ESV consultant praises the KJB

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 29, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    This man worked on the ESV. I post this because it is very interesting to see how he speaks of the Bible, and especially the KJB. Many of the arguments he presents are completely the reverse of those often given by modern version proponents as reasons for replacing the King James Bible.

    Will K


    REVIEW OF LELAND RYKEN'S
    THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH

    January 28, 2004 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [email protected];

    The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation was published in 2002 (Wheaton: Crossway books). The author, Dr. Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton College, writes in defense of literal or formal Bible translation as opposed to dynamic equivalency.

    Though Ryken does not defend the King James Bible on the basis of its underlying Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received texts, he defends the KJV's literal and exalted style of translation. He continually applauds the KJV, praising its beauty, dignity, and power. He repeatedly uses it as an example of what good Bible translation is all about. He calls for modern translation work to be done after "the King James tradition" (p. 282, 284).

    The book contains many quotations exalting the KJV. It is a "peerless among literary masterpiece" (p. 270), "unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world" (p. 267), "the noblest monument of English prose" (p. 258), "incomparably the best English translation in its rhythm" (p. 259), "when it comes to stylistic range and flexibility, the King James Bible is peerless" (p. 227), "the touchstone of affective power" (p. 206), "matchless in its literary qualities among all English translations" (p. 188), "the supremely literary English translation"
    (p. 163), "immeasurably superior"(p.163),"thetouchstone of literary excellence" (p. 62), "stylistically the greatest English Bible translation ever produced" (p. 51).


    Ryken served as literary stylist for the English Standard Version, so he is not opposed to modern versions per se but only to dynamic equivalency versions. He also defends the theories of modern textual criticism that have produced the Westcott-Hort type Greek text underlying the modern versions. I do not know how much he actually knows about the textual issue, but he does take the standard position that we must put aside the KJV because it is "not based on the best
    manuscripts" (p. 284). We would challenge the professor to read Dr. Edward F. Hills' The King James Bible Defended, the first edition of which was first written in the 1950s, after Dr. Hills obtained his doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard. We would also recommend that he read The Revision Revised by that great textual scholar John Burgon, to get another side of the story about the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament.

    Dr. Ryken is an evangelical, in that he believes the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but he is also a New Evangelical (as one would assume by his association with Wheaton). This is illustrated by his uncritical quotation of liberals such as Bruce Metzger and Krister Stendahl and also by his praise of those who hold doctrines and methods that he labels as unscriptural.


    Following are some excerpts from this 336-page book:

    "The author's own words matter. Publishers and editors are not ordinarily allowed to change the words of literary texts. Readers expect to receive the actual words of an author. As changes in language make texts from bygone ages difficult, archaic, and even obsolete, readers are educated into the meanings of the words...

    Should we not treat the words and text of the Bible with the same respect that we show toward Shakespeare and Milton? Do not the very words of biblical authors deserve the same protection from alteration that authors ordinarily receive? Should we not expect readers to muster the same level of rigor for the Bible that they are expected to summon in high school and college literature courses? Translation should not be the occasion for license. The ordinary rules of textual accuracy, integrity, and reliability still prevail. In fact, I would have thought that the Bible would be the last book with which people would take liberties." (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 30, 31)

    "Modern translations have participated in the spirit of the times--a spirit restless for change, iconoclastic in its disrespectful attitude toward what was venerated in the past, granting automatic preference to what is new and original." (Ryken, The Word of God in
    English, p. 62)

    "We have lost a common Bible for English-speaking Christians The Christian community no longer speaks a universal biblical 'language.' And with the loss of a common Bible we have lost ease in memorization of the Bible. After all, when a common Bible exists, people hear it over and over and 'memorize' it virtually without consciously doing so, but this ease is lost when translations multiply. Furthermore, with the proliferation of translations, churches and organizations find it difficult to know which translation to choose for purposes of memorization; and even after they choose, there is such variety that a person faces the prospect of having to memorize from different translations in different settings" (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 62)


    "The sheer fact of the matter is that the Bible is an ancient book, not a modern book. To translate it into English in such a way as to make it appear a modern book is to distort it." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 74)

