# All Translations are Imperfect



## Afterthought (Mar 13, 2014)

Must all translations be imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?

Are all translations imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?

(By "containing no error", I mean that if a word is translated incorrectly, then that word cannot be considered the Word of God in the same sense as a word that is translated correctly. There is probably a better way to phrase the question, since it is possible that the mistranslation does not create an actual error; but I guess "mistranslation" is only one way to understand "error in translation" and "imperfect translations.")

It seems it depends on what is meant by "perfect" and "error." I hear these claims frequently, but I'm not sure in what senses they are intended. In what senses are the above claims true or false and how does that tie in with the translation possessing the qualities of inspiration, infallibility, etc., since it is the Word of God? Maybe it is only mostly the Word of God or is the Word of God for all practical purposes, with only a few bad translations that cannot be considered God's Word?


----------



## MW (Mar 13, 2014)

Traditionally Protestants defended their translations against Papist accusations that they were in error by showing the difference between doctrine and detail. That a word or phrase might be translated in more than one way or be improved upon does not mean the translation teaches erroneous doctrine.

It should be observed that many who call themselves Protestants today have given up on this traditional belief, and prefer to admit some error in translation, and will opt for multiple translations. Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 13, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.


 Never thought of it that way before! When thought about, I agree.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 14, 2014)

I tend to agree with the point of view that the original autographs contain no error, so the Word of God contains no error. To date no original autograph has been discovered to remain extant so we must rely on copies. Translations are inevitably a compromise but we can, according to the scholars who engage in the study of them, rely on them to be as accurate as man is capable of.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.



I suppose multiplying translations multiplies errors the same way multiplying witnesses multiplies errors, but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this. It is only through the multiplying of witnesses that the errors of the first become manifest.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Mar 14, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I tend to agree with the point of view that the original autographs contain no error, so the Word of God contains no error. To date no original autograph has been discovered to remain extant so we must rely on copies. Translations are inevitably a compromise but we can, according to the scholars who engage in the study of them, rely on them to be as accurate as man is capable of.



According to the Scholars?

According to the Priest...


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Mar 14, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I tend to agree with the point of view that the original autographs contain no error, so the Word of God contains no error. To date no original autograph has been discovered to remain extant so we must rely on copies. Translations are inevitably a compromise but we can, according to the scholars who engage in the study of them, rely on them to be as accurate as man is capable of.



According to the Scholar / According to the Priest

One is made by the Protestant, the other by the Romanist.

Is the Word of God possessed or not? Is it visible or not? Can it be ascertained by the Christian or not? Or is he at the mercy of scholars?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 14, 2014)

SRoper said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.
> ...



I don't follow your logic, witnesses are supposed to be copies of the same text in the same original language, therefore the more witnesses you have the better chance you have to weed out the errors since the text should be identical. Translations on the other hand can translate the same original words differently depending on the interpretations or biases of the translator(s), therefore you have more chances of bringing confusion and errors by multiplying "different" translations of the same text, especially when you do not have access to the original languages or are unable to read them.


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 14, 2014)

I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation _is_ perfect and _who_ determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 14, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation _is_ perfect and _who_ determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."



I would says the Synod, not saying the decision would necessarily be infallible (especially if you are in a more liberal denomination) but if we are to determine which translation should be used in public worship I believe the Synod should determine which translations is more appropriate according to the denomination accepted standards.


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 14, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose the problem this raises is deciding which translation _is_ perfect and _who_ determines that. The indy-fundy Baptist movement that I came out of would (incorrectly) say that Psalm 12:6 proves that the KJV is the perfect translation, claiming it was the seventh English translation, and thus "pure."
> ...



The Synod determining which translation is best, or should be used in public worship is one thing, but I was referring to a declaration of a translation being perfect.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 14, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > thbslawson said:
> ...



If you are not under their authority then what other people think or claim should not matter to you. We cannot, nor should we attempt to, regulate what every professing Christian believe or profess, what we can do is, to the best of our ability, and according to to means available to us and according to our status in the church (or as head of household) make sure that those who are under our care use the most accurate translation available. (Remember we are not dealing with empirical science, but the logic of faith can assure us that we do have the pure Word of God)


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 14, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > Fogetaboutit said:
> ...



I agree with you. But your OP was asking whether or not all translations must be imperfect. So I'm addressing that by saying I don't think there would be a way to declare one translation perfect. I don't see how that could happen. To declare one "better" or "most accurate" is one thing. To declare one "perfect" is another.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 14, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> I agree with you. But your OP was asking whether or not all translations must be imperfect. So I'm addressing that by saying I don't think there would be a way to declare one translation perfect. I don't see how that could happen. To declare one "better" or "most accurate" is one thing. To declare one "perfect" is another.



As I said we cannot "empirically" declare a translation to be "perfect" but we can declare it to be the pure Word of God based on logic and faith. The same thing applies to the originals writings, we cannot "empirically" demonstrate that they were perfectly inspired yet all orthodox believers have no issues claiming such thing no matter which side of the texutal debtate they stand.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 14, 2014)

See also:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-did-pastors-discard-KJV-80524/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/only-perfect-translation-70942/index2.html


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

SRoper said:


> but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this.



Your analogy does not work because you have failed to qualify the witnesses must necessarily have "error" in the same sense that translations must necessarily have error. Every court agrees the multiplication of "erroneous" witnesses is quite detrimental to the pursuit of truth and justice. A legal practitioner will certainly face disciplinary action if he wittingly introduces a witness who will propagate errors in a judicial proceeding.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Translations are inevitably a compromise



A compromise of what? The word of God is the children's bread and intended to be read and heard in the vernacular.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 14, 2014)

> And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground (I Sam 3:19)



God has preserved His perfect Word as He wished to. Would God ever let any of His Words fall to the ground?

As regards translations, didn't the apostles make substantial use of the Greek version of the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint?


----------



## Philip (Mar 14, 2014)

The trouble with translation (and not just Bible translation) is that there is never quite a 1:1 correspondence. Words do things in one language that they don't do in another, and any time you translate something, you lose connotations from the first language and take on ones in the second.

Example: the Latin translation of the Chalcedonian formulas says two _substantiae_ in one _persona_. Well and good, except that when the Greek fathers read that translation, they read two _hypostases_ in one _prosopon_. In other words, they heard the Nestorian heresy in the Latin formulation because there were distinctions that had been made in Greek that weren't quite translatable into Latin. Now if you are fluent in both and capable of fully understanding both such that you think in both, you can produce better translations, but you will still never be able to produce exact translations. This is why you have loanwords, but even then, loanwords take on a life of their own once borrowed by another language.

Then there are the problems of connotation. There are shades and nuances of connotation that get lost in translation due to differing contexts. All of this, by the way, in philosophy is known as "intederminacy of translation."


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

We might take basic words like "God" and "worship," where the original connections and connotations are removed and replaced with vernacular ideas. It is the function of reading and re-reading to replenish these terms with their original biblical content. Problems arise when translation is made to convey too much. Translation cannot take the place of familiarity. Philosophers have loaded linguistics with unattainable goals.


