Translator notes

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Dec 25, 2006.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    One of the biggest complaints about the KJV and some other versions is that the translator notes cast doubts on the veracity of the scriptures.

    Would this note, by a translation team, be an example of casting doubts on the word of God?

    "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies"

    Would this version be disqualified as an acceptable version of the Bible?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Proverbs 18:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
    The name of the Lord is a a strong tower:
    the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.

    C4K: //One of the biggest complaints about the KJV
    and some other versions is that the translator notes
    cast doubts on the veracity of the scriptures.//

    And the mercenary Bible Salemen are prone to cater to
    those who believe that and NOT print the
    translator notes.

    Unfortunately, some people don't know what the
    Translator notes mean so are again' them.

    God's inerrant Written Word, the Holy Bible, says:
    Proverbs 18:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
    The name of the Lord is a a strong tower:
    the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.

    Yes, the "a a" error is in the Nelson version of the
    KJV1611 (third printing) edition.
    However, such an 'oops' doesn't invalidate the
    inerrancy of the KJV1611 Edition.

    Note that does NOT say:
    The Bible of the Lord is a a strong tower ...
     
  3. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    In answer to the first question, No, it would not cast doubt on the word of God. It would show, however, the integrity of the translators in communicating to the reader that that particular verse is not found in all or even most Greek manuscripts.

    In answer to the second question, No, it would not disqualify that particular translation as a valid translation (especially since I know which you are reading ;) ). But it does make you wonder if the same should be asked of those translations who do not include such information for the reader...
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Trotter -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:
     
  5. kubel

    kubel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it depends on the readers interpretation of that note. That interpretation may show that the translators were in favor of some form of textual criticism, but not everyone believes textual criticism is attacking the word of God.

    It also would depend on the readers view. Is a translation the actual inerrant word of God, or is it a translation of the word of God? Is a Greek copy the actual inerrant word of God, or is it a copy of the word of God? Both translations and copies are known to contain errors, omissions, additions, and intentional corruption. So something must be done to identify these possible errors, omissions, additions, and corruptions.

    I think this was a case where the translators were identifying a possible addition, but since there's no way to be conclusive, they just made it a note, and left the verse in there. I think this was a good call, and in no way casts doubt of the word of God. However, people who view the translation or the various copies of the Greek text as the actual inerrant words of God may disagree and view the note as an attack.

    No. On the contrary, I prefer to know the thoughts of the translators rather than remaining in the dark. One thing I really like about my 1611 is that it includes the translator notes (among other things), whereas my modern KJV does not. I think it's important to have what the translators intended for us to have in our translation.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoted //Would this note, by a translation team,
    be an example of casting doubts on the word of God?//

    Kubel: // I think it depends on the readers interpretation of that note.//

    Kubel: // ... not everyone believes textual criticism
    is attacking the word of God//

    Unfortunately there are some who do believe that
    'textual criticism' is an attack on the Written Word of God.
    In fact, it refers a process of determining which
    of several sources is the most likey Correct
    Written Word of God.

    The King James Version (KJV) original editions
    KJV1611, contained several kinds of translator notes.
    Some of them were the results of the KJV Translator's
    Textual Criticism.

    The first such note in the KJV's New Testament is
    at Matthew 1:11.

    -----------------------------------------
    Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
    And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
    about the time they were caried away to Babylon.


    Margin note: || Some read, Iosias begate Iakim,
    and Iakim begat Iechonias


    This margin note, the first Translater Margin Note
    in the New Testament, shows an alternate reading
    found the multiple witnesses called collectively 'the
    Textus Receptus' (TRs) or the Received Texts.

    Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition, alternate TR reading):
    And Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias
    and his brethren, about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

    -----------------------------------------

    The translators of the KJV made a textual criticism.
    They determined that the most likely correct
    reading of Matthew 1:11 is:

    And Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
    about the time they were caried away to Babylon.


    and the second most likely reading of Matthew 1:11 is:

    And Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias
    and his brethren, about the time they were caried away to Babylon.


    To say that it was alright for the KJV1611 translators to make
    a textual criticism but it is not alright for some modern version
    tranlator team to make a textual criticism -- it is a DOUBLE
    STANDARD, an unrighetous judgement of God's servants.

    There is a 'problem' with Modern Versions they have early
    sources available to them that are ealiler than those
    available to the KJV Translators. To NOT use the earlier
    sources is dishonest. To use the earlier sources and
    do textual criticism and determine the KJV Translators
    used the right script -- some will damn them right along
    with those translators who use the earlier sources and
    do textual criticism and determine that the earlier sources
    used the right script. These double standard folk are want
    to throw out the baby with the bathwater to support their
    ignorant double standard while claiming loudly that they
    are the only righetous ones for doing it. :(
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not in my book! It is merely being honest, as to the basis for texts.

    Ed
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    **********
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed Jr. sez' : "Well said, Ed Ed, Sr.! You are so right, here! Preach on!"

    Ed
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, while we generally speak of the Greek manuscripts, we should not overlook that there are some questions about some OT manuscripts, hence readings, as well. This is not to disagree with kubel, but expand on what he wrote.

    Ed
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think that many folks would say that it cast much more doubt upon those Greek copies, and less upon the translation that is bold enough to include such a notation.
     
    #11 franklinmonroe, Dec 27, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2006
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Disqualification of an entire version should be a personal matter.

    I accept all English verse renderings that faithfully represent the genuine scholarship of original language manuscripts, whether they are found in marginal notes, within the NWT, in a Catholic commentary, or upon a t-shirt. God's Word is not limited to being found only between supple leather covers.

    Clearly, some translator bias has allowed questionable theology to influence their versions more than others, but all seem to have some. It would be easier to identify a few obvious heretical verses in an otherwise well translated literal version, than to painfully trudge through a paraphrase that was largely poorly executed and included careless misinterpretations to determine its orthodoxy.
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Amen! And to do less than apply our best God-given reasoning abilities to this task would be sin resulting in eternal consequences for generations.
     
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fully agree with this here. Correct me if I am wrong, but were not the first 'attempts' at English, granted Old English, Scripture renderings, in that order, in the ballads of Caedemon, in Bede's translation of John, in the translation of some Scriptures by King Alfred, personally, thence in the translation of the whole Bible by John Wyclif from the Latin Vulgate? Granted this is not a complete list, but does show some progression, and 10 generations or more before Erasmus and Luther were even born?

    All translations have some translator bias????

    "Say it ain't so, Joe!" :rolleyes: "- er I mean Frank!"

    Ed
     

Share This Page

Loading...