    "The very translators who make so much of the need to translate the Bible into immediately understandable terms, with all interpretive problems removed from readers, have themselves become the counterparts to medieval Roman Catholic priests. By means of preemptive interpretive strikes, these translators take to themselves the power of making readers' minds up for them, deciding for 'ignorant readers' what they think the text means and then doling out only those interpretations that they think correct. The reader is just as surely removed from the words of the text as the medieval Christian was." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 78)

    "When we change the words, we change the meaning. ... The whole dynamic equivalent project is based on an impossibility and a misconception about the relationship between words and meaning. Someone has accurately said that 'the word may be regarded as the body of the thought,' adding that 'if the words are taken from us, the exact meaning is of itself lost.' When the words differ, the meaning differs. To claim that we can translate ideas instead of words is an impossibility." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 80, 81)


    "And if it is possible to translate more accurately by abandoning the words of the original for its ideas, why do the dynamic equivalent translations end up in such disagreement with each other? Instead of enhancing accuracy, dynamic equivalence subverts our confidence in the accuracy of the translations." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 82)


    "To put it bluntly, what good is readability if a translation does not accurately render what the Bible actually says? If a translation gains readability by departing from the original, readability is harmful. It is, after all, the truth of the Bible that we want... Readability in an English Bible translation should not be defined in terms of being the simplest English prose that we can produce. As I said in an earlier chapter, the Bible is not, on balance, a simple and easy book. It is frequently difficult, complex, and sophisticated. If it were not, it would not have occasioned so many learned commentaries and books. Simplifying this complexity for the sake of readability does not increase understanding; instead of clarifying the original text, it obscures it." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 91, 92, 93)


    The fact that the New Testament was written in koine Greek should not lead translators to translate the Bible in a uniformly colloquial style. Finally, a good translation does not attempt to make the Bible simpler than it was for the original audience." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 100, 101)

    "Instead of lowering the Bible to a lowest common denominator, why should we not educate people to rise to the level required to experience the Bible in its full richness and exaltation? Instead of expecting the least from Bible readers, we should expect the most from them. The greatness of the Bible requires the best, not the least. ... The most difficult of modern English translations -- the King James -- is used most by segments of our society that are relatively uneducated as defined by formal education. ... research has shown repeatedly that people are capable of rising to surprising and even amazing abilities to read and master a subject that is important to them." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 107)

    "Previous generations did not find the King James Bible, with its theological heaviness, beyond their comprehension. Nor do readers and congregations who continue to use the King James translation find it incomprehensible. Neither of my parents finished grade school, and they learned to understand the King James Bible from their reading of it and the preaching they heard based on it. We do not need to assume a theologically inept readership for the Bible.

    Furthermore, if modern readers are less adept at theology than they can and should be, it is the task of the church to educate them, not to give them Bible translations that will permanently deprive them of the theological content that is really present in the Bible." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 109)

    "Finally, after a quarter century of easy-read Bible translations designed to make the Bible accessible to the masses, biblical illiteracy continues to spiral. Instead of solving the problem, modern translations, with their assumption of a theologically inept readership, may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 110)

    "When translators fix the level of translation within the parameters noted above [grade-school level, limited vocabulary, etc.], they apparently believe that Bible readers will forever be stuck at their current low level of ability. Alternately, even if readers advance beyond a low level of ability, their new mastery will do them no good when they come to read the Bible because the translation has been fixed at a lowest-common-denominator level." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 113)

    "The very proliferation of English translations feeds the syndrome of readers as the ones who determine the shape of translation. The result of the multitude of translations has been a smorgasbord approach to choosing a Bible translation. The assumption is that there are no longer objective or reliable standards for assessing a Bible translation; so readers can simply take their pick. Carried to its extreme, this mentality produces The Amplified Bible, which multiplies English synonyms for words in the biblical text, leaving readers to simply pick the word that pleases them, with no attempt to pin a preference to what the original text actually says." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 117)


    "Did the writers of the Bible express God's truth in the exact forms that God wants us to have them? And if the biblical doctrine of the inspiration of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit prompts the answer 'yes,' the logical conclusion is that the very images and metaphors and technical terms that we find in the Bible are inspired. We are not free to correct or adapt the text to the perceived abilities or tastes of a contemporary readership." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 130)


