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.
All Translations are Imperfect
- Thread starter Afterthought
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Senior
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?
"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"
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?
The Westminster Confession seems to imply that translations are considered the Word of God:armourbearer said:
"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"
This is helpful. I find "doctrine" and "detail" more easily grasped terms than "sense."armourbearer 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?
Last edited:
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
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.
No. We believe in verbal inspiration.
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.
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.
The message is infallible, but an infallible message can reach us through a translation that is not inerrant.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Senior
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 ;
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
Puritan Board Junior
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?
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Professor
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Professor
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!
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!
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
Which is also the emphasis of 1 Cor 1:18 - 2:16
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Professor
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
The Scriptures use "word of God" to refer to themselves, but they also talk about Jesus as the eternal Word of God (John 1).
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
How is such a view warranted by Scripture?
- Status
