Question About Translations

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Cope, Nov 17, 2003.

  1. Cope

    Cope
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, I found your request for chapter and verse stating that the KJV (AV 1611, etc.) is the word of God to be a bit of a straw man. One wouldn't even expect to answer the Bible version question in this manner. After all, the English language not existing at the time of the writing of the Bible, one would not expect to find a direct reference to an English translation of the Bible. Of course it is possible...just as various other prophetic statements exist in the Bible. But supposing that there have been a variety of languages that have at one time contained an inerrant translation, wouldn't it be better to note the characteristics of God's word so that it could be identified in whatever language?

    I believe this is just what we find - in Ps. 19 and 2 Tim. 3, for example. Rather than get into that discussion at this time, I wanted to point out that your question cuts both ways. From what I have read I have concluded that you do not believe that there is any version, translation, or manuscript that is without error. Therefore, you must believe that the way God chose to preserve his word is in a variety of errant versions, translations, and manuscripts. You asked for chapter and verse stating that the KJV is God's inerrant word. I would ask you for chapter and verse that gives the name "Scripture" or "God's word" to anything containing error? (Please do not include any cases wherein the Bible accurately reports an error, lie, etc.)

    Chapter and verse, not opinion.

    Cope

    [ November 17, 2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Cope - Of course I was being facetious when I asked for a chapter and verse saying it was the only correct version of God's Word. I assumed everyone would see the "poke" at those who make such absurd claims.

    No verse to say the NASB is the only one. Or that that 5 Greek texts merged by Erasmus are better than 5 Greek texts merged by Wescott.

    BTW, I editted your post's title. We do not allow personal names in the title. If we did, I'm afraid mine would appear often . . and often with expletives!

    Will answer you upcoming.
     
  3. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent point Cope. You cant find Paul saying "a better translation would be" or "in the original Hebrew it says." Nobody in the NT or OT for that matter talked like the fundamental, conservative, bible rejectors today.
     
  4. Cope

    Cope
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Griffin,

    >>>>>
    BTW, I editted your post's title. We do not allow personal names in the title. If we did, I'm afraid mine would appear often . . and often with expletives!
    >>>>>

    My apologies on the topic title.
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet KJVO's do it all the time. Dr. Bob's question, one I have used myself, is not a straw man but it is intentionally ridiculous. Those of us who oppose KJVOnlyism know that there are no proof texts for KJVOnlyism. That's the whole point in a nutshell. We have a whole bunch of folks who look down their nose in indignation at all of us "Bible correctors, Bible haters, Alexandrian cultists,.... (choose your own favorite false charge)" all the while claiming to be "Bible believers". So the question, while ridiculous, is simply meant to point out how ridiculous it is for someone to stand in judgment over other Christians or their Bibles without a biblical basis.

    Which forces us to a couple of choices, either God inspired certain copyists, text collators, and translators or else there is another answer. I reject the notion that translators were inspired but if they were I would wholly reject the doctrinal qualifications of the KJV translators to be inspired translators. In addition, I would simply look at their own words in "To the Reader". Their own words refute any notion that they were inspired... unless God inspired them without their knowledge then allowed them to lie about it.

    The KJV translators were excellent scholars who gave us a great translation, partly because they built on the work done before them in other English versions. But they were not inspired and since they were not inspired their work is subject to their fallibility.
    OK. Let's examine the greatest movement in the history of Christianity... the first 250 years. It went from a handful of trembling Jewish fugitives to the dominant religion in the civilized world. Yet the first documentation we have for anyone accepting the specific NT that we accept was around 250 AD. That means that not only did God not need the KJV, He didn't need widespread distribution of the whole Bible. Even those who had part of the NT seemed to seldom have it all... and not everyone had any part of it. Copying by hand was tedious, expensive if done well, not to mention dangerous for the first years of Christianity.

    This is factually true whether one believes it or not. There is no scripture that refutes it and there is no honest, logical, consistent treatment of the historical evidence that leads to any other conclusion.
    How about some examples? Try Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1 in your KJV.

    Try any of the accounts of the crucifixion, especially what was written on the placard over Jesus' head, in your KJV. According to the standard you have established in the paragraph above, only one account can be true and thus God's Word. The others must be false and errant. Which of the Gospels are you ready to toss out?

    I wouldn't call these errors but it is undeniable that they are different versions of the same words or event inside of the KJV.