    "If, as some claim, literary form and style do not matter in the Bible, why did God give us a literary Bible? And if the Bible is a predominantly literary book, why are some translations and translation theories so careless about preserving the literary aspects of the Bible? ... A notorious non-Christian of the twentieth century called the King James Bible 'unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world.' It is with regret that I have many times concluded that the beauty of the Bible meant more to this cultured pagan than it does to most modern Bible translators." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 159, 161)

    "Literary authors and literary scholars overwhelmingly regard the KJV as being the supremely literary English translation, and others in its tradition as being superior to dynamic equivalent Bibles. Allen Tate called modern translations 'dull and vulgar.' W.H. Auden
    considered the KJV 'immeasurably superior,' Thornton Wilder said that he was 'never ... able to read long in any other version' than the KJV, and T.S. Eliot considered modern translations to be 'an active agent of decadence.' ... The verdict of literary experts does not cover all that is important in a Bible translation; for example, it does not speak directly to accuracy and fidelity to the original. On the other hand, authors and literary critics are people whose literary intuitions can be trusted, and if they almost uniformly dislike modern colloquial translations, this is surely an index to the literary deficiency of these translations." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 163)

    "A good transition of the NT will preserve a sense of historical and cultural distance. It will take the reader back into the alien milieu of first century Judaism where the Christian movement began." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 175)

    "I believe that it is correct for an English translation to preserve an appropriate archaic flavor as a way of preserving the distance between us and the biblical world. Joseph Wood Krutch used an evocative formula in connection with the King James Bible when he spoke of 'an appropriate flavor of a past time.'" (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 182)

    "The effect [of the proliferation of Bible translations] has been to destabilize the biblical text--to render it ever-changing instead of permanent. With this succession of new translations (and their constant revision), people have lost confidence in the reliability of English translations. If every year beings a new translation, apparently the existing ones must not be good enough. And if the previous ones were inadequate, what reason is there to believe that the current ones will be better? We can contrast this to the situation that prevailed for over three centuries when the King James Version was the dominant English Bible ... During those centuries, English-speaking people could accurately speak of 'the Bible.' The King James Version was the Bible--the common property of Bible readers in England and America. ... There is obviously no way to turn back the clock, but we should frankly acknowledge what a toll has been exacted by the decline of the King James Bible and the loss of a common English Bible." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 187, 188)

    "As we all know, interpreters of the biblical text do not agree among themselves. To introduce the resulting range of variability into the translation itself has produced an increasingly unstable biblical text. People have rightly become skeptical of the reliability of the English Bible. The dynamic equivalent experiment aimed for clarity and has produced confusion." (p. 195)

    "One of the most obvious developments in Bible translation during the past fifty years is the reduced expectations that translators have of their assumed readers. The King James Version that dominated the scene for more than three and a half centuries emphatically refused to patronize its readers. Although the KJV preface claims that the translation 'may be understood even of the very vulgar [common person],' it is obvious from the book that the translators produced that their estimate of the abilities of 'the vulgar' was very high indeed. The King James Bible is, in the words of a literary scholar, a work of 'high art, which will always demand more from the reader, for it makes its appeal on so many planes.'" (p. 200)

    "It is, of course, ironic that the common reader through the centuries was regarded as capable of rising to the demands of the King James Version, while modern readers, with more formal education than their forebears, are assumed to have ever-decreasing ability to read." (p. 200)


    "Once Bible translation was set in the direction of abandoning the very words of the Bible for its thoughts, a spirit of license was set into motion that has gotten progressively accentuated." (p. 205)


    "Good rhythm for a Bible is like a qualifying exam: If a translation cannot measure up on this matter, it is not in the running to be a superior Bible for public use and oral reading in more private situations. ... The best test of rhythm is simply to read passages aloud. ... If in oral reading a passage ebbs and flows smoothly, avoids abrupt stops between words and phrases where possible, and provides a sense of continuity, it is rhythmically excellent. If a translation clutters the flow of language and is consistently staccato in effect, it is rhythmically inferior. ... All of these considerations make rhythm an essential translation issue, not a peripheral one. For a book that is read aloud as often as the Bible is, and for a book whose utterances are so frequently charged with strong feeling and sublime ideas excellent rhythm should be regarded as a given" (Ryken, pp. 257, 259).