----------



## Philip (Mar 14, 2014)

True enough, Rev. Winzer, but there is a reason why we make our seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew (a painful subject for me at the moment): because there are connotations, cultural associations, and constructions present in the text that simply aren't translatable, or which haven't been accurately translated. If one English translation is absolutely sufficient, then we have no need to bother with the original languages unless we're attempting to translate into someone else's vernacular. If we still need to learn these languages, though: if it's not an exercise in redundancy, it seems to me that this would indicate that there is room for improvement in the translations that we have.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

Philip said:


> there is a reason why we make our seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew



English-speaking seminarians learn Anglicised Greek and Hebrew. The process is one of correlating Greek and Hebrew to English. All of the tools and skills are tied to their mother language. All of their learning is tied to mediums like grammars, lexicons, etc. They never purely learn Greek and Hebrew.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 14, 2014)

SRoper said:


> I suppose multiplying translations multiplies errors the same way multiplying witnesses multiplies errors, but no one claims that multiplying witnesses is bad because of this. It is only through the multiplying of witnesses that the errors of the first become manifest.


What though if the witness says, "he didn't say that at all" when the person did? Then the next witness says "no, he did not say that" when he did? The next says "he may have said that but im not sure".
Then the next one says "it happened on this date" when it didn't? Then all those witnesses will make the person who was telling the truth look like they are not!
A good witness will agree with the truth. And those who do not...


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Translations are inevitably a compromise
> ...


Reverend Winzer, no argument from me regarding the Word of God. Translations however are imperfect as I understand it. Dr. WD Mounce in Greek For The Rest Of Us, has a fascinating chapter on translation. Here is a link and a partial quote ;



> "All Bible translations are interpretive. Do you believe that? I know a lot of people say, “This Bible is not interpretive.” That’s absolutely impossible. Well, yes, there has been a Bible that’s been written that is not interpretive. It’s the one written in Greek. Okay, this is the non-interpretive Bible. It’s the only one that exists for the New Testament. And yet, even this is interpreted to a degree. See all this stuff along the bottom? That shows where all the Greek texts are different and the editors of this particular edition of the Greek have had to look at all these differences in the Greek manuscripts and decide which one they think is original. So, okay, yes, I take it back. Yes, even this book is interpretive, but a lot less interpretive than any English translation is. So all are interpretive."



Dr. Mounce's describing the two years he was on the ESV translation committee helped me to better understand the process. I've also got a link here to the preface to the AV, especially 'the translator to the reader' from which I post this quote ;



> Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie.
> 
> Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine.
> 
> There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.



The above is the best I can do to illustrate my point. As Phillip has so ably pointed out, I don't think there is any argument that something is inevitably lost in translation, as the saying goes, therefore it becomes a compromise, never exact. In my humble opinion.


----------



## Philip (Mar 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> English-speaking seminarians learn Anglicised Greek and Hebrew. The process is one of correlating Greek and Hebrew to English. All of the tools and skills are tied to their mother language. All of their learning is tied to mediums like grammars, lexicons, etc. They never purely learn Greek and Hebrew.



Tis the nature of learning any language in a classroom setting.


----------



## jandrusk (Mar 14, 2014)

There is no such thing as a perfect translation; as has been said the scriptures in the original languages is what's inspired/infallible/perfect. This is because the very fact that you are translating, shows that you are changing the original text to comply with the target language. This does not mean that all translations are on equal grounds; some are better than others and it's the churches responsibility to discern which ones are acceptable and which ones are not.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Dr. WD Mounce in Greek For The Rest Of Us, has a fascinating chapter on translation.



All translation is interpretative, no doubt. I would go one step further and say that even the Hebrew and Greek is interpreted because of textual criticism and internal evidence. However, the interpretation, though not infallible, is treated as sound when grounded on sound principles. Hence a distinction should be drawn between words and sense, or what I called doctrine and details above. If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.


----------



## Philip (Mar 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.



Absolutely. The message of the Scriptures shines through even in an imperfect and imprecise translation.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. WD Mounce in Greek For The Rest Of Us, has a fascinating chapter on translation.
> ...


There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible is the Word of God. That Jesus the Christ came into this world of time, performed signs and wonders but His own received Him not, They crucified the Lord of Glory, and the Father raised Him up, He was seen by 500 persons before He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father to be our intercessor.

I 'got' all of that from the Holy Bible. A translation, not perfect or infallible, but the Word nonetheless. Having cut my teeth on the KJV for most of my life, I began reading other English translations and through comparison satisfied myself that they are by and large trustworthy.

At 65 I've begun to give learning Greek a try. Memorized the alphabet finally. Whether I'll ever be able to read the NT in the Greek depends on how much longer I live and how hard I work I suppose.

The thing is I know whom I have believed. I don't need to stick my hand into His side, or feel the nail holes in His hands. Whether I'm reading the AV, ESV, NKJV &tc I feel I am imbibing the sincere milk of the Word.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

Philip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.
> ...



If the message shines through something in the translation is received as being soundly interpreted. If so, some distinction needs to be made in order to properly identify what it is you believe is in error. The blanket statement that it errs will mislead so far as your intention is concerned.


----------



## MW (Mar 14, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I 'got' all of that from the Holy Bible. A translation, not perfect or infallible, but the Word nonetheless. Having cut my teeth on the KJV for most of my life, I began reading other English translations and through comparison satisfied myself that they are by and large trustworthy.



Your church says the Bible teaches more than this, and does so on the supposition that it has properly interpreted the Scriptures. The fact is, a Bible reader takes a whole lot for granted that he does not stop to consider when entering into this type of discussion.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 14, 2014)

Should we say that the _meaning_ of Scripture is properly the Word of God, since language (on which even the original manuscripts depend) seems to be subjective rather than objective? God has not given us an infallible dictionary for the language in which His Word was originally written, right?


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 14, 2014)

Good discussion. I can't reply to everything, but just a note concerning some of the replies: it isn't helpful to merely say translations are imperfect, or fallible, or that they err. It is obvious that words in one language cannot always fit neatly into words in another language. My question though is precisely in what sense are they "imperfect" or "fallible" or "errant," especially when one considers the qualities of the Word of God are not lost in a translation and that the translations are considered by many to be the Word of God, even when translations are contradictory (preachers will say concerning the public reading of the Scriptures that it is the reading of God's "holy, inspired, and infallible Word" but will also sometimes say, "feel free to follow along in any translation that you have")! And the other question is: Are there any translations that can be considered "perfect," given the sense placed on "perfect" in the previous question?



armourbearer said:


> Your church says the Bible teaches more than this, and does so on the supposition that it has properly interpreted the Scriptures. The fact is, a Bible reader takes a whole lot for granted that he does not stop to consider when entering into this type of discussion.


The Westminster Confession seems to imply that translations are considered the Word of God:

"VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b *But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,c therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all*, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.f"




armourbearer said:


> Traditionally Protestants defended their translations against Papist accusations that they were in error by showing the difference between doctrine and detail. That a word or phrase might be translated in more than one way or be improved upon does not mean the translation teaches erroneous doctrine.
> 
> It should be observed that many who call themselves Protestants today have given up on this traditional belief, and prefer to admit some error in translation, and will opt for multiple translations. Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.


