Word-For-Word?

Once you have to result to ad-hominems, you lose the argument (not that I was wanting an argument as much as just a simple discussion, but anyways...).

There is no need to rethink my definitions. They are not MY definitions to begin with. I would recommend you get a copy of Dr. H.D.Williams' book Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts to understand proper translating methods that allow God's words to be the authority rather than man's interpretation of what the words might mean. Word-for-word translating is lot simpler than some make it out to be. I had a taste of it for 3 years in the classroom. I perceive that those who scoff at word-for-word translating have probably never tried it. Again, I am not saying there aren't any difficulties involved. There are. But not on the scale that some make it out to be.

 

I saw the other post and did not realize he did not call it a paraphrase. But it sure reads like one!

Here's Rom. 1:26-27 in the NAS:

Here it is in The Message:

Notice how it makes it seem that the sin is confusion, and that there is lust instead of love. It downplays what the real sin is.

I've seen other passages even worse, where the meaning seems different. I don't have time to look now, but I have compared quite a bit of The Message with other versions.

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive. I was mentioning the ones I'm familiar with. I know that The Living Bible is a paraphrase -- I had it for awhile as a new believer until I realized that and then I threw it away.
I agree the NIV is not like the New Century.

 

Nothing personal, brother; I was just covering all the possibilities.

I'll try another approach. Do you believe that every word of the underlying Greek and Hebrew has been translated (literally) into the KJV text, for example?

 

I've been considering buying Williams' book, since there are so few books of any kind on Bible translation methodology, but I'm curious. What are his qualifications? I know he's a medical doctor, right? What are his linguistic qualifications? Is he fluent in a second language? Have a degree in English? Studied Greek and Hebrew?

 

Dr. Williams has 3 earned degrees. He has formal training in Latin, French, Spanish, and is very proficient and an able teacher in Hebrew and Greek. As the vice pres. of the Dean Burgon Society, he along with the DBS has aided as consultants and counsellors for Bible translators and revisors around the world. The way this book came about is interesting. Dr. Williams had a meeting with Dr. Waite, Dr. Gomez (Spanish Bible revisor), Dr. Rex Cobb (Indian dialect Bible translator, linguist, and director of Baptist Bible Translators Institute), Dr. Steven Zeinner (Bearing Precious Seek Global, a ministry that aids Bible translators around the world), Dr. Phil Stringer (former Vice Pres of Landmark Baptist College) and a few others involved in Bible translating and revision. They had a burden to put something into writing that could help guide current and future Bible translators. As members of DBS they are in contact with lots of sincere people who have pure and noble intentions to get God's words into the language of their people but they don't know where to start and exactly how to do the work. So these sat down to discuss translating principles and to put together a list of criteria for translators. Dr. Williams, a gifted writer, put this information together into the book we are discussing. In this book, you will find contributions from Nationals who have produced (and currently working on) Bible translations and revisions in their native languages. It is a very good read and a very important read for those close to the work of Bible translation and revision. I highly recommend it.

BTW, Bro. John, I am highly interested in learning about your work as a Bible translator in Japan. I'm a member of the Advisory Council of the Dean Burgon Society. I am very sympathetic to the cause of getting God's words into different languages. Bro John do you have an email address that I can contact you so that I can ask you some questions and discuss some things with you?

 

No sweat my brother.

To answer your question, no I do not believe every underlying Greek and Hebrew word has been translated in its most literal form. Understand, though formal equivalence (word for word) is the primary goal, there are times when syntax demands for the translator to render a different word order or to perhaps add an article in order for the render to make sense in the receptor language. An example when a literal word for word rendering may not be possible are idioms. In the case of idioms, the translator must sometimes go beyond the realm of a literal verbal equivalent. But these are out of the norm situations. The primary goal should be faithfulness to accurately translate the very words that God breathed and preserved for us in the original languages. Whenever a difficulty or abnormality arises (such as word order or idioms) the translator should seek a way to translate such in a way that both makes sense in the receptor language but is still faithful to its base. This is where things gets tricky, but remember, a translator should not be doing such a task if God did not move him to do so in the beginning. So in such cases, God will help the translator. With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible. I'm not talking about some sort of Double Inspiration. I'm talking about a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led man, which should be a foremost qualification for every Bible translator and revisor.

 

Thanks for the information. I'm glad to know Dr. Williams is not just a "wanna-be!":thumbs:

Send me a PM ("private message") here on the BB and I'd be glad to send you my e-mail address.

John

 

H. D. Williams wrote: "A translator should use the language and vocabulary of the plain man in a language-group to translate the Scriptures" (Word-For-Word Translating, p. 6).