    "'To make the Bible readable in the modern sense means to flatten out, tone down and convert into tepid expository prose what in K.J.V. is wild, full of awe, poetic, and passionate. It means stepping down the voltage of K.J.V. so it won't blow any fuses'" (Ryken, p. 270, quoting Dwight Macdonald, "The Bible in Modern Undress," in Literary Style of the Old Bible and the New, ed. D.G. Kehl, 1970, p. 40).

    "'We are in real danger of losing, in an age of flat prose, an essential and invaluable capacity of the language, fully realized once in the English Bible ... the capacity to express by tone and overtone, by rhythm, and by beauty and force of vocabulary, the religious, the spiritual, the ethical cravings of man'" (Ryken, p. 270, quoting Henry Canby, "A Sermon on Style," in Literary Style of the Old Bible and the New, ed. D.G. Kehl, 1970, p. 427).

    From time to time I encounter the sentiment from dynamic equivalency advocates that the Bible 'should not sound like the Bible.' Billy Graham endorsed The Living Letters by saying that 'it is thrilling to read the Word ... [in] a style that reads much like today's newspaper.' I disagree with these verdicts. A sacred book should sound like a sacred book, not like the daily newspaper. It should command attention and respect, and to do so it cannot be expressed in the idiom of the truck stop. The failure of modern colloquial translations is frequently a failure of tone" (Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 278, 279, 280).

    "What a literary scholar said of one modern translation is generally true of all dynamic equivalent and colloquial translations: it 'does slip more smoothly into the modern ear, but it also slides out more easily; the very strangeness and antique ceremony of the old forms make them linger in the mind.' It is not only the proliferation of translations that has made Bible memorization difficult, if not actually a lost cause. ... These translations are inherently deficient in the qualities that make for memorability" (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p.284).


    For more about dynamic equivalency see
    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/dyn-equiv-influence-error.html


    [Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians.
     
  2. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I highly recommend Leland Ryken's book, The Word of God in English. He makes a very strong case for "essential literalness," the translation philosophy behind the ESV, as opposed to the translation philosophy behind most other modern versions. The King James did some things very well. The ESV tries to retain those things while improving on accuracy, clarity, and, IMO, text base.

    Andy
     
  3. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keeping in mind, of course, that being on the translation oversight committee of the ESV, Dr. Ryken is not what you would call an impartial authority.
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some responses:

    Stylistically, the KJV is great, if you desire a Miltonesque or Shakespearesque Bible. If you romanticize the 17th century as the highlight of the language, then you must give the KJV that. (Granted, so much of the style and understanding is from the 1769 version, not the 1611, but why mince?)

     
  5. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    continued...
    Send them to my town. Send them to the inner cities. This is an easy one to test. Try it. And why are modern translations "theologically inept?" To be honest, I want those who are theologically inept to be reading the Bible. I want to see them be transformed by the Spirit of God, and then see them continue to learn the Word so they can be powerhouses of the faith who are dynamic in seeing others come to Christ.

    What theological content is permanentyl deprived in the modern versi
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    continued...
    Send them to my town. Send them to the inner cities. This is an easy one to test. Try it. And why are modern translations "theologically inept?" To be honest, I want those who are theologically inept to be reading the Bible. I want to see them be transformed by the Spirit of God, and then see them continue to learn the Word so they can be powerhouses of the faith who are dynamic in seeing others come to Christ.

    What theological content is permanentyl deprived in the modern versions. Another silly statement without proof.

    Correlation does not prove causation. By this same token, we can also blame the proliferation of automobiles to "biblical illiteracy." Those stupid cars!

    The KJV is often touted as the easiest-of-all Bibles to read. So which is it, KJVO-crowd. Is the KJV easy to read or is it difficult, needing some more educatoin to properly understand it?

    Which isn't what the Amplified Bible does. This quote makes it sound like the views written in the versions are extremely dissonant, when in actuality, this is a falsehood.

    Of course, these authors are judging the prose itself, not the greatness of its translation. They're also people who think that the Canterbury Tales are wonderful, but Chaucer, too, is also very, very hard for even the college student to understand.