This is helpful. I find "doctrine" and "detail" more easily grasped terms than "sense."

By "detail," do you mean shades of meaning that words in a target language might not be able to convey, or do you mean translating words that are flatly contradictory in meaning? I was reading Deut. 24 recently, and I remembered someone once saying the AV translated one of the "then"s incorrectly in the passage on divorce, saying that it should be translated as "And" instead. Which word is chosen completely alters the sense of the text, and it would seem to me the translation choices are mutually exclusive. They might not touch on doctrine, but they come close to doing so, given the subsequent use of it made by Jesus and that the WCF viewed marriage and divorce important enough to place in our Confession. I'm sure there are other, similar examples (maybe "faith of [vs in] Christ" or the passage in Genesis 4 concerning Cain and "ruling" over sin) where translation choices are contradictory and possibly touch on doctrine, and if the translation choice is contradictory, then only one can be right; but if only one can be right, the incorrect one must not be the Word of God?

That's a good observation on witnesses. However, wouldn't that mean those who do not view translations as containing errors would want more translations in order to flesh out the "detail"?

The question has been answered on translations potentially not containing errors, but are there any translations that exist that do not err so far as doctrine is concerned?


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Your church says the Bible teaches more than this, and does so on the supposition that it has properly interpreted the Scriptures. The fact is, a Bible reader takes a whole lot for granted that he does not stop to consider when entering into this type of discussion.


 That I am 'outgunned' as it were, in this discussion, by reason of "a little knowledge being a dangerous thing" I'll freely admit. However, I surmise that the Westminster Divines, were they sitting in conference with the discoveries and advances made in philology since 1647, would respect, and take into consideration, more than one family of manuscripts and the translations available to them in their day. Hence I'm assuming the church would approve of some of our modern translations. My attendance at an OPC church seems to bear this out.


----------



## Philip (Mar 14, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Should we say that the meaning of Scripture is properly the Word of God



No. We believe in verbal inspiration.



armourbearer said:


> If the message shines through something in the translation is received as being soundly interpreted.



Something does not imply everything. I may believe it better for someone to read the NLT than no translation at all. I am admitting a degree of soundness only.



armourbearer said:


> Your church says the Bible teaches more than this, and does so on the supposition that it has properly interpreted the Scriptures. The fact is, a Bible reader takes a whole lot for granted that he does not stop to consider when entering into this type of discussion.



But the problem here is that I would hesitate to call the King James Version, or the English Standard Version or any of the other various and sundry translations available infallible and inerrant.


----------



## MW (Mar 15, 2014)

Philip said:


> But the problem here is that I would hesitate to call the King James Version, or the English Standard Version or any of the other various and sundry translations available infallible and inerrant.



You just said the message shines through. Is that message infallible or not? Fallible interpretation/translation does not mean the thing interpreted/translated becomes fallible. God's word in English is still God's word, infallible and true.


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Is that message infallible or not?



The message is infallible, but an infallible message can reach us through a translation that is not inerrant.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 15, 2014)

Philip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > If you really believed all translations erred so far as the message of the Bible is concerned you would never rest in an inerrant Word, but constantly be changing with the wind.
> ...



Yes. I think we need to keep in mind the overall theological perspective that God designed His Word to be soundly translated, and therefore we can have confidence in sound translations. 

These "problems" of translation, to the extent that they are problems, were and are known to the Lord.


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2014)

It is different to say that a translation is basically sound than to say that it is inerrant.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 15, 2014)

Philip said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Should we say that the meaning of Scripture is properly the Word of God
> ...



So, it wasn't like God gave the meaning of His Word to the minds of the human authors of the Bible and then they expressed it in their own language? But even though the human authors penned exactly the language which God intended them to, isn't the language still the product of the culture? Language and definitions of words change as people's minds change.

Therefore, if we call the original manuscripts the Word of God (and not just the meaning or message conveyed by it), who is the final authority in defining the Greek and Hebrew language it was written in? 

Also, if the original manuscripts are the Word of God, and the Word of God lasts forever, then we should expect Greek and Hebrew to last forever, too. Really??


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 15, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...


2Peter 1: 20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1John 5:13
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 

2Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 15, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Philip said:
> ...



So, did God create a brand new language (or at least brand new words) in the inspiration of His Word, or did He use an already-existing language that was invented by the culture?


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 15, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> So, did God create a brand new language (or at least brand new words) in the inspiration of His Word, or did He use an already-existing language that was invented by the culture?


 The OT was written in the language of the Jews, Hebrew, and the NT, largely in the language of most of the world then, Greek. The Koine variety which the papyri tells us was the common vernacular.

I had a lot of discomfort with the debate of the 'higher critics' of the 19th and 20th centuries. All of the newer English translations, literal, dynamic equivalence and that. Some years ago I was re-reading Studies in the Sermon On the Mount, by Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and what he said in the forward was an epiphany for me. I stopped worrying about all of that, accepted that the Scriptures are trustworthy by faith. Here is what he wrote ;



> "There is nothing more important in the Christian life than the way in which we approach the Bible and the way in which we read it. It is our textbook, it is our only source, it is our only authority. We know nothing about God and about the Christian life in a true sense apart from the Bible. We can draw various deductions from nature (and possibly from various mystical experiences) by which we can arrive at a belief in a supreme Creator. But I think it is agreed by most Christians and it has been traditional throughout the long history of the Church that we have no authority save this Book. We cannot rely solely upon subjective experiences because there are evil spirits as well as good spirits' there are counterfeit experiences. Here, in the Bible is our sole authority."


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2014)

Samuel, we believe that the words themselves were chosen by God for his purposes, and yet they are fully human. The Scriptures are fully human words and yet fully Divine words. And this is why we believe it necessary to study the original languages and cultures: so that we can better understand what God has said.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 15, 2014)

Philip said:


> Samuel, we believe that the words themselves were chosen by God for his purposes, and yet they are fully human. The Scriptures are fully human words and yet fully Divine words. And this is why we believe it necessary to study the original languages and cultures: so that we can better understand what God has said.



Philip, when God speaks the human language, His Words have only one true meaning. However, when we look at the origination of the language itself, there is no one objective definition to its words, but multiple definitions. So, even if we do study Hebrew or Greek, can we ever know _for sure_ which definition was used for a particular word? Or is this where the Holy Spirit comes into play and gives us the correct definition?


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Philip, when God speaks the human language, His Words have only one true meaning.



That's not how ordinary speech works. There are plays on words in the original languages that exploit ambiguities in the original languages for humorous effect.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> So, even if we do study Hebrew or Greek, can we ever know for sure which definition was used for a particular word?



