# How much does it matter how and who translated our Bibles?



## Free Christian (Dec 4, 2013)

I ask this question here but the thought came from the thread in the Church section on singing hymns and how or did it matter who wrote the hymn.
Some said yes it did matter, that you would not sing a song that someone who held wrong beliefs had penned.
So rather than pose this there, I have done so here, so as not to take that thread off track.
It got me thinking this, does it matter then also, or should it not more so, who translated our Bibles?
So I did some thinking and looking and found some examples. Some of the more stand out are the fact that some were translated by texts by Wescott and Hort. Someone asked on the other thread would you have the person preach to you, who held very different doctrines to you, or words to that effect. Well I am sure that people are aware of the two I just mentioned and what they thought of the Word.
But I saw that many from the board of translators for the ESV for example are in churches that use images of Christ, practice Christmas and have questionable titles to sermons such as "God with skin on".
Another believes in the continuance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So is it good enough to read what they translated but to reject what they teach?
Would you allow Wescott and Hort to preach in your church, given that you may read from a Bible that used their works?
Or those from the ESV board?
Or any other that was translated by, in some instances, people who held heretical views?


----------



## jambo (Dec 4, 2013)

I don't think it matters who translated the scriptures as long as they are translated accurately. Likewise with hymns, it is the theology of the hymn tht is important rather than the writer.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 4, 2013)

Knowing the condition of all of us I would definitely take into consideration the person who translated the text of scripture _especially_ if they were not regenerated. We all bring certain man made bias into all our beliefs which would In my most humble opinion include those who translate.


----------



## Logan (Dec 4, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Some of the more stand out are the fact that some were translated by texts by Wescott and Hort.


I wouldn't use a translation done by Westcott and Hort, wasn't even aware they did one.


Free Christian said:


> But I saw that many from the board of translators for the ESV for example are in churches that use images of Christ, practice Christmas and have questionable titles to sermons such as "God with skin on".


If you're going to be that specific then you wouldn't find any translation to be suitable, including the KJV. But thankfully we don't have to accept the Bible's authority based on the authority of those who translated it.


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 4, 2013)

Hello Logan. You said in an answer on the hymns that "yes it matters who wrote them". Why would you not apply the same reasoning to who translated the Word of God? Why yes for the hymns but no for God's Word?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 4, 2013)

Logan said:


> I wouldn't use a translation done by Westcott and Hort, wasn't even aware they did one.



I stumbled on that too, but on rereading I see he referenced texts done by Westcott and Hort.

I'll note that the ASV was overseen by Unitarians Abbot and Thayer (also author of his _Thayer’s Greek Lexicon_), and yet is considered to be a scholarly formal equivalent translation.

However, the bias sometimes shows in footnotes. At John 9:38, footnote 2 of the 1901 edition says:
“The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator.”

The passage, of course, speaks of the blind man worshipping Christ. The translator's "as here" is gratuitous agenda-pushing.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 5, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> I ask this question here but the thought came from the thread in the Church section on singing hymns and how or did it matter who wrote the hymn.
> Some said yes it did matter, that you would not sing a song that someone who held wrong beliefs had penned.
> So rather than pose this there, I have done so here, so as not to take that thread off track.
> It got me thinking this, does it matter then also, or should it not more so, who translated our Bibles?
> ...



"Someone with the same belief system as Origen would not be our first choice in revising or editing our Bibles for fear that such views may taint the translation." (Dr. Thomas Holland, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version._)

To speak much more plainly, people with the same belief systems as Wescott and Hort would not be our first choice in revising or editing our Bibles and manuscripts for fear that such views may taint such holy work; neither should they be our last choice.

Whoever wrote Psalm 137:9 would probably roll over in his grave (so to speak) at the thought of such people elder-ing the Scriptures to the Israel of God. A father's progeny is their work. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Should we be so strict as to forbid those without an office to serve the bread and wine while allowing heretics full access to prepare, revise, and serve up the bread of the word of God to a people whose eternal destiny is at stake? I think not! Just as the service of the table is for those who hold the appropriate authority from God, so the honor of collating the Scriptures is only appropriately given to those who are authorized by God. Are Wescott and Hort now given authority where God has given none?