    Again, it depends what you are looking for. If you would rather your Bible be lauded as a superior script of 1700's literature, take the KJV. If, like me, you would rather your Bible be based on the best documents and be able to be read by the common man easily, then follow me to the MV section of the bookstore. Your choice.

    Sounds like those who say that "If the KJV is good enough for Christ and Paul, it's good enough for me."

    I don't WANT distance between us and the truth of Christ. I want it to be relevant for today. Those in the outside world would desperately disagree with that - they believe that the Church has lost its relevance. Why use a translation with an archaic flavor to reach those who are already resigned to think that the church is too old, stagnant, and ancient? Not me.

    Very much agree. It was from a past time.

    [quote"As we all know, interpreters of the biblical text do not agree among themselves. To introduce the resulting range of variability into the translation itself has produced an increasingly unstable biblical text. People have rightly become skeptical of the reliability of the English Bible. The dynamic equivalent experiment aimed for clarity and has produced confusion." (p. 195)</font>[/QUOTE]People have been skeptic of the Bible for 2000 years. I have't talked to one person or seen one study that could prove this conjecture.

    So, I'll stick with the words from the translators instead of the literary scholar, okay?

    Wrong again. It's that the language has significantly changed, even in the last 50 years. Many times they struggled to rise to the "challenge" because there was no alternative. Again, why not struggle with things that matter instead of having to re-translate the KJV Bible.

    God forbid! (Oh wait - that's some dynamic equivalence found in the KJV. Maybe they started it all!)

    There you go - we need a Bible we can perform to rap.

    Again, people are not translating a Bible FROM the KJV. God's words are already wild and full of awe, in ANY translation, so don't think that the KJV somehow has the corner on that.

    In many ways it is already lost. Again, I would prefer that people experience Christ than to show them just how awful their prose is. But that's just me.

    Again, I disagree. Every single NT book, for example, was written as a letter or something simple to read. It was not written to be a sacred book, high above most people's heads. It was a practical story about how Christ was killed and rose again. It was a letter from Paul to a church who had been going through tough times. And so on and so on. The language used wasn't "high" Greek. It was street Greek.

    It has made it more easy. We as a church just do not stress it as we should.
     
  7. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    Big fans of Dynamic Equivalence will probably not like Ryken's book. However, I would like to suggest that people actually read his book, rather than just the snippets posted above, to get the full flow of his argumentation.

    Andy
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Furthermore, if modern readers are less adept at theology than they can and should be, it is the task of the church to educate them, not to give them Bible translations that will permanently deprive them of the theological content that is really present in the Bible." (Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 109)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What theological content is permanentyl deprived in the modern versions?

    Well, Scott, you might try getting back to me about your previous question. Remember you asked which sound doctrine was perverted in the niv, and I gave you the example of Acts 13:33 where the niv says "this day I have become your Father".

    So, Scott, was there a certain day when God became the Father of Jesus?

    Perhaps your attention was drawn elsewhere and this "minor" example slipped your mind. Care to attempt an answer?

    Will
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that *in this verse*, the NIV botched it, because its reading makes it much harder to arrive at the correct interpretation, and seems to be in conflict with the orthodox doctrine of the eternal sonship of Jesus. However, the doctrine is not deprived from the NIV as a whole - just as finding a similar "problem" in a specific verse in the KJV does not deprive the doctrine from the KJV as a whole.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    OK Will, you have a point. However the Logos (the Second Person of the Tinity) became human on the day in which He was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. On this day God the Father then became the "Father" of the God-man Jesus Christ in that He caused His humanity through the power of the Holy Spirit on that very day.

    This doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the Logos in relation to the Father has been debated modernly (which I support FWIW) in that He (the Son) is/was in a relationship of begotteness with the Father from eternity though equal to the Father.

    Also, we have all ready seen what I consider a weakness in the KJV in Hebrews 2:9.
    We covered that passage and no one answered my objection to the satisfaction of closure (IMO).

    No translation is "perfect" including the various editions (1611-1769) of the KJ Bible, including the NIV.

    I will admit that some of the MVs are less "perfect" than others.

    IMO, you have made a good observation here in Acts 13:33.

