1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why I am KJV only

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Larry, Jul 20, 2001.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two points:

    1. I think Gray's comments address the fallacy of "dynamic" inspiration. Dynamic inspiration is of necessity verbal plenary inspiration because it is impossible to think without words.

    2. The bigger point of why DE properly used is necessary and does not compromise verbal plenary inspiration: God did not choose words because of the words themselves but rather because of the message they communicated. Had God wanted to communicate a different thought, he would have used different words. He used the words he did in order to communicate the thought. When those words do not accurately convey the thought in the receptor language, the thought must be communicated by using appropriate words. The message is why the words were used; therefore the message is the issue; the words are incidentally necessary.

    However, Thomas's final statement about the lines of interpretation and exposition crossing is well stated and of extreme importance.
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'd like to hazard an outline of the 3 levels of mental processes involved in proclaiming God's Word in the English-speaking world--all of which, lest it be thought to be denied, assumes the role of the Spirit in illumination:

    1. Translation: communicating it in English as semantically close, idiomatically natural, and functionally equivalent to what's ascertained/interpreted through the Greek/Hebrew texts as possible.

    2. Exposition: reinforcing that message creatively--through illustrations, explanation, crossreferences, geographic/historical background, etc.

    3. Application: giving suggestions as to how to "take home" the message into the "real world" of Monday through Saturday--work ethics, community life of love and caring, fleeing temptations, etc.

    fwiw.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    However, Thomas's final statement about the lines of interpretation and exposition crossing is well stated and of extreme importance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
     
  3. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    The message is why the words were used; therefore the message is the issue; the words are incidentally necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem I have with that position is that the translator assumes he understands the thoughts/intent of the words, and feels free to change those words to conform to his understanding of what they mean rather than what they say. He is second guessing God, in my not entirely humble opinion. It is the job of the translator to translate, not to interpret. To give us the words God said, not what he thinks those words meant.
     
  4. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    The problem I have with that position is that the translator assumes he understands the thoughts/intent of the words, and feels free to change those words to conform to his understanding of what they mean rather than what they say. He is second guessing God, in my not entirely humble opinion. It is the job of the translator to translate, not to interpret. To give us the words God said, not what he thinks those words meant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    the same assumptions and understanding also come into play in literal/formal approaches--who's to know if that English equivalent that an FE advocate chooses correctly communicates what God wanted?
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    The problem I have with that position is that the translator assumes he understands the thoughts/intent of the words, and feels free to change those words to conform to his understanding of what they mean rather than what they say. He is second guessing God, in my not entirely humble opinion. It is the job of the translator to translate, not to interpret. To give us the words God said, not what he thinks those words meant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Which is why studying from several different translations as well as the original language texts is a good idea. I encourage people to use a number of good translations in order to see how it is rendered differently.

    FSIH is also right in commenting that even in FE, the choice of a particular English equivalent from within the semantic domain is a matter of interpretation rather than translation.

    Words gain their meaning from the context and the relationship within a context, what Terry calls "one and the same connection." Therefore we are interpreting the FE of a word by what we think the words around it contribute to it. But that leads to a long discussion which, while interesting, is not well suited for this forum.

    I do share the concern that DE can become too dynamic; but I hedge that against the concern that FE can communicate nothing or can cloud the meaning.
     
  6. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    &lt;sigh&gt; Okay Larry. You are just like the radical Ruckmanites. They believe, in order to really have assurance of what the word of God says, new converts, no matter what language they speak, must be taught English so they can read the "real bible." And you think, no matter what language they speak, must be taught Hebrew and Greek so they can read the "real bible."

    If you think the average Christian in the pew, who works 50 or 60 hours a week, raises a family, and is busy doing all the other things necessary to keep the wolf away from the door, has either the time or resources to learn Hebrew and Greek, you are living in a very different world than I am!
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    &lt;sigh&gt; Okay Larry. You are just like the radical Ruckmanites. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you think this then you neither understand the Ruckmanites or me ... or both. (If this is humor that I missed, please forgive me.)

    You apparently did not read my post very well. I don't think everyone needs to learn Greek and Hebrew. In fact, if you read my post you will see that I never said that or anything remotely like it. I said that studying from several good translations as well as the original language texts was a good idea. I did not say it was necessary nor did I say that someone who couldn't do it couldn't read the Bible or have the Bible. Apparently you blew right past the "several good translations" part of the post. Most people do not have time to learn Greek and Hebrew. It isn't necessary to do such.

    As you asked me previously, please confine your comments to what I said, not what you wish I said. And please avoid the ad hominem arguments.
     
