English only preservation?

That's what it seems to say, IMO. However I don't agree with this. I believe that Scripture is preserved in the Greek Received Text and the Hebrew Masoretic text, which underlie the King James Version.

That's what I see...but like I said, I don't agree with it. The King James Bible is the most accurate translation (in the English language) of the preserved and inerrant word of God (Greek Received Text and Hebrew Masoretic Text)...but English speaking people aren't the only people who are in possession of the preserved and inerrant word of God in their native tongue. Any translation, in any language, which is translated from the Greek Received Text and Hebrew Masoretic text would therefore be considered the preserved and inerrant word of God.

 

The first point- conjecture.

On the second, I agree.

 

Even the best translation from the originals can miss the point in many areas, and indeed have done so.

I have real letter written in 1688 and 1689 common English and difference between them and the 1611 English first used in the King James Version (not Bible) is amazing. It would be so easy to miss a point of usage and understanding in a translation.

Even my beloved Cambridge version and my Oxford (1769) version differ in many areas. None of the changes affect my theology, however. This is where the preserved "thought" enters into the translation picture and not word for word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't disagree with this, I believe the KJB to be the preserved and pure word of God in English because it is a translation of the correct texts.

But I believe you could translate the Received Text used for the KJB and the Masoretic Text into any language, and as long as it is done faithfully and accurately would be the preserved and pure Word of God in that language.

But this was not the point of the comment I made that this thread concerns. I was only saying that God never promised to preserve his pure word in every language, he promised to preserve it to all generations. That is, the true and pure Word of God will always be preserved somewhere in the world at any given time. Once you identify this preserved and pure Word of God you can then translate it into other languages.

And it goes without saying that it is proper to translate the scriptures. When we are given the commandment to go into all the world and teach all nations it is assumed one must translate. You can't expect all the world to learn the original languages.

 

I agree. There are some who believe the English text of KJB to be superior to the Greek and Hebrew...I disagree with this.

Absolutely! (Psalms 12:6-7; 33:11; 100:5; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; 24:35)

I agree...as long as the translation is done faithfully and accurately from Greek Received Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

 

I think you could, although I am sure there would be difficulties. But there are difficulties translating from the Greek and Hebrew as well. Not all scholars agree as to what a verse in Hebrew or Greek really says. It is not that they cannot accurately translate the words, it is that they disagree with what the words say.

For instance, we have had debates here about Psalms 12:6-7

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Some very reputable scholars say this preservation is speaking of God's Word, while other very reputable scholars say it is speaking of the poor. Both can make very strong arguments to support their case.

Now, I do not speak other languages (I know a very little German), and know almost nothing about translating, but I imagine translating these verses could cause a problem. One scholar might choose words to convey this preservation speaks of the Word, another might choose words to convey this preservation speaks of the poor.

So, no matter what language is used to translate from there can be problems and disagreements.

So, the true task is to determine precisely what the scriptures should say and use language that conveys that distinct meaning. I do think a translation should be as literal as possible, only adding words when absolutely necessary to make scripture intelligible.

 

I second that. :thumbs:

 

I second that. :thumbs:

 

If someone believes that the text was preserved in English then I wonder what language it was preserved in before English was a language and after the original text was written. I think that would be at least 1100 years of time.

 

The Bible disappeared, only to magically re-appear when the specially anointed men who translated the KJV discovered it. :smilewinkgrin:

(When you it is put like that it sounds almost like Joseph Smith discovering the golden plates)

 

thing is with Psalms 12:6-7, some KJVOs read Dr. Wilkinson's book, where the "Psalms 12:6-7 = justification for KJVO" was poblished, and wrongly applied those verses. If they're both about God's word, they could be applied to ANY valid translation ion ANY language. Anyone see ANY BV or language named anywhere in Psalm 12?