Some will argue that truth is found no matter its source. I don't care one bit about whether or not Wescott and Hort ever saw a glimmer of truth in their entire lives. Just because truth glimmers from the pits of hell does not mean we should give these men a position of authority in our pulpits. Were Wescott and Hort to be ever so correct in their judgments, I would still reject their work. Not only is there a fear of ungodly influence in their work, the question of ability bears very, very little on the matter. There is a proper order here and many have climbed up another way.


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Hello Logan. You said in an answer on the hymns that "yes it matters who wrote them". Why would you not apply the same reasoning to who translated the Word of God? Why yes for the hymns but no for God's Word?



Would you not agree that there is a difference between composition and translation? 

With a translation, we have can compare with the Greek to see how accurately they did it. Every translation (including the KJV) should be held to this standard. It is not nearly the same with a composition.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 5, 2013)

Logan said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Logan. You said in an answer on the hymns that "yes it matters who wrote them". Why would you not apply the same reasoning to who translated the Word of God? Why yes for the hymns but no for God's Word?
> ...



That is a good point. Though is there not a reason to have translators that are regenerated to translate His word knowing how a bias can effect the work one does? Not to say the unregenerated cannot do such, and do it better than many regenerated translators.


----------



## Logan (Dec 5, 2013)

I do agree there could be a bias, yet no matter who does the translation we still evaluate their work by the Greek, even if it is the godliest person in the world. Ultimately the standard is how close they got to the Greek, not how holy the translator is.

I'd much rather the translators all be sound Christians. But even if they were I'd still be comparing the translation to the Greek.


----------



## JML (Dec 5, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> I ask this question here but the thought came from the thread in the Church section on singing hymns and how or did it matter who wrote the hymn.



Here is the difference:

The hymn writer wrote the hymn. The translator took an existing writing and translated it. Obviously, if they translated it incorrectly then there is a problem. 

AV only proponents are quick to attack those responsible for compiling the critical text and I am in no means defending the theological errors of those men who did compile it because they have some glaring ones (non-translation errors). I have a lot of friends who prefer the AV and I mean no disrespect but you do realize that Erasmus was a Catholic synergist right? The AV is a great translation but I just think that argumentation is faulty when we start attacking the compilers as both sides have issues.

I try not to get involved in textual debates because I see good arguments on both sides and faulty arguments on both sides. There are so many people who don't even have a Bible and yet we fight over good translations. The AV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc. are all good translations.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 5, 2013)

This is, AFAIC, a good and balanced article on Westcott & Hort. The author's website KJVOnly.org, is not an advocate for the KJVO viewpoint. On the contrary, the articles are opposed to that point of view.

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

http://www.kjvonly.org/


----------



## MW (Dec 5, 2013)

I would have thought a translation of the word of God required far more scrutiny than something which does not purport to be the word of God. A private composition gives opportunity for judgment, whereas the word of God is to be received and read as it is in truth.

People are motivated to do what they do, and it is impossible for the motivation not to affect the thing which is done. Even if one can honestly say they have been motivated by a zeal for the truth, it is their understanding of the truth for which they are zealous. The translator's motivation and understanding are critical to the value of the work of translation. Even those who aim at doctrinal neutrality are doing so because they have already passed judgment on certain doctrines and decided that they are not of first importance in the message of the Bible.

I agree that it is uncharitable to negatively judge the work of men as if their "intentions" were ignoble. At the same time, it is precisely because a good intention can wreak so much havoc that the translator's "profession of faith" becomes so important. Saul of Tarsus believed that he "ought" to do many things against the name of Jesus. Because he was so sincere his profession of an erroneous faith was so dangerous.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 6, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > I ask this question here but the thought came from the thread in the Church section on singing hymns and how or did it matter who wrote the hymn.
> ...