We have the ordinary sort of certainty that I, for instance, have that I am correctly ascertaining the intent of the words of the question you just asked. Given the tools at my disposal, I am reasonably certain that I understand how you are using the words in your question and understand what the question as a whole means. That's the sort of certainty that we have, guided, we pray, by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 15, 2014)

Perhaps the fact that God communicates His text to us logically and all of its parts are coherent with each other helps us to arrive at the chosen definition of the individual words that form the text. In that sense, it is not necessary for the reader of the Bible to engage in an explicit study of the original languages, since he cannot not study them in reading the Bible. If you try to understand the Bible, you are necessarily trying to understand the original languages. And since God's speech is logical, logic helps us to that end sufficiently enough.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 15, 2014)

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I don’t want to get into a long discussion on this (being busy with other projects), but would like to share my viewpoint, as this is such an important matter to me. I am really quite a skeptic about most everything, but when convinced of something then am solid in my confidence. It is wise to always keep an open mind, but there _are_ things on which my mind is irrevocably made up, such as the triune nature of God, the deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, etc, etc. One such thing is the utter reliability of Scripture, based on His promises to preserve His word, and confirmed by evidences He has given us in various forms.

I think it is important to follow the history of the transmission of the NT text; the best – on the _early_ history – is chapter 5 in Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, and then to follow it up till the day of Erasmus and the later Reformation editors, for it is crucial that we have (in this case the Greek) preserved Scripture, which cannot be ascertained apart from a clear confidence in the providence of God throughout this whole process, in fulfilling His promises to give us His word intact and without error. So much for the _original_ languages (the same can be said of the Hebrew, though it is a different story – process – than the Greek).

Let’s bypass the whole Critical Text / Received Text controversy, and get to the issue of the translations. The respective translations must needs depend on the validity of their original language texts, and the one I will focus on is the English translation of the Received Text.

In the thread I’ve seen it said that both the ESV and the AV (KJV) have their errors. This is why it is important to get into the trenches and examine and contend for the minute readings and their faithfulness / accuracy to the Greek and Hebrew originals. Of course in a translation, as has been pointed out, nuances in the original language cannot always be carried over into English (or any language) with the full meaning it had, but it nonetheless can be faithfully translated so as to convey the primary meaning. The value in knowing the Greek or Hebrew is to be able to discern these nuances of meaning so as to exposit well and fully what God spoke through His prophets and apostolic writers; the trouble is that one must really have a mastery of the languages which few ministers have, and so lexical aids and commentaries are very useful, for fairly accomplished linguists, as well as for folks who do not know the languages. Even so, professors and experts – fine as they may be at times – are not to supplant the authority of the Scriptures, and the Spirit of Christ who teaches us through them (1 John 2:20-27). Consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:
There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of _The Pilgrim's Progress_. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.​ 
One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:
John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’​ 
Back to the nuances, one may with profit compare various translations, as well lexicons and word studies, but the basic English text – the “gold standard” as it were – is the Received Text. This has been argued so much that it would be pointless to continue it here again! What I mean to be saying is that this is the only English version whose translation I trust, and can read with confidence. I can do so with no other. I bear with archaic words (I have the tools to look them up and understand their modern meanings) and difficult passages. Were I mining for gold, I would not be deterred by difficulties in getting the solid nuggets out, nor in refining them. I am not in a hurry when I ponder my Bible. I can take my time with it. It is the word of my God, and He speaks with me through and by it.

I will not push my view on you as to which is the best, though nothing prevents me from saying that *I* find the AV incomparably superior in many respects, not least of which is its faithfulness to the originals. If you can defend your Bible against the attacks of Bart Ehrman and his ilk, power to you, but I _can_ defend mine.

It being a translation faithfully and accurately rendered from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and _those_ truly preserved originals, having it I am able to say with Jeremiah, “thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts” (Jer 15:16).


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2014)

Steve, I think my concern is that we don't put a particular translation on a pedestal. Unless we are going to pronounce a doctrine of verbal translational inspiration, I think we have to admit that all translations are at least capable of error, much like our confessions. We choose the translations we do because we see them as being most faithful to the original, just like we subscribe to confessions because we see their teachings as the teachings of Scripture.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Perhaps the fact that God communicates His text to us logically and all of its parts are coherent with each other helps us to arrive at the chosen definition of the individual words that form the text.



The problem here is that words don't just mean one thing: they mean different things in context. I can make you a deal or I can deal you a hand of cards or I can deal with a problem or I can make a big deal of nothing. In one sentence I have used the word "deal" in four different ways. God's word is coherent and true, which means that we can understand it by reading it plainly within the literary context (which includes all of Scripture, not just the genre of literature), and I think that's what you're ultimately getting at.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 15, 2014)

Philip said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the fact that God communicates His text to us logically and all of its parts are coherent with each other helps us to arrive at the chosen definition of the individual words that form the text.
> ...



Thanks for stressing this, Philip. I easily forget that the context ultimately defines a word, and that although a same word cannot mean multiple things at the same time, it can mean different things depending on the context.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 15, 2014)

Hello Philip,

I appreciate your desire for intellectual integrity, and for balance with regard to the translation(s) we use, that we do not vaunt it / them above what is warranted.

On the other hand, there is a difference between “a doctrine of verbal translational inspiration” and consistent faithfulness throughout by virtue of God’s providential guidance in having the particular translators available, the educations He gave them, their studies and consultations for the work, etc.

We acknowledge the absolute of necessity of faith in almost all aspects of the Christian life, yet respecting the preservation of God’s word – His keeping its readings intact up through the centuries – and bringing this together in perfection at the time just prior to the great missionary thrusts into the dark regions of the world, as well the growing universality of English as the common language, with respect, I say, to the matter of His preserving His word and carrying it over into English, we do not utilize the power of faith in this most important area of the Christian life, but prefer rationalistic evidences of a supposedly scientific approach.

Nor is there any fault in asserting the Bible was preserved intact! As though there were anything untoward or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His every word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by *every* word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many millennia since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world! 

It is thought by some an immense task for the Lord to have inspired and then preserved through His providence every word of His Bible. Consider though: He knew us and loved us with an eternal love, and chose us to be in Christ from before the creation of the world, that is, way before we existed in the material realm. He thus preserved the specific genetic information in our DNA and the raw molecular material needed for the formation and manifestation of our beings all through the violent and ravaged history of the human race down to our day, so that we would be the very beings He had conceived in “eternity past”. That kind of preservation of keeping the genetic information intact – along with other manifold factors – so that *you* would manifest as He knew you in ages past is even more remarkable than keeping His words through the prophets, the Lord Christ, and the apostolic writers intact down through the ages.

If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?

As though it were an odd thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Traditionally Protestants defended their translations against Papist accusations that they were in error by showing the difference between doctrine and detail. That a word or phrase might be translated in more than one way or be improved upon does not mean the translation teaches erroneous doctrine.


I like this way of putting it. One of the things I've appreciated about studying the original language is the recognition that, even knowing the original language, one still must come to the conclusion that one needs the Spirit to understand properly what one is reading.


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?



I have no doubt that the preservation of the Bible from the time when it was written to the present is providential, particularly in light of the dearth of similar evidence for other texts from the same periods. I cannot see how this necessitates canonizing any particular translation. I can agree that the AV should be read and studied, both as a translational and literary masterpiece, but that in no way implies that there could be no translational, textual, or idiomatic improvement in subsequent translations. The AV is written in a language that many find confusing and others pretentious (I've learned to drop the "thou"s from my prayers even though it's my natural cadence, because it fails to edify anyone but myself). 