  8. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    Larry, once again you are going around in circles. You claim there is no need for formal equivalence in translation for we have recource to the Hebrew and Greek. Then you say the Hebrew and Greek is not necessary. If the translation does not bring the original word into the receptor language, then you don't have what God said, but what a translator interpreted. You can't have it both ways. Either a translation can stand alone as bringing the Hebrew/Greek into English via formal equivalence, or you have to resort to the Hebrew/Greek. You are going around in circles. Admit it! Your are just as biased as the Ruckmanites! You have no reason for defending dynamic equivalence, you just defend it. Can you give me chapter and verse that says dynamic equivalence is the proper way to translate? (That is similar to the question you keep asking the KJVOs.)

    We either translate the words, or we second guess God and translate "what he really meant to say."

    And please leave your martyrs complex at the door when you come in. It stinks up the room.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    You claim there is no need for formal equivalence in translation for we have recource to the Hebrew and Greek. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Please quote the part of my posts where you got this from. I cannot think of place where this could have been derived from what I said. I am not defending dynamic equivalency. I am arguing that in some cases it is indispensable to translation. It is not always the best choice.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the translation does not bring the original word into the receptor language, then you don't have what God said, but what a translator interpreted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Does this hold true in a pssage such as Matthew 27:44?

    I gave an example in another thread (1 Cor 7:1) of why this is not true across the board. It sounds good, but does not always communicate.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can you give me chapter and verse that says dynamic equivalence is the proper way to translate? (That is similar to the question you keep asking the KJVOs.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Can you give me a chapter and verse that says that formal equivalence is the proper way to translate? The point is that Scripture does not speak to this directly. This is a ridiculous question.

    (It is wholly dissimilar to the question I ask KJVOs because I am not asserting formal equivalency to be a heresy, nor am I asserting that God has revealed any particular thing on this matter. KJVOs do both of those things.)

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We either translate the words, or we second guess God and translate "what he really meant to say."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So do we have God's words in Matt 27:44 in the KJV? Apparently not, it would seem, since the words in the KJV are not the words in any Greek text. As you say, you cannot have it both ways. I have been asking for a while what your thoughts are on this verse and so far you have declined to speak to it.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And please leave your martyrs complex at the door when you come in. It stinks up the room.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Tell me about it. I have been having to hold my nose for a long time.
     
  10. ddavis

    ddavis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a question. Is the KJV God's word? Can anyone say NO? [​IMG]
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
    Just a question. Is the KJV God's word? Can anyone say NO? [​IMG]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I can't say no. But then I haven't said that every word must be translated word for word. To me, that would be the hangup. I think the KJV is God's Word.
     
  12. susanpet

    susanpet New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also think the KJV is God's word. We are told not to add or take away from God's word, and these other versions do.
    Susan
     
  13. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many of the KJVO posters in here seem not to realize that they do not read the KJV that was translated in 1611. And I want to emphasize the word translated. Every single English version is a translation from what the texts were originally written in. And we do not have any original texts. Everything is a copy. So unless you believe that God "re-gave" the written revelation in English, having an exclusive stance on any translation is futile and unnecessary.

