introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

I meant that there are some very difficult phrases to translate, namely Hebrew. It would be very simplistic to think we absolutely have discerned what every single little Hebrew or biblical line actually said or meant in the original. Some cause great difficulties even for the Hebrew reader, it is simply unreasonable to assume every line of the OT is exactly translated or understood. Do you never concern yourself with checking to see what could be an accurate or comparable understanding in the Hebrew or Septuagint of an OT passage? Are you saying you never had any difficulty with the Hebrew in any verse? You may well not have dug deep enough; there are some texts that almost defy translation. Yet as a whole they do not affect any basic biblical doctrines detrimentally.

By "we" you are talking about modern textual criticism. This was not the attitude of the Reformation scholarship. "Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught." (Luke 5:4). The KJB translators of course dealt with difficulties, but they did as best as they could, and afterward people have accepted their work.

To say that "there are some texts that almost defy translation" is to say that God is weak, that His promises about making the Scripture known to all nations is a false promise, and that somehow some parts of the Bible are unimportant. The reality is that major doctrines are effected and involved in those so called obscure places: things like the integrity of the truth of Scripture, and other such matters. While they may not be salvation issues, they are not unimportant doctrines.

[bibleprotector]

OK then please tell me re "biblifying english" , what is the process that communicated to these KJB 1611 translators the exact english words to be written. To my knowledge the translators never claimed any divine providence in the process in fact didn't they suggest the opposite in the preface.



Steve7150, the writers of the KJV were clearly heretics. They refused to believe the translation they put together was perfect and inerrant.

User avatar
SteveF

BP, Were they heretics or just lacking in spiritual understanding?

Neither.

It is dishonest to ask falsely loaded or falsely closed questions.

The KJB men were not heretics, even if they did not all believe in baptism by full immersion.

And the KJB men were not spiritually dense.

They did not "refuse to believe" (as some today do) that they were handling the Word of God. They did not claim inspiration or claim to be infallible, but they did aim to do a good job. It has been recognised that they did do well, and that it cannot be improved upon.

[bibleprotector]

I do like the KJV alot, yet I keep at least 5 of my different preferred translations at arms reach. And although I rarely find any disagreement within or between them, I generally refer to the NASB first because in debating and teaching I find the NASB usually always comes through as the closest to a word for word agreement, and unity with the abundance of available, and defendable extant texts.

Evidently, then, you do find disagreement between them.

And your preference for the NASV is because you have a present day opinion that it is close (not on parity) with some original language formulation and its meaning.

Further, your preference for the NASV is based on the "defendable exant texts", meaning that you defend a certain family of readings against the rest, which you editorialise as "defendable" because they are defended by modern textual criticism. (Although, also defended by atheists would give rise to the same epithet "defendable".)

But at the heart of the matter is really a theory or hypothesis that says that men today are able to discern that errors have been happening through the transmission of the text, and that by turning to the earliest same language manuscripts, most errors will be eliminated. This is a view which upholds error as prevailing, and human endeavour to counteract it as supreme. It is truly modernistic.

Therefore the reason why you uphold the NASV must be the same reason why you reject the perfection of the KJB. You never started from a Scriptural basis or Biblical doctrine with your pro-NASV anti-KJB perfection reasoning, so the result is just as unscriptural and anti-Biblical. It is, in fact, circular reasoning. Imperfection begats imperfection. Error begats error. Fallibility begats fallibility.

All biblical promises of His Words endurance do not specify any ‘specific’ translation; the promise was a promise of the general safe keeping of His Word. I am sure the understanding is for the whole collection of texts, as even in Ezra and Isaiah’s time they had variant copies and texts that they were aware of. This is no cause for alarm, they were not dummies, we also can put 3 copies along side each other and search for the correlation.

While you obviously are not against the Gospel, you are still theorising about the existence of textual variations in the ancient past, and are putting human endeavour ("not dummies") above what the NT actually states. The NT never discerns any problem with Hebrew copies or the LXX (if it was used). These kinds of variations are magnified now by modernists, because they see disparity and error, and then excuse it as if it is God's will and way.

I recognize Gods word as true. And that God divinely protects His Word in print, and we procure the result. Men can attempt to modify it and define it here and there, and even corrupt it, but His Word never suffers as the result. The efforts are generally found out and identified and understood.

While God's Word itself never suffers, certainly man's corruption is an imposition, and modern versions must therefore abound in the introduction of human thought into the divine truth, so that it does in effect corrupt the formulations of God's Word to men, but it does not corrupt it in the sense that a form of His true Word also exists, and is despised and rejected of men (i.e. the KJB).

The problem is not the 50% or 90% or whatever of where the NASV may be right or not entirely wrong, the problem is the little leaven, the wrong modernistic basis for translating, the error-laden hypotheses concerning textual criticism, the ultimate and enduring rejection of the perfection of the KJB.

[bibleprotector]

My point was that; as many times as man continues to purposefully, or un-purposefully make mistakes in translating and copying Gods Word, God will keep the truth available in some form.

While it is right to believe in the supply of truth through time, it would follow that you should then recognise what the Scripture is exactly pointing to as truth for our time.

Even if the form you hold in your hand may have errors, there are resources and other translations to verify the accuracy, or inaccuracies.

This may be presuming the methodology the Holy Ghost has chosen. You seem to indicate that modern scholarship is a given. Furthermore, you must then be assessing or knowing what these other sources are and the truth of them.

Why haven't you then found or made a perfect Bible yet?

Sure, It would be nice if we had such a stamp of approval on one copy, but wouldn’t we still have to check that copy with another ‘original’ to determine if what we held was an exact, say KJV version, and not a fake?

