I should have been more clear. "Culture" might be misleading. What I was emphasizing by culture is the language barrier. The only reason for a translation is to bridge the language barrier. In that regard, a translation fulfills a culture gap. In that regard, it has everything to do with a culture gap.

You gather of me incorrectly. I have an extremely high view of Scripture. I am an inerrantists, believe in full inspiration of the original autographs, and trust God's Word to be my rule of faith in all aspects of life. The difference is probably in the definition of the Bible which for you rests in the KJV whereas mine rest in the original autographs (and yes I know they are not extant). For me, the Sacred Scriptures refers to the original text not a translation. So that might be why I come off as treating the Bible as such in your opinion.

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 26, 2008 03:41 PM by Greektim.

OK, I do agree with that statement. However, I still do not agree that a translation fulfills a culture gap. If a culture is determined by the adherance to God's Word, then that is fine. But the bible never changes to fit a culture.

Very well. Then may I ask you a question? Do you believe that the bible is Holy?

The Bible doesn't change, but I believe a translation should (and remember I am referring to culture in regards to langauge barriers). As a word in the culture changes, I feel that the translation should adapt to that culture change since it is fulfilling a culture barrier of langauage. I totally understand and agree that our culture should not affect the Bible in its interpretation or application.

I did refer to it as Sacred Scriptures. If you mean by holy that it is seperated from every other peice of literature ever written, then yes! If you mean by holy that it is divinely perfect due to its divine source, then yes. If you mean by holy that it is the source for all morality, then yes. The Scriptures are holy.

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 26, 2008 03:48 PM by Greektim.

I simply meant Holy. Sometimes I think we over-etymologize words. Most of the time, if not all, words spoken are as they are meant, but we have a tendency to overcomplicate what something is saying.

If you feel the bible is Holy, then which is Holier? The NIV or the KJV? Or do they have the same Holiness?

But you have already made an assumption even though I already said that the Bible to me is not a translation but the original autographs. I don't defend any translation. I don't defend the NASB (which is the translation I preach from on most occasions). I don't think there is a perfect translation. I don't think preservation reaches to translation. Preservation promises the preserving of the copies of the original text. But when man gets ahold of it, mistakes happen. That is unless God again moves on the translators in the same way He did when the NT writers were writing original autographs (which I strongly deny).

I want to be careful how I word this. We can be confident of the adequacy of translations and thus refer to them as the inspired Word of God. But ultimately, any translation is only inspired to the extent that it agrees with the originals. So "which is Holier?" I would have to say the original autographs.

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 26, 2008 04:05 PM by Greektim.

Please explain the following scripture:

follow that with what I quoted earlier:

After reading scripture, I have a hard time with anyone saying, "I don't think preservation reaches to translation."

That is a bold statement brother.

If preservation does not reach into translation, either:

1) God is lying
or
2) We no longer have the Word of God and we all need to study and learn 2,000 year old Koine Greek, and a smattering of high Greek.

The answer is neither one. The KJV is a perfectly preserved translation, faithful to the Original Manuscripts as God promised. If God does as He is promised, and preserves His scripture, then translation couldn't even corrupt it.

If we don't have the preserved Word of God today, then we are in some serious, serious trouble. We must not even know the way to heaven, because if an English translation is not preserved, then it might be a mistake to think Jesus IS in fact, the only way to heaven. To think that maybe the originals may have actually said that Jesus was the one way NOT to get to heaven? God forbid.

Do you see what I am saying? If we do not have the preserved Word of God, then christians have no basis for their faith.

Love in Christ,

Jim

None of those Scriptures you quoted say anything about a translation. IN fact, I have a strong feeling that those authors were not speaking of translations in preservation. I think the Muslims are on to something when they try not to translate their book. Something is lost in translation. Maybe Christians should learn the languages that God wrote the Scriptures in. I know that is asking a lot, but considering what God did sending His Son, maybe learning His Word even down to the language is not as tall a task as we make it out to be. Just a thought.