I think I'm in need of some sanctification right here. Wow.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Dec 6, 2013)

I do believe that if we are being taught spiritual truths from others that are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit we could end up in serious trouble (i.e. who we trust our spiritual guidance to) and the worldview presuppositions that are coloring the way translators see things will end up in their translations no doubt. Now with that said I want to point out that no matter what the source is, if they have actually translated the work correctly and you still decide to reject it because of who the author is (and what their reputation, character, or beliefs are), even though the work they have done is 100% (or close to 100%) correct, you have just committed the genetic fallacy.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 6, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> I do believe that if we are being taught spiritual truths from others that are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit we could end up in serious trouble (i.e. who we trust our spiritual guidance to) and the worldview presuppositions that are coloring the way translators see things will end up in their translations no doubt. Now with that said I want to point out that no matter what the source is, if they have actually translated the work correctly and you still decide to reject it because of who the author is (and what their reputation, character, or beliefs are), even though the work they have done is 100% (or close to 100%) correct, you have just committed the genetic fallacy.



Obviously, my views need some tempering, but I can afford a measure genetic fallacy in my views because I have neither the time nor the scholarly acumen to sort out all the issues. Given the fact that a little leaven leavens the hole lump and that the enemy is quite accustomed to gaining ground by degrees of imperceptibility (note the frog in a pot of boiling water), the church would seem right to have a measure of sanctified snobbery when considering who is given license to play with the text. I must stand where I feel safest. However, my sense of proper order doesn't take the accuracy of the source into consideration.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Dec 7, 2013)

My friend asked me yesterday if I cringe when I hear a women reading a sermon on sermonaudio, and I said a little but the thing that bothers me the most is if it isn't clearly advertised as a "women reading" verses a women "preaching" because that could be dangerous as it might seem to endorse the latter, but if it is clearly advertised and is obvious that she is just reading something then I don't think there is a biblical mandate against it, and therefore I don't have a problem with it (if it was during public worship that's a different story). This is why when scripture says to not be quick to lay hands on someone else, I believe that part of what that is saying is "be careful who you are endorsing". So if Westcott and Hort made a great translation (which I am not saying they did) you can not disregard it on the basis of their status, because they have all the facts right. You can however either use it with the caveat that their views are not endorsed in matters outside of their translation. And if it is legal just scratch their names off of it and use it. We do need to becareful who we are "subliminally" or unconsciously endorsing when we put stock in people in front of others, or are unclear about how we feel about all of their theology. Why not just take a little extra time to explain why they are dangerous or slightly dangerous. Two examples. I just bought my dad a book called "131 Christians everyone should know" to entice him to read a bit more church history. Now when I give it to him I am going to walk him through and show him that some of the figures are dangerous. Like Origen or Erasmus, but these are guys we should know for history's sake as to not repeat their mistakes as well as God's glory in history. Also Augustine is amazing, but not to be taking on all of his doctrines. Another example I loaned my dad a copy of Creation Illustrated but I noticed that a lot of the advertisements for some reason are 7th day Adventists so I warned him about it so he doesn't decide to buy an Ellen G. White study bible, and I might write this other reputable creation science organization that endorses this magazine (which the trial I received was great, very devotional and warm; pretty much the creationists version of national geographic, would be great for pastoral/preaching analogies) but they might not have any idea there are those adds in there, and maybe they will retract their endorsement or make sure to put a disclaimer up. And I will remind you of the warnings in scripture about adding or subtracting from God's Word, that goes for translators too. It is definitely not a field to be handled irreverently, but also the content is what matters not the vessel, unless other issues are at play, like for instance unconscious public endorsement.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 7, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> So if Westcott and Hort made a great translation (which I am not saying they did)



Just to clarify again, Westcott and Hort did not do a translation. They compiled a Greek text from which translations were made.