    HankD
     
  11. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Ac. 13:33, KJV)

    "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'" (Ac. 13:33, NIV)

    Since "beget" means "become the father of," why is the KJV not guilty of the same alleged "doctrinal perversion" as the NIV?
     
  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Ac. 13:33, KJV)

    "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'" (Ac. 13:33, NIV)

    Since "beget" means "become the father of," why is the KJV not guilty of the same alleged "doctrinal perversion" as the NIV?
    </font>[/QUOTE]That's EXACTLY how I was planning to answer! You beat me to it. It's not a translation issue. Because it is found in the best manuscipts, we are fairly confident that God inspired these words. It's difficult, but my best guess is that God became Christ's Father in the way that the audience understood when he was born in Bethlehem.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Will, may I ask you what your point is? Most non-KJVOs, including me, revere the KJV as an excellent English BV. There's no reason for Ryker NOT to admire it, but I don't agree with everything he says. He speaks of one "standard' Bible, and the loss of memorization, but he has forgotten that 400 years ago the AV was the MOST MODERN English BV there was. True, many people can memorize verses from the KJV more easily than from a MV, but that's only because the uniqueness of the KJV's English as compared with what they use every day stands out & is retained more readily. However, a better UNDERSTANDING is obtained from reading MVs as they're more in the everyday English one uses all the time.

    I agree with the AV translators in that a "variety of translations is profitable for the understanding of the sense of the Scriptures."
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Let’s take a look at the most theological book in the Bible, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. And let’s start with chapter one, verse one:

    Have you compared Romans 1:1 in the NLT with the Greek text? Paul introduces three very important concepts in this verse.

    1. Παυλος, δουλος Χριστου Ιησου, κλητὸς απόστολος, αφωρισμένος εις ευαγγέλιον Θεου

    1. Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called {as} an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, (NASB, 1995 Update)

    #1 δουλος Χριστου Ιησου

    #2 κλητὸς απόστολος

    #3 αφωρισμένος εις ευαγγέλιον Θεου


    The NLT renders this verse:

    This letter is from Paul, Jesus Christ’s slave, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News.

    Notice that the NLT completely deletes Paul’s third concept, and substitutes an entirely different concept, “sent out to preach” his Good News. This is not even a paraphrase, let alone a free translation. Paul does not say that he was “sent out to preach his Good News. He says that he was SEPARATED unto the gospel of God. The concept of being “separated unto” the gospel was very important to Paul, as we can see in his other epistles. Paul did not see himself as SEPARATED “from” his old way of life, but SEPARATED “unto” the gospel of God. The NLT just doesn’t get!

    And did you notice the very serious grammatical error in the NLT translation of this verse? The translators write, “his Good News.” The antecedent of the pronoun “his” is “an apostle.” In other words, they are actually writing that Paul was sent out to preach his, that is, Paul’s good news. Notice also that they capitalized “Good News” rather than “his” (compare the NASB here), elevating the gospel above God himself.

    These examples, from just one verse (and there are yet more of them that could be cited in this verse) show a severe lack of scholarship and even a basic lack of competency in English composition. MS Word won’t catch errors like these, but any careful reader with a good knowledge of the English language should catch them right away.

    As for the vocabulary of the NASB, and other FE translations, have you ever looked at home improvement books and noticed that you have to frequently go to a dictionary or a glossary at the end of the book to find out the meaning of all of the technical words they use for different types of tools, etc. In order to be a competent carpenter, it is necessary to learn the language of the trade; in order to be a competent Christian, it is necessary to learn the language of the Bible. The Greek words, and the concepts that the words represent, were all deliberately chosen for a purpose, and when a writer substitutes different words, he is very likely to be substituting different concepts as well.

    The NLT will not help a poor reader to learn how to read and write better, but the RSV will. The grammar of the NASB may confuse poor readers, but the Holy Spirit has, right there, on the pages, the very words and language necessary to carry out His mission.
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent, excellent point! [​IMG]
     
  16. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Willie, just wondering, how come ya quote this gentleman when he extolls your favourite version , yet you dismiss what the KJV translators said about variety of translations, etc? :eek:
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    ESV consultant praises the KJV. In a related story, water is wet and Alaska is now one of the United States.

    All God's people said DUH.
     

Share This Page

Loading...