Translators, even good ones, even good churchmen, can and do err, and their work is not verbally inspired. Even you would admit that there are discrepancies in the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus, even if you would say that compared to each other we can discover them. We preach the word from our pulpits and believe that it speaks truly even though preachers, even faithful ones, can and do err.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 15, 2014)

To have a sound translation you would first need sound translators. The tree is known by its roots. That so many modern translations do not or did not have sound translators, or worked from manuscripts that had origins from unsound translators, some who held doctrines that are to be totally rejected then the end result, the tree or "translation" will be unsound. If not then the teaching of the tree being known by its roots is wrong! Can a bad tree bring forth good fruit? Does a good tree bring forth bad?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 15, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> One of the things I've appreciated about studying the original language is the recognition that, even knowing the original language, one still must come to the conclusion that one needs the Spirit to understand properly what one is reading.


Which is also the emphasis of 1 Cor 1:18 - 2:16


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 16, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> As though it were an odd thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs!


Let us all join in fervent prayer for those poor souls, who by God's providence, were unfortunate enough to be born and bred in non English speaking countries, never learned the English language, and had to do with texts other than the AV.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 16, 2014)

Jimmy, I gather your statement is tongue-in-cheek. I’ve taught people whose native languages have been Persian (Farsi), Arabic, Dinka and Nuer (South Sudanese tongues), Swahili, Hungarian, French, Tagalog (Filipino), etc – and some of them have excellent translations.

An illustration – some Swahili-speakers who had been given ESVs prior to my teaching assignment, and perceiving my knowledge of textual issues, came to me after a class asking how come the Ethiopian’s account in Acts 8:37 was missing and reckoned illegitimate? It caused confusion among them, as in Bibles they had been accustomed to using it was present. After the formation of the Greek Textus Receptus, it was translated not only into the 1611 AV, but into many other languages and used widely in missionary activity. 

Even if the TR was not translated into a language, but a CT Greek edition was, the NT still would be _adequately_ preserved so as to be an instrument of God’s saving power in Christ. And this would be the case for those with slightly flawed translations (or in the early centuries, Greek mss) – the Bibles they had were adequate to save souls and to sustain godly churches throughout the world, even if in minutiae there were flaws. Yet it is a good thing to have a perfect original-language text, and a faithful translation of it. Still, God is not limited by the slight flaws in versions, but can work mightily through them, as we see even today.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

Could someone answer to this question I asked earlier,

If the original manuscripts are the Word of God, and the Bible says the Word of God lasts forever, should we expect Greek and Hebrew to last forever, too?

I'm curious if the Bible uses the term "the Word of God" in more than one sense.

It should be clear that the Word of God _as the original manuscripts_ is only a medium of its meaning or truth, and we are not, therefore, interested in the Word of God _itself_, but the meaning or truth it reveals to us.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2014)

The Scriptures use "word of God" to refer to themselves, but they also talk about Jesus as the eternal Word of God (John 1). 



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> It should be clear that the Word of God as the original manuscripts is only a medium of its meaning or truth, and we are not, therefore, interested in the Word of God itself, but the meaning or truth it reveals to us.



That's the mistake of Barth and neo-orthodoxy. We can speak of the Scriptures we have as the word of God, even if we know that there is human error involved in the transmission from the original manuscripts to the present.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

Philip said:


> The Scriptures use "word of God" to refer to themselves, but they also talk about Jesus as the eternal Word of God (John 1).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is such a view warranted by Scripture?


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> How is such a view warranted by Scripture?



a) The Scriptures refer to themselves as the word of God b) there are errors in the manuscripts that have been preserved (copyists' errors, etc).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

Philip said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > How is such a view warranted by Scripture?
> ...



I'm sorry, but that's just a lame use of logic to me. The Scriptures refer to themselves as the Word of God _only as they were originally written and inspired by God_. The fact that they were later corrupted through mistranslation doesn't make the reference change from the original to something else.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

Philip, I'd like you to answer the question I've asked twice already. If you will say that Hebrew and Greek will last forever, why are there two languages? Why wouldn't God unite His people with one perfect language?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 16, 2014)

Samuel (answering to your post #58), I don’t think we can separate the meaning from the words themselves. The word of God was given to the OT writers in Hebrew, and the NT writers in Greek, and that is the form God Himself gave them in. I think Philip is right in this – it is error to separate the meaning from the words.

Your related question, “the Bible says the Word of God lasts forever, should we expect Greek and Hebrew to last forever, too?” — I will try to answer, but this is just my opinion: I do think the Greek and Hebrew languages will last forever, as well as the other languages of the world. I know some say that on the New Earth (upon which the New Heavens will have come down) Hebrew will be the sole language, though I don’t buy that. There is great beauty in all languages – and the nations’ respective languages are part of each of their cultures, music, songs, hymns, poetry, etc – so I think the nations will retain their languages, but we will be given to understand each and every language perfectly, and appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of them all.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> The Scriptures refer to themselves as the Word of God only as they were originally written and inspired by God. The fact that they were later corrupted through mistranslation doesn't make the reference change from the original to something else.



Paul says that all Scripture is given by inspiration, referring to the OT, but he, and the churches he was ministering to, were using (and quote from) the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Clearly Paul understands that despite translational mishaps, the Word of God remains.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> If you will say that Hebrew and Greek will last forever, why are there two languages? Why wouldn't God unite His people with one perfect language?



I'm not precisely sure what you're asking here. First, that Hebrew and Greek will last forever. They've survived in the sense that we can learn and study them, if that's what you mean. Secondly, because Hebrew and Greek were the languages in use when the Bible was written. As for why God chose to enact his covenantal plan of salvation over a period of 2000 years and across significant shifts in vernacular language (which is really the question you're asking), I'm not sure that anyone on this board would be qualified to answer that question.

Again, the formulation you put earlier implies that the words of Scripture are not the Word of God, but that the Word of God is merely contained in Scripture, a view which reformed orthodoxy has historically rejected.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

Philip said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > The Scriptures refer to themselves as the Word of God only as they were originally written and inspired by God. The fact that they were later corrupted through mistranslation doesn't make the reference change from the original to something else.
> ...



Thank you for clarifying!



> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > If you will say that Hebrew and Greek will last forever, why are there two languages? Why wouldn't God unite His people with one perfect language?
> ...



Philip, I'd like to know more about the debate on this point. Any good free online resources you could provide me with?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Samuel (answering to your post #58), I don’t think we can separate the meaning from the words themselves. The word of God was given to the OT writers in Hebrew, and the NT writers in Greek, and that is the form God Himself gave them in. I think Philip is right in this – it is error to separate the meaning from the words.
> 
> Your related question, “the Bible says the Word of God lasts forever, should we expect Greek and Hebrew to last forever, too?” — I will try to answer, but this is just my opinion: I do think the Greek and Hebrew languages will last forever, as well as the other languages of the world. I know some say that on the New Earth (upon which the New Heavens will have come down) Hebrew will be the sole language, though I don’t buy that. There is great beauty in all languages – and the nations’ respective languages are part of each of their cultures, music, songs, hymns, poetry, etc – so I think the nations will retain their languages, but we will be given to understand each and every language perfectly, and appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of them all.