So, in this particular thread, what is being discussed is the theology of the _translator_, not the theology of the people who gathered together what was translated.


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 8, 2013)

I don't read anything from anyone regardless of whether or not they hold some truth, if they also hold errors. I would not read from Augustine! I know some hold him highly but I wouldn't read his writings. Today Christians have this tapestry or mosaic of all these people where they have picked out all the good looking bits and woven them together to make something beautiful in their own eyes. But neglected to add the heresy, murderous rampages, false doctrines and twisting of the Word. It matters less today who translated Gods Holy Word than it does some consumer item they buy!
Peter, the problem is they have not translated them correctly. Does you Bible contain, "other texts have..." doubt over what is said? Parts of the Lords Prayer omitted? Who Jesus was omitted? Whole paragraphs omitted or cast doubt upon "not in the older mss". Does you bible or is your Bible containing these things, or omitting things and can you then say God has preserved His Word as He said He would? Because if it contains those things then how can those texts where God promises such things be true?


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 8, 2013)

Hello Logan, To me it matters greatly the person. Would I buy a product from someone who was a criminal, even if his product was legit? But I know he is a criminal? I knew people who used an electrician who was a known paedophile, just because he was good at what he did!
Does it matter who a person is in regards to what they may provide?
Me, im a faithful old dog, and it matters a lot.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 8, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> I don't read anything from anyone regardless of whether or not they hold some truth, if they also hold errors.



That is holding all authors except those who penned Scripture to an impossible standard. If you really mean this, I assume you don't read anyone. If you do read authors, how can you be sure they hold no error before you read them?


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 8, 2013)

Don't read this post.


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> I don't read anything from anyone regardless of whether or not they hold some truth, if they also hold errors. I would not read from Augustine!



I can assure you that you are missing a wealth of Christian piety by not reading Augustine. Calvin quotes from Augustine many times, though he certainly didn't regard him as perfect. This would also necessitate that you cease reading the PuritanBoard, since there are many people here who hold what you would call "error", including myself. I assure you that I am not perfect.

Brett, allow me to share a quote from yourself when you were talking about the KJV translators:



> I believe everyone who is involved in any translation is guilty of sin, every person alive so. The question is, does that sin cause another to stumble, or to believe or take something the wrong way. Not see the proper truth? Did the person who had a battle with alcohol or believe a doctrine a different to me have any effect on the translation? I don't see any removal from the KJV or change of "drunkards, or winebibbers" nor any doctrine compromise made anywhere. So I don't see their sins, like I am a sinner too, have any effect or cause a compromise in doctrine or teaching. They did not cause their brother to stumble regardless of their sin. If I saw a translation that had a drinker on board and that translation had taken out or changed reference's to drinking or being a drunkard to something else then I would say "hey what's going on there?"



It appears you hold to a double standard: it doesn't matter who translated the KJV as long as they didn't compromise doctrine (i.e., you judge their translation, not their character). But it _does_ matter who translated anything else because they held different doctrines (i.e., you judge their character, not their translation).


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 9, 2013)

Logan said:


> It appears you hold to a double standard: it doesn't matter who translated the KJV as long as they didn't compromise doctrine (i.e., you judge their translation, not their character). But it _does_ matter who translated anything else because they held different doctrines (i.e., you judge their character, not their translation).



Good morning Logan, reading your reply to Brett I thought of King David. Not the translator but the writer of the Psalms. A murderer, adulterer and in at least one case, a liar. Nevertheless, we read and profit from his life and works, by the grace of God.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Dec 9, 2013)

VictorBravo said:


> Just to clarify again, Westcott and Hort did not do a translation. They compiled a Greek text from which translations were made.


 Sry I was thinking that as I wrote that and didn't correct myself.


Free Christian said:


> Peter, the problem is they have not translated them correctly. Does you Bible contain, "other texts have..." doubt over what is said? Parts of the Lords Prayer omitted? Who Jesus was omitted? Whole paragraphs omitted or cast doubt upon "not in the older mss". Does you bible or is your Bible containing these things, or omitting things and can you then say God has preserved His Word as He said He would? Because if it contains those things then how can those texts where God promises such things be true?