    To answer your question, "scripture" and "God's Word" are what God said. There are no errors in anything that proceeds from Him. None the less, thousands of years of handcopying and about 250 years of KJV revision show us that human copyists and translators are not infallible in rendering scripture. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2 in your KJV.

    Copies and translations are God's Word in as much as they communicate what He communicated. Not because the follow some exact form of text. That is why it is important to look at what the Bible teaches and judge translations compared to each other on that basis. The doctrines of Christianity are clearly taught in the KJV but also in the NKJV, NASB, Geneva, etc.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What objective standard will you use to determine the "characteristics" of God's word? I am not saying this is a bad idea, but how will you approach it?

    This has been the orthodox position of hte church for 2 millennia. It has only been in recent years that the position has been altered.

    Isaiah 61 and Luke 4. Clearly they are different but yet both are treated as God's word. What Christ quoted from has "errors" in it because it is not identical to the Hebrew text of Isa 61. In addition, we could cite other similar passages where NT quotations of God's word show "errors."

    No copying has ever been done without error. All the manuscripts are different to some degree. That means, by default, that God preserved his word in manuscripts, versions, and translations that have error in them. That does not impugn the truthfulness of God or his word. It in fact means that we must assign inspiration proper to the original manuscripts only. For you to assign inerrancy technically to a set of manuscripts would be to make God in error. That is a tenet we cannot except.

    For you to assert the inerrancy of the KJV, you would have to explain why the word of God changed from previous ages (which it undeniably must have done). You would have to explain biblically why such change had to stop with teh KJV at its current revision.

    In essence, there are a whole truckload of problems that KJVOs just skim right over without giving serious thought to. Yet such issues are worthy of thought and study and in the end, careful study will disprove the KJVO position. At the same time, it need not discourage anyone from using or trusting the KJV.
     
  7. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    I'm a KJVO believer. I wasnt born that way, in fact I grew up all the modern versions and when first had to confront this subject in Acts 8:37 with my parrallel Bible i mulled over everything i could get my hands on. i didnt want to believe that i was going to have make a choice of where Gods words were. So I'd like to answer some of your questions that you think are skimmed over.

    What objective standard will you use to determine the "characteristics" of God's word? I am not saying this is a bad idea, but how will you approach it?
    #1--i first approached it with prayer
    #2--then much study accepting the consequences of what i found
    #3--by their fruits ye shall know them, so i looked at the fruits
    #4--1 Cor 2:13, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, did a particular version contradict itself or attack Jesus Christ?

    "No copying has ever been done without error."
    Much actually has. When dealing with the Bible, wich is what we're talking about, there are several cases of inerrant copies. The 10 commandments were inerrant copies b/c Moses broke the originals. Jeremiah 51 is another case of an inerrant copy. the original was thrown into the Euphrates... the only record we have is a copy and you havent pointed out any errancy in it.

    "All the manuscripts are different to some degree. That means, by default, that God preserved his word in manuscripts, versions, and translations that have error in them." being different does not make something errant. For instance I have an edition of the KJV that has wide margins and some notes at the end and another plain jane edition that is only text. They are different but those are not errors. "That does not impugn the truthfulness of God or his word." This is something Modern versions cannot admit to. That truth with admixture of error i.e. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, is a satanic thing. This impugns the truthfulness of Gods word where you say it has errors in it. "It in fact means that we must assign inspiration proper to the original manuscripts only." God doesnt even assign inspiration to the originals. He actually had them thrown in a river one time. he let them get burned up another. At no time does God claim inspiration for an original. That is a modern version private interpretation. "For you to assign inerrancy technically to a set of manuscripts would be to make God in error." But to find the words God promised to preserve is Biblical. Otherwise all our talk of Bibles is moot since they are all error filled, and there is no absolute judge to say whose right and whose wrong. if I still believed in the modern versions i wouldnt waste my time defending my position cause id know i dont have an authority that is infallible to plant a stake in. and with no absolute authority, there is no progress to be made. its all relative and no reason to argue about it.

    "For you to assert the inerrancy of the KJV, you would have to explain why the word of God changed from previous ages (which it undeniably must have done)." because the language of the world changed for one. God said is word would be purified seven times in ps. 12:6 and those seven times were hebrew, aramaic, greek, syriac, old latin, german and english... from Greek on you're dealing with the commercial language of the world.. the Lord made his words available in the most widely used langauge. "You would have to explain biblically why such change had to stop with teh KJV at its current revision." it is the 7th in a line of seven purifications. English is even now the commercial langauge of the world... it gets into more hands by being in english.