I appreciate your opinion. I'm still not quite seeing how words are not a means to meaning, but are meanings themselves. Too much for my little brains.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 16, 2014)

Hello Samuel. I don't know how much this has to do with your questions but in Acts 2 v 6 to 11 Gods Word, His perfect preserved Word, was perfectly translated in many languages.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2014)

1 Pet 1:23, Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Are you born again?

1 Thess 2:13, For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Are you effectually called?

Rom 10:17, So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Do you have faith?

1 Tim 4:5, For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Do you enjoy God's blessing?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, then you believe you have the word of God in your own language. Cast down the imagination and the high thing (no matter how academically it presents itself) which exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

Who ever heard of a word of God that is fallible? If it were fallible, it could not live and abide for ever, it would be no different than the word of man, it could not beget faith, and it could not sanctify the creature to our use.

There are academic as well as cultic traditions which make the word of God of none effect. Believer, beware of them, if for nothing else then at least for your own soul's sake.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

While waiting for Philip (or someone else) to give me some resources, I'd like to ask,

What danger lies in thinking that Scripture (even in its original form) contains the Word of God, yet is not properly the Word of God?


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 16, 2014)

Someone will answer this better than me but here is one experience I had as a young Christian. I read from the Good News bible and all the time whilst I did I thought Jesus was just a man. That's what it conveyed to me. I was then shown using the KJV differently.
Some versions can teach faith by works and have passages changed that give that impression, these versions are used by Churches who teach such things. Lets say I have one of the new versions that has omitted part of the Lords Prayer, His guide for how we should pray, and I am asked to tell someone or repeat the Lords Prayer to them. If I am only used to the version with the omission then I am not going to relay to the person the whole or true Lords Prayer!


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 16, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> While waiting for Philip (or someone else) to give me some resources, I'd like to ask,
> 
> What danger lies in thinking that Scripture (even in its original form) contains the Word of God, yet is not properly the Word of God?



Jesus says in John 6:63, "*The words* that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Jesus says in Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every word* that comes from the mouth of God"? It's not anything contained inside the words, the general impressions or sense of the words, but the words themselves. And every word.

Also, it's absurd. It's like a child reasoning with a parent's command, "Well I believe your words contain the command, but I don't think they are properly your command." A wise parent would see this as the child's attempt to be self-willed. Very odd for Jesus to combat the devil with the universal authority and applicability of Scripture, and nothing more, if the Scriptures were only the starting point for being properly armed in combat against Satan.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What danger lies in thinking that Scripture (even in its original form) contains the Word of God, yet is not properly the Word of God?



The danger that we don't take the words (plural) of Scripture seriously. Those who argue for this position are generally attempting to rationalize some departure from orthodox Christianity. If we believed that the word is _contained_ in the Bible but is not the Bible itself, we get into all sorts of problems of authority.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Philip, I'd like to know more about the debate on this point. Any good free online resources you could provide me with?



This is pretty much undisputed in confessional reformed circles. I would give you online resources except that most who have written on this subject have done so in monographs or journals. This is the best I can do (Neo-Orthodoxy).


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2014)

All Scripture is inspired and infallible, but not everything contained in Scripture is the rule of faith and life. The Scripture rightly interpreted is the rule of faith and life. Hence the Larger Catechism, when speaking of the Word of God, says the Scriptures ARE the Word of God; but the Shorter Catechism, speaking of the rule which God has given us, says it is the Word of God CONTAINED in the Scriptures. Both are important.


----------



## MusicMan (Mar 16, 2014)

Most of you are familiar with the Epic poem "Beowulf", written in the language we now call "Old English" (Shakespeare and the KJV guys used modern English, but that's another topic). As a former Brit Lit teacher I have spent a great deal of time with it. Anyway, there are several different translations of Beowulf, and here are some examples of how the same line can be translated much differently: 

_1) Then from the moorland, by misty crags
with Gods' wrath laden, Grendel came:

2) And now from out the moorland, under the misty slopes
Came astalking Grendel— God's anger on his hopes.

3) From the stretching moors, from the misty hollows,
Grendel came creeping, accursed of God,

4) Out from the marsh, from the foot of misty
Hills and bogs, bearing God's hatred,
Grendel came

5) Grendel drew on from the moor along the mistslope's
foot, God's wrath upon him;_

They all say the same thing, but say it very differently. The more literal ones are generally harder to read and comprehend. The point here is that if we can get this many variances translating from Old English to Modern English, the difficulties of translating Bible texts from completely different languages spoken thousands of years ago are simply daunting. And from what I have seen, most commonly used Bibles (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc...) they are all typically much, much closer to each other than these translations of Beowulf from English.....to English. 

An astonishing feat in itself, really.....


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 16, 2014)

Samuel, if I may, Reverend Martyn Lloyd Jones, in the above quoted text said, "All we have is this book. It is our final authority." The answers are in it.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

I read that to say that my faith proves that God graced me with it, and therefore He is. Choose the translation that you understand best in your own native language whatever that is.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 16, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Samuel, if I may, Reverend Martyn Lloyd Jones, in the above quoted text said, "All we have is this book. It is our final authority." The answers are in it.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your concern, Jimmy. However, I'm not asking my questions because I doubt my faith, but simply to understand what exactly the Word of God is that I believe in.

By the way, I don't read the Bible in my own native language at all because I hate the finnish language and I do all my thinking in english. Fortunately, it doesn't affect my ability to communicate in finnish.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 17, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I do all my thinking in english.


That's an interesting one Samuel. I once read how some scientists from other cultures prefer to do the same when thinking through things they are working on.
There was a famous one who did it but I cannot remember who it was.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 17, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> While waiting for Philip (or someone else) to give me some resources, I'd like to ask,
> 
> What danger lies in thinking that Scripture (even in its original form) contains the Word of God, yet is not properly the Word of God?



The Scriptures are the vessel for God's Word. You can't separate one without affecting the other. It's like trying to separate the Son and the Father.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 17, 2014)

Harley said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > While waiting for Philip (or someone else) to give me some resources, I'd like to ask,
> ...



Thank you, Harley. This was very helpful.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 17, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> All Scripture is inspired and infallible, but not everything contained in Scripture is the rule of faith and life. The Scripture rightly interpreted is the rule of faith and life. Hence the Larger Catechism, when speaking of the Word of God, says the Scriptures ARE the Word of God; but the Shorter Catechism, speaking of the rule which God has given us, says it is the Word of God CONTAINED in the Scriptures. Both are important.



I'm not sure if I'm understanding. It seems to me that you're saying the rule of faith and life is _contained_ in Scripture, but everything contained in Scripture is necessary to the perfect understanding of this rule. Is this correct?


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I'm not sure if I'm understanding. It seems to me that you're saying the rule of faith and life is _contained_ in Scripture, but everything contained in Scripture is necessary to the perfect understanding of this rule. Is this correct?



There is more to it than this but this is one part of it. The words of the serpent are part of inspired Scripture, but the words of the serpent are not a rule to us. We believe the serpent spoke these words because Scripture says so. We must stand on the infallible truth of Scripture in order to believe it. At the same time a faithful exposition of Scripture will conclude that the words themselves were a lie and should not have been believed and followed.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 17, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure if I'm understanding. It seems to me that you're saying the rule of faith and life is _contained_ in Scripture, but everything contained in Scripture is necessary to the perfect understanding of this rule. Is this correct?
> ...