 Ya my bibles do because I honestly believe God preserved His word not in one manuscript to be worshiped similarly to the Quran but in the manuscript families in how there are multiple streams yet one cogent message that even down to the fine theological details doesn't alter doctrine in any harmful amount. If I was explaining this to an atheist that thinks all religions have equally attestable manuscript traditions, this is where I would take them.


Free Christian said:


> Hello Logan, To me it matters greatly the person. Would I buy a product from someone who was a criminal, even if his product was legit? But I know he is a criminal? I knew people who used an electrician who was a known paedophile, just because he was good at what he did!
> Does it matter who a person is in regards to what they may provide?


 Here is wikipedia's definition of the Genetic Fallacy:


> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
> 
> The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.[3]





JimmyH said:


> I thought of King David. Not the translator but the writer of the Psalms. A murderer, adulterer and in at least one case, a liar. Nevertheless, we read and profit from his life and works, by the grace of God.


 Great point!


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 11, 2013)

Hello Logan. No double standard. Don't forget, at that time I was searching and had been using other translations. I had also come onto this forum site and honestly asked for advice on translations. My growth in that area was true and real and something which you were all witness to. I will admit that during this growth process some thoughts and ideas changed as I learnt and developed. You will also see Logan where I greatly questioned the King James use of words like Easter, words that seemed old fashioned and there too you are more than welcome to quote me in that early stage where this would show I was almost opposed to the KJV. Now that would really make me look like a hypocrite with double standards! The compiling of the KJV was overseen and scrutinised by those who did hold true to doctrine, so mistakes were rectified. This is not the case with the new versions. I also looked up your reference to there being an Arminian on the list of compilers as you once said there was one. But all I could find was there may have been one.
For me Peter, I don't go by what a worldly internet tells me about things. I go by the Bible.
The Bible tells me in Mathew 8 v 18, Luke 6 v 43 - 44, James 3 v 11-12 all I need to know concerning the matter of, if it matters.
I don't believe I am missing one single thing Logan in not reading Augustine. 
That's if I am thinking of the same Augustine, have you read what he thought of women and their place in marriage? Now if this is a different Augustine then I stand corrected and am sorry, but if its the same why on earth would I care for what the person has to say in so far as going out of my way to read their writings? Is that the same one, from what church is the one you mean from?
But to stay on track with the original question as Logan has pointed out.
Can a good tree bring forth bad fruit, can a bad tree bring forth good fruit?
To believe a bad tree can bring forth good fruit, in opposition to Gods Word, now that's a fallacy!


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 11, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> Ya my bibles do because I honestly believe God preserved His word not in one manuscript to be worshiped similarly to the Quran but in the manuscript families in how there are multiple streams yet one cogent message that even down to the fine theological details doesn't alter doctrine in any harmful amount.
> Sorry I had to do this in two sections as its really difficult for me to post on this forum.
> That's all well and fine Peter but how does everyone get a hold of all these differing versions and do so. How is someone honestly expected to weed out whats right and whats wrong. One says Jesus said something and another reads He did not! I could give numerous examples but im sure you have seen them before.
> What about the poor person overseas who does not have this access to "multiple streams" as you do? Where does that leave them. And if it takes these multiple streams to achieve this perfect knowledge of what God is telling us why did God who made all that is, upholds the worlds by His very existence, the giver and taker of life, the God who can do anything as He is All not do so in 1. To tell me that God could not achieve what I am to know but needed to use multiple versions and versions of scripture where Jesus says something then doesn't say it is so inconsistent with God's True nature that I would be more inclined to believe in flying Whales.
> Jimmy, the Bible is full of warts and all examples. Examples to show us right from wrong. The Bible and example of David are GOD'S WORDS, not a corrupt mans. Not the same thing at all.


----------