    "In essence, there are a whole truckload of problems that KJVOs just skim right over without giving serious thought to. Yet such issues are worthy of thought and study and in the end, careful study will disprove the KJVO position." Careful and honest study is what will lead you to the position that Gods words are perfectly preserved even today.
     
  8. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    Contemporary English is; but not Elizabethan English.

    Why did you pick German, BTW? And what happened to French, was the lingua franca of Europe in the 18th century and beyond?
     
  9. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    youd be surprised how up to date the Kings english is versus the modern versions... we say things like "right on" which is taken from Proverbs 4:25 KJV, the NIV is up to date with "fix your gaze directly before you"---i dont talk like that.... we say the apple of his eye taken from Deut 32:10 KJV, a drop in the bucket from Isaiah 40:15, a little bird told me from Eccl 10:20, we say "searched my stuff" from Gen. 31:37 KJV and the NIV is hilariously up to date with "searched through all my goods"--thats not the way i talk...if something is "eaten you up" it was found in John 2:17 of a KJV...if your "head and shoulders above the rest" you got that way from 1 Samuel 10:23 in a KJV. THere are thousands more like this and ive found that trends in speech arise nowadays that are catching up to the KJV. God actually put out a book that was ahead of itself... this is where the real linguistics are... but its all a "labor of love", 1 Thessalonians 1:3 KJV.
     
  10. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    I don't deny the wonderful influence of the KJV on English, but I didn't know we were talking about the Bible as literature. I could make the same observations about Shakespeare, but I don't consider his words inspired in the same way as the Bible.

    But you've picked out the idioms that are still in use. I looked up a section of Matthew upon a request from someone last night. I tried to read it aloud and couldn't ... I finally printed out the ESV translation.

    "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:" Matthew 25:35

    "An hungered"? "Gave meat"?

    "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me." Matthew 25:35 (ESV)

    Which, do you suppose, is more readily understood by speakers of contemporary English?
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey rsr, be careful about eating too much meat when you are an hungered. You might get straitened in your own bowels. ;)
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Shakespeare does it, too. Have to have copious notes to get through a play or the language would have you so confused you wouldn't know who was whom!

    "Aroint thee, wench, the rump-fed runyon cried." :eek:

    Right. Thank God for the KJV! Compared to the Bard of Avon . . [​IMG]
     
  13. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Tell me I'm not the only one giggling about this? [​IMG]

    Getting ready to write a good hymn and now I have the "bowels of mercy" phrase echoing in the feedble brain.
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Warning to both benches:

    The previous post was NOT designed to denigrate the Word of God, just to point out a slight change in the English language that has made perfectly good and normal words of 1611 sound funny or awkward to our ears today.

    Please do not take offense . . .
     
  16. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    As much as I appreciate the compendium, I am more intrigued by a mental image of Dr. Bob "giggling." :cool:
     
  17. jsg718

    jsg718
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree. First, you have to decide if you're looking at your version as literature, or just as something that can be very readably for you ... and your family.

    There's some interest discussion of this on another topic here on this site, about the gospel of john movie. Here's an article about why they chose the good news version for that film (which I loved, btw)

    http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/history/translation.aspx
     
  18. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are a few more goodies from the up to date KJV... its "right on". We got a bank "teller" from Genesis 15:5 in a KJV, "bite the dust" came from Gen 3:14 in a KJV, "bone dry" Ezekiel 37:4, but "by and by" (Matt 13:21), or to "break my heart" Acts 21:13 KJV, in the "eleventh hour" Matthew 20:6 KJV, or a "fly in the ointment" ECCl 10:1 KJV, getting down to "brass tacks" Exodus 26:11, but if your "hair stood on end" because of Job 4:15, or you eat at a "mess" hall while reading Genesis 43:34, you can "mark my words" in Isa. 28:23 of a KJV, or if your "lovesick" because of Song of Solomon 2:5, you could memorize your "lines" in a play (Ps. 19:4 KJV), or if you're under the "powers that be" Rom 13:1, but dont "put words in my mouth" Exodus 4:15, but "arise and shine" Isa. 60:1 KJV, but be careful that you dont come to your "wits end" at Psalm 107:27.
     
  19. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    [​IMG]

    Offense is officially taken by those in the Purist camp. Early modern English NEVER sounds awkward.....NEVER!!

    And before you do it, don't even THINK about taking a shot at the English employed by Wiclif in his Translation of God's Holy Word.

    Alas, thou hast been deceived. Woe unto thee!
     

Share This Page

Loading...