I see your point now. Thanks.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 17, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Traditionally Protestants defended their translations against Papist accusations that they were in error by showing the difference between doctrine and detail. That a word or phrase might be translated in more than one way or be improved upon does not mean the translation teaches erroneous doctrine.
> 
> It should be observed that many who call themselves Protestants today have given up on this traditional belief, and prefer to admit some error in translation, and will opt for multiple translations. Although multiplying erroneous translations, theoretically, would result in multiplying errors, so one wonders how this is any kind of a solution.
> This is helpful. I find "doctrine" and "detail" more easily grasped terms than "sense."





Afterthought said:


> By "detail," do you mean shades of meaning that words in a target language might not be able to convey, or do you mean translating words that are flatly contradictory in meaning? I was reading Deut. 24 recently, and I remembered someone once saying the AV translated one of the "then"s incorrectly in the passage on divorce, saying that it should be translated as "And" instead. Which word is chosen completely alters the sense of the text, and it would seem to me the translation choices are mutually exclusive. They might not touch on doctrine, but they come close to doing so, given the subsequent use of it made by Jesus and that the WCF viewed marriage and divorce important enough to place in our Confession. I'm sure there are other, similar examples (maybe "faith of [vs in] Christ" or the passage in Genesis 4 concerning Cain and "ruling" over sin) where translation choices are contradictory and possibly touch on doctrine, and if the translation choice is contradictory, then only one can be right; but if only one can be right, the incorrect one must not be the Word of God?
> 
> That's a good observation on witnesses. However, wouldn't that mean those who do not view translations as containing errors would want more translations in order to flesh out the "detail"?
> 
> The question has been answered on translations potentially not containing errors, but are there any translations that exist that do not err so far as doctrine is concerned?


Any answer to these questions? I didn't realize it when I first asked, but my last question could be a bit testy. I had really only intended it in the abstract sense of "It exists," since the argument could be made that though it is possible for such to exist, none exist at this time.


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 17, 2014)

Hello Raymond. I believe the stand alone version/translation to be the KJV. I have used many others over the years. But all the questions I had, or doubts, concerning the KJV over time have been all dispelled and those questions more than adequately answered. The doubts layed to rest. I don't believe it contains any doctrinal errors as do so many of the others.


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2014)

Raymond, I would agree with you on contradictory meanings. It is one thing to be able to look up another translation and gain a better sense of the meaning, but quite another thing to find the opposite meaning.

On "inerrant" translations with respect to doctrine, I suppose if two people have different systems of doctrine it will be impossible to agree that such a translation has been made. But it is worth pointing out that English Protestant apologists of the 17th century generally regarded their translations (including the AV) as a translation without error so far as the system of doctrine is concerned. The following from Christopher Fowler's sermon in the Morning Exercises gives the usual response to Papist objections:



> "Object. II. 'Your translations are faulty.' (Harding, Rhemists.)
> Answer. "This is said a thousand times, but never proved; an untruth, joined with slander;" so Jewel -- "a spiteful lie;" so Cartwright answers the Jesuits. "Show them," saith he." Dr. Martin did attempt it, but was laughed at for his folly by his friend. The words may be short, but the sense is incorrupt." (Puritan Sermons, 5:589).


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 19, 2014)

Thank you, Brett and Mr. Winzer. And thanks to all who contributed to the discussion in this thread.



Free Christian said:


> I believe the stand alone version/translation to be the KJV. I have used many others over the years. But all the questions I had, or doubts, concerning the KJV over time have been all dispelled and those questions more than adequately answered. The doubts layed to rest. I don't believe it contains any doctrinal errors as do so many of the others.


To the best of my limited ability (i.e., no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew and not having had time to chase down every rabbit trail from everything I've heard that the AV is accused of translating incorrectly), I agree [edit: concerning the AV's superiority and preferability]. This wasn't the sort of answer I was looking for in my question, but that's my fault for not wording it properly. I probably should have worded it as "How would you respond to this accusation of no translations existing now that have no error concerning doctrine?" or "How did Protestants historically respond?" so as to avoid the controversy surrounding the AV and translations that others prefer.



armourbearer said:


> Raymond, I would agree with you on contradictory meanings. It is one thing to be able to look up another translation and gain a better sense of the meaning, but quite another thing to find the opposite meaning.


Would more translations ("witnesses") be a good thing in order to give as much detail as possible?



armourbearer said:


> Problems arise when translation is made to convey too much. Translation cannot take the place of familiarity. Philosophers have loaded linguistics with unattainable goals.


Would you and/or Philip (or another) be able to direct me to the background philosophical discussion concerning problems arising when translation is made to convey too much and these "loaded linguistics"?


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 19, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Would more translations ("*witnesses*") be a good thing in order to give as much detail as possible?


 Raymond, did you mean to say more _copies of Greek manuscripts_ ? Seems there are more than enough translations.


----------



## Philip (Mar 19, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Would you and/or Philip (or another) be able to direct me to the background philosophical discussion concerning problems arising when translation is made to convey too much and these "loaded linguistics"?



All that philosophers have really done is to point out that if we expect a single translation to convey the full meaning of a word in its context, we are placing on the translator a greater burden than he can bear. Translation is never a 1-1 correspondence, whatever a lexicon might lead you to believe. Any way you do it, meaning gets lost.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Raymond, did you mean to say more copies of Greek manuscripts ? Seems there are more than enough translations.


No, I meant more translations. Before the large discussion that occurred through page 2, it was remarked on page 1 that if translations contain errors, multiplying translations would multiply errors. Another responded to that using the analogy of "witnesses." I was picking up on that language in my question. My question was going along the lines of "If translations can contain no errors, wouldn't more translations be desirable?" Such was the nature of the question.



Philip said:


> All that philosophers have really done is to point out that if we expect a single translation to convey the full meaning of a word in its context, we are placing on the translator a greater burden than he can bear. Translation is never a 1-1 correspondence, whatever a lexicon might lead you to believe. Any way you do it, meaning gets lost.


Thanks! Any reading material you could point me to for more detail?


----------



## Philip (Mar 20, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Thanks! Any reading material you could point me to for more detail?



W.V.O. Quine's _Word and Object_ is the classic text. The basic contours of the idea can be found on the Wikipedia page for Indeterminacy of Translation. In terms of Bible translation this helps us because it tells us that knowing the whole Bible is crucial to translating it. In other words, when there is a hard passage, you look at other passages and books in the Bible to help you figure out how to render the word.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 20, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Raymond, did you mean to say more copies of Greek manuscripts ? Seems there are more than enough translations.
> ...


 I'm just a neophyte in the study of this topic, but I think 'witnesses' refers to manuscripts in the original language rendered by copyists. 

Translations, if I understand it correctly, are harvested from witnesses. I could be wrong. 

Before I came to a conclusion on whether one translation or another was inspired I read opposing sides of the question. W.D. Mounce, a chairman of the ESV translation committee, and noted philologist/teacher, has a really interesting article with many examples of what the committees encounter in attempting to accurately render Koine into English. It can be found online, linked in a post I made earlier in this thread, or in his excellent book, "Greek For The Rest Of Us."

