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).
All Translations are Imperfect
- Thread starter Afterthought
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for clarifying!
Philip, I'd like to know more about the debate on this point. Any good free online resources you could provide me with?
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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?
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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!
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!
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.....
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you, Harley. This was very helpful.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
I see your point now. Thanks.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
armourbearer said:
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.Afterthought said:
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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:
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:
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you, Brett and Mr. Winzer. And thanks to all who contributed to the discussion in this thread.
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.Free Christian said:
Would more translations ("witnesses") be a good thing in order to give as much detail as possible?armourbearer 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"?armourbearer said:
Last edited:
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Raymond, did you mean to say more copies of Greek manuscripts ? Seems there are more than enough translations.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.JimmyH said:
Thanks! Any reading material you could point me to for more detail?Philip said:
- Status