Yet Williams seems to be unwilling to apply his statement to English. In his other book The Pure Words of God, Williams has as the first heading in his preface: "Do Not Change the King James Bible" (p. 11). Williams wrote: "the few archaic words in the King James Bible do not require change" (p. 13). Thus, Williams seems to want the English Bible kept in archaic language and kept using words whose meaning has changed and in words that are not the language and vocabulary of the plain man in English. Words whose meaning has changed give an uncertain sound or sense to present-day English readers. Words whose meaning has changed no longer convey the meaning intended by the KJV translators themselves.

 

In his book, Williams has a chapter entitled "77 Criteria for Translating" (p. 229). He seems to be unaware that a consistent application of some of them would conflict with his KJV-only view.

Williams wrote: "7. Under no circumstance should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example" (p. 230).

The KJV translators were willing to use the Latin Vulgate as an example in some renderings such as "Lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12, to use the Greek LXX as an example in some renderings such as "pygarg" (Deut. 14:5) and "unicorn", and to use the 1582 Rheims New Testament as an example in a good number of N. T. renderings.

Williams wrote: "9. Under no circumstance should an anachronism be used in translating. It is wrong to refer to an item that did not exist in the Biblical times. It will not be true to the culture and historical setting" (p. 230).

The KJV could accurately be considered to have used some anachronistic
renderings such as "steel," "synagogues" (Ps. 74:8), "sackbut" (Dan. 3:5).

 

I agree with Dr. Williams that the KJV should not be changed for this reason. People complain about the old English in the KJV being a language that people do not speak anymore. But the truth is that the language in the KJV is a language that NEVER WAS SPOKEN. The English used in the KJV was strictly a literary English. People were not saying "thee" and "thou" in the 1600s. The English of the KJV represents a standard of purity in the English language. I believe all this was providential because English was to become to most global language. If we were to render a revision of the KJV that puts the language in the common colloquial of the American man in the US, that same vernacular may not work for the English speaker in the Bahamas, or Australia, or New Zealand, or different parts of Europe. But the English of the KJV transcends all English-speaking countries. To change the "archaic" words of the KJV is to take away from the integrity of a literary masterpiece.

And good luck getting the English-speaking world who hold to the Traditional Texts in accepting a revision of the KJV. One sincere group concerned with updating "archaic" words in the KJV had a better idea. They considered updating one of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva or better yet Tyndales (which was not a completed OT). If people are so concerned with an English Bible that is updated in language yet still just as true to the Received Texts as the KJV, why not revise Tyndales?

Besides, is the English in the KJV all that bad? I got saved as a 10 year old Catholic boy. A godly old Black lady witnessed to me and told me to read John 3. One night I read John 3, from a KJV, while under conviction after attending a revival service in a Baptist church (of which I'm now a member of). I got saved that night as a result. I was only 10 years old, yet the "archaic" KJV still got the job done. Look at all the churches and ministries that are flourishing with the KJV as the only Bible they use. I don't believe the "archaic" words of the KJV are a problem at all. Even if they were, that's what dictionaries were made for.

 

H. D. Williams wrote: "Although this author has had formal training in Latin, Spanish, and French and has studied Hebrew and Greek on his own, he would never attempt to translate the Scriptures into another language without the proper experience and training in a specific culture and language-group for many years (viz. 15-20 years)" (Word-For-Word Translating, p. 8).

 

I'm interested to know whether or not "Lucifer" trully was derived from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, or whether it is found in Latin Bibles in general. Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Tyndale all edited their own Latin versions, of which were all before the KJV translators during their work. Latin Vulgate did not always refer to just Jerome's work. The Old Latin Bibles of the Waldenses were being referred to as the "Latin Vulgate" 2 centuries before Jerome started working on his Latin revision.

Besides, the Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims, though Catholic, were not as bad as people make them out to be. Remember, Erasmus and many Reformation era Translators were Catholics. Yet they produced texts that were in the main pure from Alexandrian corruption. I have a copy of the Rheims, and though it has its flaws, it is much closer to the Traditional Texts than the Critical Text based Bibles of today. The Rheims contained Acts 8:37, the Johannine Comma, the Last 12 verses of Mark and many other disputed passages.

Today, the 2 streams of Bible texts have been much more articulated upon then in the Reformation era. So 400 years later, I would agree with Dr. Williams that any translator should base their work upon the Received Texts alone as the foundation. But they should also consult other Traditional Text based Bibles, such as the KJV, as well.

 

Good; but do you understand that many Hebrew MT and Greek TR words go untranslated (even in the KJV, for example)? and that many words were included in the KJV text that have no support from the printed 16th century TR editions or Ben Chayyim Hebrew edition? Just checking.