While your sentiment is correct to see that there should be an exemplar, your insistence that such a standard must be an "original" (or something having descended from heaven on golden plates or whatever) is your imposition of your opinion of how you think the Holy Ghost should do it. Why not consider how He has actually done it?

Is there any Scripture today that says you have to turn to a divine original to know the truth? Is there any that says "Go to Hebrew" or "Go to Greek"?

Truth is not locked in Hebrew:

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Ro 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Truth is not locked in Hebrew and Greek:

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Truth is not locked in Greek:

Mr 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Ac 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

There is no proof but research itself, and a promise that I can trust God will get me ‘good’ copies if I am sincere in my pursuit.

Your empirical, humanistic, neutral and modern approach is not what the Bible says.

You claim there is no proof by research itself. The Bible says:

Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

Again, you believe that God will supply you good copies in your sincere pursuit. Well, here is the answer:

Ps 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

Where is the great publishing of His Word? The KJB best matches this requirement.

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Where is the singular book? By having a one language Bible (i.e. both OT & NT) indicates that the doctrine for using the KJB is right, where no word fails and every promise comes to pass. Even people who used the KJB were the ones who saw in Idumea that the birds lived there, such as General Allenby and others in 1917.

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

If God inspired His Word and it was true, perfect and inerrant, why would there be failure in time to gather together the perfect words? It follows that the KJB is the prospering one, with every sign of its being exact over and above all comers today.

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." [/color](Rev. 3:18) Tried means tested.

And hasn't the KJB been so tried and tested as all the modernistic attack against it?

[SteveF]

BP, do you believe it would be important that the KJV translators had a good understanding of languages like Ancient Greek and Hebrew?

[bibleprotector]

BP, do you believe it would be important that the KJV translators had a good understanding of languages like Ancient Greek and Hebrew?

Your tense is wrong. The KJB has on the (uninspired) front page that it was translated out of the original tongues, etc. There is plenty of testimony that the KJB translators knew Hebrew and Greek very well. And that was important in order to get it properly into English. But the work has been accomplished, and the point is this: God's Word is not limited today to a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. We have His Word exactly in English.

[Paidion]

Let's consider a passage, Philippians 2:5,6, in which the AV (Authorized Version/King James Version) differs substantially from more modern versions such as the Revised Standard Version.

The AV reads thusly:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God...

And the Revised Standard Version:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped...

I think the average person would see these statements as exactly opposite. The AV seems to say that Christ didn't consider that He was robbing God in any way by being equal to Him. The ESV seems to say that though Jesus was in the form of God, He did not seek to be equal with Him.

Which is correct? I looked up the passage in Greek, and as far as I could translate it with my limited knowledge of Greek (I've studied it formally for only a few years), both translations of the phrase concerning equality with God, are possible renderings of the Greek. So each of the translators must have rendered the passage according to their beliefs.

The next thing to do would be to finish the sentence—see how each fits with the rest of the sentence.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.(Phil 2:5-7 RSV)

I understand the passage as follows: we should have a mind of humility like that of Christ. Even though Christ was divine (in the form of God), He did not try to grasp at equality with God. Instead, He emptied Himself of all of His divine attributes. The only thing He retained was His identity as the Son of God. By being born, He became a true human being, living as a servant (slave) to God His Father.

But what would the King James translation mean?

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.(Phil 2:5-7 AV)

Why "thought it not robbery to be equal with God BUT made himself of no reputation"? Why the "but"? That conjunction is used to join two clauses which contrast in some way. This is clearly done in the RSV translation. If Christ sought equality with God, wouldn't He have continued with God in heaven? Why would He have consented to be born as a human being?

The King James translators were mistranslated "ἑαυτον ἐκενωςεν" in verse 7 as "made himelf of no reputation". This is clearly an interpretation, not a translation. And the framers of the NKJV have slavishly followed this mistranslation. While "ἑαυτον" does mean "himself", the word "ἐκενωςεν" means "emptied". Where did the AV get "made of no reputation" as a translation of the single word "ἐκενωςεν"? Did the King James translators receive a special revelation to change the meaning of that word because that is what God really meant when He inspired the apostle Paul to write the Greek word ἐκενωςεν", though Paul understood what he had written as "emptied"?

[SteveF]

And that was important in order to get it properly into English

Do you think our understanding of Ancient Greek or Hebrew has improved in any way in the last 400 years?

[Paidion]

God's Word is not limited today to a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. We have His Word exactly in English.

My retort is quoted from the words of a little child:

"Your saying so don't make it so."

In making the assertion "We have His Word exactly in English", you need some sort of justification if you expect to be believed.

[bibleprotector]

I think the average person would see these statements as exactly opposite.

Yes, this is where you are getting down to it: the battle between the perfection of the KJB versus the modernistic rendering upheld in directly contradicting modern versions.

There was no nonsense about 'Tashlan' now, it was the rest versus the KJB.

I looked up the passage in Greek

This is like saying you went to En-dor to get some additional information.

The King James translators were mistranslated

Yes, I think you display that with ironic aptness.

Did the King James translators receive a special revelation to change the meaning of that word

The real issue here is, of course, modern day people attempting to foist new meanings onto what the Word of God actually meant in Greek, i.e., we know what it meant in Greek, because we have it properly in English now. To reduce this to the accusation that somehow the KJB translators got a "special revelation" or that they were altering the Word of God is quite untrue and unhistorical.

though Paul understood what he had written as "emptied"?

It is amazing that the modern versionists claim that no translation today can be perfect, yet they dogmatically and assuredly claim that one or other Greek word means this or that, and that the KJB certainly got it wrong.

I think the real doctrine is: We will accept modern versions over the KJB. I mean, according to that theory, the KJB should be right sometimes and the modern versions wrong, but of course, the whole exercise is always focussing on making holes in the KJB. (Ever wonder why there is this maddening rush to prove the KJB wrong?)