    Daniel Payne
     
  14. Harald

    Harald New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I was glad at what T Cassidy wrote on inspiration and at his defense of formal translation. The chaff is being separated from the wheat (formal versus dynamic). I have no sympathy whatever for the dynamic equivalency translation method. Yet I know in some (I don't say MANY) instances all normal formal translations (KJV, LITV, YLT etc.)had to use dynamic equivalency of sheer necessity, e.g. Rom. 1:15 - outôs to kat eme prothumon kai umin tois en rômê euaggelisasthai . Literally this would read thusly: thus the according to me ready (adjective)also to you those in Rome to announce glad tidings. "thus the according to me ready" sounds like awkward English, and even if you tried to switch word order you would not make good English out of these six words. In this case one has to resort to something else than formal/literal rendering. If it is to be called dynamic equivalence I know not, but it might read like this - So, as for me I am ready...(to preach the Gospel also to you who[are]in Rome). Against such dynamic equivalencing I am not opposed. But NIV, for example, uses D.E. in many more instances than would be necessary, just because it has taken the policy to translate non-formally, non-literally. This is wrong policy from the start. In majority of all NT verses I would say there is no need for dynamic equivalency, just use of common sense when changing word order into English word order would solve apparent problems. A translator/translation team that seeks to please men/the world by using dynamic e. in the main (as NIV, GNB, Living Bible etc)cannot please God at the same time. I believe it is wrong to refer to the NT writers that they did not quote the OT (whether LXX or Masoretic T.) word for word and thus a translator needs not to translate formally, but has the freedom to use D.E. Those men were definitely inspired and moved along by God the Spirit. Although the Spirit caused them not to quote word for word (here and there) there was no fear they bring errors and heresies by them NT scriptures they penned down. But today we do not have such inspiration in translating, thus we have no freedom to resort to dynamic equivalency and guesswork which accompanies it. If we do we do not please God but rather men and the flesh. Dyn.Equiv. may, IMO, be resorted to only in such clearly tricky instances as I gave example of. The translator should strive to give the exact form of the Greek word(s), adjective for adjective, verb for verb etc. He also should give the right meaning of the word, and this I believe is in the last instance solved by examining the context. E.g. the word faith, pistis. It may mean different things, depending on context. Mostly it is FAITH, but it can also be FAITHFULNESS, and a few other meanings it can also have. The context should tell the translator which one to put for pistis. Cassidy rightly said the translator is not to become an interpreter or expounder, he is to translate faithfully, period. What interpretation he has had to resort to in the translating process is another thing, but it should not reflect upon the finished translation so that he begins commenting or making ready interpretations as I believe NIV has done in some instances. I believe it is good to try to give one English word for each Greek word. Sometimes this won't do of course, but generally I believe it is a good thumb rule. E.g. the word euaggelizô, it might be shortly translated "evangelize", but it is not wrong to render it "preach glad tidings" or "proclaim the Gospel". This is one example where one Greek word may take more than one English word. I believe it is wrong and bad to translate God's inspired words wholly utilizing dynamic equivalency method. When it comes to penetrating and careful exegesis dynamic equivalency is exposed for what it is worth, and one is forced to go to the Greek (or Hebrew respectively) to clear out the matter. Nothing wrong in going to the original texts, but in general I feel a translation should be faithful in such a manner that one did not have to resort to the originals, for very few people are familiar with them for reasons they only know, and not all have the money to buy the necessary tools which follow e.g. Koine Greek studying. OK, must get some sleep. Forgive me if my English is bad at times.

    Harald
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by susanpet:
    We are told not to add or take away from God's word, and these other versions do.
    Susan
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is a non sequiter. The other versions do not add or take away from God's word any more than the KJV does. Be careful not to use one translation as the standard by which all translations are to be judged by. A translation is judged by its fidelity to the original manuscripts, not by similarity to another translation.
     
  16. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    I am arguing that in some cases it is indispensable to translation. It is not always the best choice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am glad to see you have finally come over to my way of thinking. You will find that you new position is much easier to defend then the blanket endorsement of DE.
     
  17. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I believe it is wrong to refer to the NT writers that they did not quote the OT (whether LXX or Masoretic T.) word for word and thus a translator needs not to translate formally, but has the freedom to use D.E. Those men were definitely inspired and moved along by God the Spirit. Although the Spirit caused them not to quote word for word (here and there) there was no fear they bring errors and heresies by them NT scriptures they penned down. But today we do not have such inspiration in translating, thus we have no freedom to resort to dynamic equivalency and guesswork which accompanies it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Good point Harald. Modern translators are not inspired apostles ;)
     
  18. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
    Many of the KJVO posters in here seem not to realize that they do not read the KJV that was translated in 1611. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not KJVO, but I read the 1611. I have several copies of it. And, if you would actually compare the two, you would find they are substantially the same. The vast majority of the so-called changes are merely type face, spelling, and punctuation changes. Out of the actual 421 changes which a person listening to the bible being read from the pupit while following along in his own bible would notice, only 136 were changes of substance. Most are merely change similar to "towards" to "toward" and "burnt" to "burned." Of the 136 changes of substance, all but 5 can be attributed to the correction of printers errors. And of the 5, each and every one of them uses a synonym of the word used in 1611. None of them change the meaning of the passage. [​IMG]

    Let's lay this straw man "The 1611 and today's KJV are very different" to rest, where it belongs.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    I am glad to see you have finally come over to my way of thinking. You will find that you new position is much easier to defend then the blanket endorsement of DE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I never knew I changed ... I thought I always believed that. Silly me [​IMG]

    I am quite serious about Matt 27:44. Do you think the KJV was incorrect or imprecise to not translate the words but instead to use a dynamic equivalence and do you think it should have been done differently in light of what you have said regarding the translation of words.
     
  20. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is difference nullified if the differences are minimal?
     
Loading...