D,A, Carson's, "The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism," is also a quite reasoned explanation of the debate by another expert in the field. He has many sermons on youtube that are just exceptional as far as I'm concerned. Than there is James White who probably needs no introduction from me. All of these authors refer to controversies regarding whether one manuscript or another is imperfect, to what extent, and why.

If I read them correctly there is no effect on doctrine in that, if a word or phrase is not included in the text, but footnoted, bracketed or omitted, in a modern translation, there are corresponding words/phrases that support the very same doctrine within that translation. In other words, it is not out of heresy or evil machinations that the translation may vary from that of the TR based works. Rather it is because a mountain of evidence, accepted by NT scholars in the field, has been discovered in the past 150 years, that supports translations such as the NASB and ESV, among others.

Reading translations from both traditions has been beneficial for me. your mileage may vary (your mileage may vary)


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2014)

There is an antirealist strain in linguistics which relativises meaning and complicates matters unnecessarily so far as the target language is concerned. Translators pick up on this and seek to ground meaning in the individual reader, thus leading to the need for numerous translations.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 20, 2014)

In case anyone else is as challenged in philosophy as I am, and as curious, here is a site with a few paragraphs that will help with a basic definition, I guess, of anti realism ;

University of Glasgow :: School of Humanities :: Information for current students and staff :: Information for current students :: Philosophy current students :: Current Undergraduates :: Honours :: Honours course page directory :: SH12


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 20, 2014)

I keep seeing it asserted that there are errors in the manuscripts (the Greek), and that James White’s and D.A. Carson’s writings against the TR and AV should have the final words in the text-critical discussion. No doubt these things are being taught in the seminaries today, and it is a shame. It ends up like this: you cannot hold a Bible in your hands and say of it, “This is the intact word of God without error.” Instead we must concede to the skeptical critics who doubt we can _ever_ recover the NT text, and the outright adversaries (such as Bart Ehrman) who say that if God didn’t bother to _clearly_ preserve His word why should we think he inspired it in the first place? Once it is ceded there is no faithfully translated edition of an intact providentially preserved Greek and Hebrew Bible, the slope is not slippery but a sheer drop into eventual unbelief in the doctrine of providential preservation. I mean (for example), are the last twelve verses of Mark 16 authentic? Or “God manifest in the flesh” in 1 Tim 3:16, or the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11? Is it true that Matthew erred when he wrote in the genealogy of Christ that Asaph and Amos are to be listed rather than Asa and Amon (as the ESV and the Critical Greek text assert)? This is a doctrine that is imperiled when we defer to the unbelief of the modern schools:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical... (WCF 1:8)​ 
It really won’t do to say that, yes, we have the preserved text, it is somewhere among the many mss we have and we need the modern scholars to sort it out for us. _When_ will it be finally sorted out? Must we wait till the LORD returns? I think we need it now as the encroaching darkness seethes with malign intent usward, coming in like a flood (Isa 59:19), so that the Spirit of the LORD may lift up a standard against it. And if we have not a sure word, what shall that standard be?

Harvard text critic, Edward Freer Hills, has this to say on the matter:
Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he _must_ attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (_The King James Version Defended_ by Dr. Edward F. Hills, p 1) [*NOTE: * The appearance of this online book (ISBN: 0-915923-00-9) is by the copyright holder, Mrs. Marjorie J. Hills, as implied by her wish that this online edition be made available in its entirety, unaltered and at no cost to the recipient who downloads it. (The text is Copyrighted and may not be reproduced for sale or profit.)]​ 
What follows is a brief quote by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate_, from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’ ”.
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence… (p 204)​ 
The larger discussion from which this above quote is taken is here.

Please note that I do not say there is not great value in the modern Bible versions (the woman through whom the Lord converted me used the Lamsa version of the Syriac Peshitta, and men of God have ministered God’s Spirit to me through versions other than the AV). It just grieves me to see repeated like a mantra the saying that there are errors in all our Bibles and manuscripts, destroying the doctrine of providential preservation. There is a lot at stake: the faith of some that we have a reliable Bible.

The modern versions, whatever good may be said of them (and good may indeed be said), are not exemplars of providential preservation. Bart Ehrman makes that clear. I intend on interacting with his views shortly, as I have mostly finished with my eschatology/Babylon project.

Regarding Dr. James White, I have interacted with his views here: Responding to James White of AOMIN, and another of his colleagues at AOMIN here: Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin. And with numerous other specific texts and textual issues here.

I saw someone ask earlier in this thread, Is there Biblical warrant for the view that the Bible God gave us must have error in it? I say there is warrant for just the opposite:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever (Isaiah 59:21).
​


----------



## ZackF (Mar 20, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Must all translations be imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?
> 
> Are all translations imperfect, containing some error? If so, how can the translation be considered the Word of God, since one of the qualities of the Word of God is that it contains no error?
> 
> ...



Can imperfect, non autographic, manuscripts be God's Word? I've never found the translation debates as interesting nor important as those over the various manuscripts. Though I lack the knowledge to debate these issues.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 20, 2014)

Thanks, Philip!



armourbearer said:


> There is an antirealist strain in linguistics which relativises meaning and complicates matters unnecessarily so far as the target language is concerned. Translators pick up on this and seek to ground meaning in the individual reader, thus leading to the need for numerous translations.


Interesting analysis. What do you think about multiplying translations to flesh out more detail?





JimmyH said:


> I'm just a neophyte in the study of this topic, but I think 'witnesses' refers to manuscripts in the original language rendered by copyists.
> 
> Translations, if I understand it correctly, are harvested from witnesses. I could be wrong.


This is usually correct. However, in this thread, the word "witness" was used in a different manner. It's a minor point though since it relates only to a mode of expression for the question in which I had used the word "witnesses."





KS_Presby said:


> Can imperfect, non autographic, manuscripts be God's Word? I've never found the translation debates as interesting nor important as those over the various manuscripts. Though I lack the knowledge to debate these issues.


This question assumes some things that those who might answer do not grant, but translations and apographs are considered God's Word in this thread, and they seem to be so considered by the WCF. See the previous few pages for further info, I suppose, considering also the fact that preachers believe their translations are God's Word because they refer to them as "the holy, infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of God." Although this topic was discussed to some extent in the thread, the OP assumes translations to be the Word of God (and the thread is technically about translation, not the original language), so it might be worth considering moving this sort of discussion to another thread if one wishes to discuss it in even further detail than it has already been discussed.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 20, 2014)

Thanks for the clarification Raymond. The 'witnesses' put my brain in original manuscript mode. I doubt if there has ever been a thread on the PB, on the question of translations, that didn't digress into the controversy. 

Back on topic, it might be worth noting that the three individual pastors I've heard preach at the OPC congregation, of which I am a member, used the NKJV, the NASB, and the 1984 NIV respectively. The pew Bibles furnished are either the NIV (1984) or the NASB. Say that to say, that I assume the aforementioned pastors must be confident that the translations they are preaching from are indeed the Word of God.


----------

