "Rules for Revolution of the U.S." from inside the Soviet Union.
     
  11. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's good, that is the way it should be. I don't doubt they had disagreements whatsoever, and they set up a process to deal with that. And if you read those 15 rules, they also consulted men outside the six committees. How many men they consulted we will probably never know, but it is likely they consulted dozens, if not hundreds of learned scholars of that day.

    And the KJB was not translated in secret the way the W&H texts were. They were open to all.

    Do, you have the source to prove your statement that their disagreements were so violent that they almost led to bloodshed? I read many good books on the subject years ago, I never remember reading that.
     
  12. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,077
    Likes Received:
    102
    If by "all" you mean all Anglican scholars and divines adept at Greek and Hebrew, you might have something, yet it also is not strictly true. Puritan Hugh Broughton, arguably the premier Hebrew scholar in the kingdom, certainly was not asked his advice (which he had generously provided previously in his An Epistle to the learned Nobilitie of England, touching translating the Bible from the Original).

    Of course, it goes without saying that there were no Separatists (including Baptists) consulted for the translation.

    The number of translators of the ERV/ASV (if that is what you are referring to in your mention of the "W&H texts") was large, consisting of both English (including two Baptists) and American members. They were not compensated for their work.

    They also had a procedure for settling disagreements:

    I do not know the procedures of other modern translators, but I would assume that all those done by committee have similar methods.

    Now, if you prefer a translation "open to all," I would refer you to the translators of the New English Translation, who posted all draft translations to the Internet for public review and comment.
     
    #12 rsr, Aug 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 29, 2010
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Not "W&H texts";the English Revised Version.

    Stop your campaign trying to pin sinister motives to Westcott and Hort.
     
  14. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to pin sinister motives to Westcott and Hort? That is funny.
     
  15. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not funny if it is true. You might want to verify the veracity of your sources of information on them.

    They are not the devils that KJVOs have painted them to be- but then again they weren't IFB (or SBC) either.
     
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    That Wescort and Hort displayed some very un-Christian behavior is well known. I could show you half a dozen websites on this.

    Wescott denied that Jesus was God.

    That is from his own writings. I would say that is pretty serious heresy, would you?

    By the way, Jesus did speak of himself as God, and that is why the Jews tried to stone him.

    John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
    59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.


    When the Lord appeared to Moses and Moses asked his name, the Lord said, I AM THAT I AM (Exo 3:14). The Jews understood this, and when Jesus said "I am" they clearly understood that he was saying he was God. That is why they picked up stones to attempt to stone him.

    How about this from Hort?

    Hort said that the belief that Jesus bore our sins was heresy. He wrote that all men must suffer for their own sins.

    I do not need to tell you this, anybody who is interested can easily look this up. Westcott and Hort were into spiritualism, believed in evolution and many other very unorthodox beliefs. This is common knowledge.
     
  17. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I said, verify the veracity of your sources. You might go and get the quotes- complete and in context- and find out that they did NOT say what they are accused of saying.
     
  18. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I agree that both sides often take a single sentence out of context and make it appear to say something the author did not intend.

    But it is also true that people often refuse to believe the truth because of a bias.

    That Wescott and Hort were associated with spiritualism and the occult is well known. They actually formed some of these societies.

    Wescott and Hort were also socialists, Wescott was at one time president of the Christian Social Union.

    Believe what you want, the documentation is out there.
     
    #18 Winman, Aug 31, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2010
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,233
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Only [snip] who knows absolutely nothing about B. F. Westcott and his writings would make such an ignorant statement.


    First of all his name is spelled "WESTCOTT." You can't even spell his name correctly and you claim to know so much about him?

    All you have to do is read his commentaries on the New Testament to know he was theologically conservative and believed in the absolute Deity of Christ!

    Read his two major commentaries, Hebrews and the Gospel of John, and it will become quickly apparent that Dr. Westcott affirmed the divinity of our Lord. Note these citations with my added emphasis:

    He who was GOD BECAME FLESH: He who was with God tabernacled among us (comp. 1 John i:2) He who was IN THE BEGINNING, became (in time), (Gospel of John, p. 2)

    No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the TRUE DEITY OF THE WORD, (Gospel of John, p. 3).
    Another stupid lie. And, once again you display abysmal ignorance in that you can't even spell the man's name!

    Both Westcott and Hort were invited to join a club, the Ghostly Guild, in 1851, whose purpose was to investigate firsthand accounts of supernatural phenomena and determine if any of it was real or false. The primary purpose for the club was to debunk many of the ghost stories and spiritism that was so popular in England at that time. The club was ANTI-OCCULT[personal attack snipped]
    Good grief! You can't be that stupid! The Christian Social Union was part of the Church of England that was dedicated to helping people improve their social condition by addressing business ethics and how people were treated by those in power! It had nothing at all to do with SOCIALISM!
    What "documentation?" Gail Riplinger's lunatic ravings?

    Do a little personal study and stop depending on ignorant fools for your "documentation" and maybe, just maybe, [snipped]
     
    #19 TCassidy, Aug 31, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2010
  20. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    It would help for you to post where you got your "documentation" but since you did not, I will: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm

    It is clear that this is not a reliable source. There are no notes to be able to support the claims, there is false information clearly posted there, and it is clearly written on a KJVO site that will not ever post anything against their beliefs. The "documentation" has been disproven.
     

Share This Page

Loading...