Just obey it!

So these men of 400 years ago, who gave us this amazing translation, and advised us to use others, were just simply wrong?

How then can you trust their translation?

 

As I pointed out in the thread that was discussing this textual variant, the principle is what you are supposed to get from this passage. Regardless if the specific example is "against you" or not, the principle of dealing with faults is the same.

It's not confusing if you understand the point of the passage. It's almost wondering if the stories in the parables are true or not. It doesn't matter, it's the point of the message that needs to be understood, not if it really happened or not.

It's not changing God's word. It has a different textual choice here. Neither the KJV, ESV or the NASB translators are infallible in their textual choices. Somebody could say the same thing about the ESV and the KJV for adding words to the passage and therefore "taking liberties with God's Word."

 

You'll get to page 10 of this thread, and stilllearning will never address this question.

He can't.

If he did, his man-made theological house of cards would come a-crashin' down.

 

So you prefer to worship their creation but ignore the very instructions they laid down for it? For some reason I am not surprised. It reminds me of one who buys a model airplane kit and sits it on the shelf for the picture rather than opening it up, following the directions, and having the actual model itself to admire.

 

Yet you do. You trust their opinion on thousands and thousands of translational choices.

The only other choice is to admit secondary inspiration.

Did these men translate the word of God, or did God give it to them directly?

If they translated it they used their experience and opinions to make choices.

If God gave it to them directly then that is a second inspiration of His word.

 

Allow me to make one point.

Let's say a great team of translators get together and put out an excellent new english translation. A lot of scholars are really impressed by the work and it really catches on. The translation team put a preface in their translated bible saying that in order to fully grow spiritually one must also consider the religous writings of other religions like Hinduism, Islam, etc. Now, these men did a great job in translation, but they are misguided in this one point and you, while you will use their translation, will not follow their advice on studying the writings of false religions.

That was an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the point that still learning is trying to make. One can agree with a translation and use it, even to the point of exclusivity, without having to agree with and abide by everything the translators said.

 

There is no way I would use a translation by a team that told me I had to study Islam in order to grow spiritually. They would be false teachers. Why would I trust their work?

 

It was an extreme example meant to state that one doesn't have to take every single thing a translation team says and follow it in order to use the translation.

 

The illustration does not work. If I stongly believed in one versionism I would reject the work of those who told me contrary.

Unless, of course, I believed that God inspired the men to pen the exact words.

 

Only trying to explain my view on how I see the translation work of what I see as false teachers. If I could trust the translation I could trust their instructions and vice versa.

I don't see how I could trust their translation choices if they were so wrong on how to use it.

 

Augustine lived before any of those were produced Amy.

 

But the only guys you say were ever qualified to do so also told us to use various translations and to study their marginal notes? Did they lose their qualification when they did that?

 

The point I made was very valid. But let's consider this example.

Let's say nearly the same scenario occurs. You have a team of translators put out a new and very good translation. You like that translation and wish to use it. You read the preface and the translators write there that they believe in using only one translation, rather than many. You like using several different translations. You agree with their translation and think it to be scholarly, but disagree with their opinion on how the bible should be studied on this one point. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

Yes - because to my mind they are false teachers trying to bind me to an unbiblical doctrine. If they were so arrogant as to claim that only their translation was valid I would reject their work.

 

Good grief you are unreasonable.

 

Your reasoning is faulty:

Here's the flip side of your reasoning, which someone could say: The KJV has also been used to start numerous cults and mislead millions to hell, so I do not trust it.

 

Wait a minute. Roger said that if the translators of this new translation claimed in their Preface that their translation alone was valid it would be arrogant and he would reject their work. They are false teachers trying to bind others with an unbiblical doctrine. How can his response be called unreasonable?