 

Perhaps you can provide some specific examples and I can consider them.

I am aware that the KJV was based on more than just Greek and Hebrew. The KJV translators testified:

“Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done and to bring back to the anvil that which we hand hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”

As I have stated before, there are times that an exact word-for-word equivalent may not be possible. So the translator will have to consult other language versions to find possible renderings. Such things are understandable. And although I understand that languages have their differences, I believe it is possible to find words from other languages that do not contradict the Received Texts and can therefore be an accurate representation of the original language words though not exactly word-for-word equivalent.

 

The Latin Vulgate that the KJV translators consulted was the Latin Vulgate of Jerome as printed in their day. Stephanus had edited editions of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Erasmus' Latin translation was of the New Testament only. Miles Coverdale translated the Latin New Testament of Jerome into English and had it printed with his English translation of it in 1538. Tyndale's New Testament was printed with a Latin New Testament in an edition or two, but I do not think that William Tyndale himself was the editor of its Latin. So far, I have read no evidence that shows that the Old Latin translations of the Greek LXX in their Old Testament had "lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12. If they did, it was likely through the influence of the Greek Septuagint that has "Hesphoros" (meaning 'Dawn-bringer' and referring to the morning star" (according to Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 268). At least in a good number of verses, the Old Latin Bibles would likely differ more from the Hebrew Masoretic Text than some English Bibles today.

Do you have a copy or reprint of the original 1582 edition of the Rheims New Testament or the later 1700's edition which adopted a number of renderings from the KJV?

 

You may find it interesting that "lucifer" is also found in the Latin text at 1 Peter 1:19 (KJV) --

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:​

I certainly hope that Satan does not arise in the hearts of those heed to the Scriptures.

 

D. A. Waite, who edited Williams' book Word-for-Word Translating (and I think that H. D. Williams also), maintains that the perfect Hebrew text is the Ben Chayyim Hebrew edition.

D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41).

One specific example would be Joshua 21:36-37.

Concerning Joshua 21:36-37, Eliezer Katz wrote: "The two verses do not appear in Hebrew version" (New Classified Concordance,
p. xxxiv). Arthur Farstad claimed that "Joshua 21:36-37 is lacking in the Masoretic text," but it was added to the KJV from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions (The NKJV: In the Great Tradition, p. 96). Joshua 21:36-37 are not in the standard Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Chayim, but these two verses were in the First Rabbinic Bible edited by Pratensis. Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965).

 

All of these Latin editions were revised. As I said, in the main, even Jerome's Latin Vulgate was not as far removed from the Traditional Texts as the Modern English versions of today. The Catholic's main concern with Jerome Vulgate was to include the Apocrypha in the text. That was the main brunt of the corruption.

Again, a word that may not be exactly word-for-word equivalent does not necessarily make it contradictory to the word in the source language. Formal Equivalence does not mean that there is only ONE option that can be accurate. There are many times a pool of words that can all be accurate. Of course, the translator must choose the word that MOST accurately represents the base word but also makes the MOST sense in the receptor language.

For example, take the word Lucifer. The base Hebrew word is heylel. According to Strongs, Lucifer is not in contradiction to heylel as it is given by Strong as an example of word choice for heylel:

hêylêl
hay-lale'
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.

I have a photocopy reprint of the later 1700s edition. Where can I find information that this copy adopted renderings from the KJV?

 

I currently only have the Ginsberg edition of the Masoretic text. I have ordered a CD-Rom copy of the Ben Chayim edition of the MT. I cannot comment on Josh 21:36-37 until I have looked into it. Thank you for the information.

You should know however that a difference in the KJV from the Ben Chayim MT would not effect Dr. Waite's view on the perfection of the Ben Chayim Hebrew text. Dr. Waite does not ascribe perfection for translations, not even the KJV, though he upholds the KJV as the most accurate and faithful and therefore superior to all other modern English versions. He reserves the term 'perfect' for the Ben Chayim Hebrew text and Scrivener's Annotated Greek NT.

 

Certainly: Joshua 21:36-37 are absent from the Hebrew underlying the KJV. The words "the brother of" (italized, inserted) are not found in any Hebrew MSS. The later portion of 1 John 2:23 (also italized in the KJV) is not from the TR (but are not words supplied by the translators' to simply 'smooth' out the English); the first portion of Acts 9:6 is not found in any Greek MSS (but IS in the TR). Then there are the subscripts of the Pauline Epistles that ARE in the TR (and original 1611) but not printed in all modern KJVs (although some publishers still print these at the last verse of these books).