Back to the original question-I believe GOD chose to present the first of His written word in Hebrew cuz it was the language of His peculiar people Israel. Aramaic(Syrian) was the common "esperanto"-type international trade language for that parta the world, & apparently was the language Nebuchadnezzar used to speak with the people he had conquered, including the Jews. Koine Greek became the prevailing language among the Jews and others who lived in or near Judea. It's known that this Greek was much-more in use in that area than Latin was, even during the Roman rule.

GOD caused all three of those languages to become "dead", to cease changing, so that we have His word in unchanging "master" languages, available fror translation into any other language now in use. And I firmly believe that any translation made from these ancient Scriptural mss will be superior to any translation made from an existing translation. Some subtleties & nuances will be lost in any "secondhand" translation no matter how sincere the translators are.

However, a "secondhand" translation is better than none at all!

 

Me too... :thumbs:

Good point gb93433.

Scholarship indicates that the Bible was already translated into many hundreds of language editions by the 300s AD. The OT was translated to Greek in Alexandria well before Christ walked the earth and Origen published the Hexapla before 354 AD, which had 6 translations side-by-side. Long before Origen, there were translations in Coptic (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century), plus others.

We are further indebted to Gutenberg, who printed the German translation in 1455 (preceding Tyndale's first translation into English) and began the process of making the Bible the world's most distributed book.

 

The scriptures can be preserved in more than one language. This is shown by the Ethiopian eunuch. He was clearly reading a Greek translation of the OT, yet the scriptures themselves declare the texts he was reading to be the scriptures.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Almost all scholars believe the texts the Ethiopian eunuch was reading were both a copy and translation of the Hebrew OT, yet the scriptures themselves call them scripture.

So, this belief that only the original autographs in the original languages are scripture is shown false by the scriptures themselves.

 

Winman, you're now making the case for multiple translations. Does that mean you've tossed your KJVO stuff? Do you agree that the best translations are made from the old mss and not from an existing translation?

 

No one is denying that a translation is Scripture.

It is Scripture by derivation from the inspired text.

Also, the words of the NT translation from the OT are inspired in and of themselves from the Hebrew into the Greek.

Third, if the English of the KJV is Scripture, isn't therefore the NIV, RSV, NKJV?

If not, why not and what KJV Scripture and from which KJV revision/publisher do you draw your proof text as to their invalidity?

The KJV translators themselves in their prologue attributed God's gift of inspiration as given to the Prophets and Apostles.

Do you therefore accept their (CofE) claim to apostolic succession?

If so, which revision/publication has the official CofE apostolic stamp of approval?

And then finally why are you not a member of the Church of England (presumably you are Baptist posting in a BB site) seeing they have produced an inspired English text (when one decides which revision/publisher is jot and tittle "perfect") thereby proving their claim of apostolic succession?

HankD

 

Since WE realize that some subtleties & nuances of a work are lost in its translation to another language, we know GOD is aware of this to a much-greater degree than we are. And it is GOD who makes all languages anyway. That's why I say the MESSAGE is the important thing. When a translation alters the MESSAGE, it isn't a valid translation.

Now, GOD certainly isn't limited to English in causing men to translate His word. In fact, he caused Peter's words to be translated into many tongues at the "first pentecost", as recorded in Scripture. I'm sure some people remembered his words & wrote them down in their native tongues.

I believe the "English-only" idea came from folx who don't use any other language, and, based upon the fact that there are more English-language Bibles in existence than are found in any other language.

 

I think it is reasonable to objectively state that the KJV is NOT the "most accurate" translation in English.

If by "accurate" she means strictly 'literal' then some of the versions MORE literal than the KJV would be Darby's and Young's (while still meeting her basic criteria). If by "accurate" she means 'conveying the meaning to the reader' then two versions come to mind that accomplish that BETTER than the KJV would be the NKJV and Webster's.

 

Gutenberg produced a Latin Bible. I'm not sure why you mention Tyndale here; but Wycliffe's English translation DID precede Gutenberg's product. Without much doubt, the Bible was ALREADY the most distributed book in the world before 1455 (which is in part why he thought he could readily sell them).