God never promised that He would preserve His Word in a translation. If unicorns are not a good example of a KJV mistranslation, then I can think of a translation that almost all translations get wrong - Matthews phrase "the Kingdom of the heavens." You never see that translation although it is more literal and correct. YOu usually see "kingdom of Heaven." The difference being a singular vs. a plural. The KJV translates the plural word as a singular. That doesn't seem perfect to me.

But I believe we do have the preserved Word of God today, not in a translation, but in the original languages which have been preserved for 2,000 years. We know that the originals do say that Christ is the only way. We don't need a translation to tell us that. We have the mss copies that verify what the original autograph said.

I understand what you are saying, but your view rests in the necessity that God could only preserve His Word in a translation. But it seems much more likely that God preserves His Word through the copying of the mss. Christians therefore have a basis for their faith b/c there is superior mss evidence to determine what the originals actually said. Again, not one of the verses you quoted makes it necessary that preservation is done through translation. I highly doubt that the original writers had that in mind. Since preservation in their time was done through copying the mss of the original languages, they were probably considering the same concept for us as well.

Wow, I never knew how much trouble a unicorn could cause! Those pesky critters have revealed more truth than they could have imagined.

GreekTim, as I understand it, if you trust in the autographs to be perfect, and believe that God's preservation promise extends to the extant apographs, then since you primarily use a version based on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, you must reject the TR family as being corrupted, because there are significant variations between the two families. They cannot both be preserved Scriptures. Is this a true understanding of your position?

GreekTim, please re-read this statement that you made: (emphasis mine)

If I didn't know better, you sound like you are saying that either the original writers were in control of their own message (no inspiration!) or that God could not see beyond the point in time that the words were written. !?!

Hopefully you know by now that I did not mean that. I think that inspiration is one of the greatest examples of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Everything written was exactly what God wanted to be written. It wasn't dictated though. That can be seen since different writers use their own personal style in their writings. John and Paul definitely have different styles of writing (that can be seen w/o a knowledge of Greek). So that is the human aspect of it. Man still was the agent in which God used to record His message. The original writers were only in control to the extent that they were passively in control. It was the Holy Spirit moving them along to write exactly what He wanted them to write. But the writers never lost consciencness. They never dictated. They knew what they were writing. They had an intended message. That is why their preaching (not inspired) always paralleled their writing (only the writings are inspired). It is hard to wrap our minds around this concept, but this seems to be the best way to explain it (although I feel I didn't do it justice).

They were God's words! He knew what He was saying, even if the writers did not. They could not have seen the need for translation, but He did! If I want to color a picture with crayons, I don't have the crayons pick the colors, I use which ever crayon I want to get the color I desire. Each crayon has its "personal characteristics" (color) that differs from all the others, but my hand guides the crayon to do as I see fit.

... heading for church - check back tonight.

Greektim, I wish I had a nickel for every discussion I got into about what the scriptures don't say. The scriptures don't say trillions upon trillions upon multiple trillions of things. A common sense contextual approach reveals a lot of things. Remember, God separated the nations in to different languages at the tower of Babel. Don't you think He had this in mind when giving forth his Word? The fact of the matter is, the apostles were Hebrew, they wrote the Word of God in the Greek language, because most people could either speak, understand, or know someone who could do those with Greek. It is only because that was the major language of commerce at that time. It is obviously no longer Greek. The main language of commerce at this time is English. It is actually difficult to go to industrialized countries and not find someone who speaks English.

Exactly, you don't know for sure, you are surmising. As a matter of fact, where it is interesting is the fact that the authors you speak of, are writing in Hebrew (the OT scripture given to you), and Greek (The NT scripture given to you). So where does that argument stand?

If you and I were sitting at a table full of different types of food, and I told you you could have anything off of it you wanted, and you chose a doughnut, then I told you, "well, you can have any of the food but that one", what would you think about my first statement?

When God says He will preserve His Word, I believe Him. It encompasses EVERYTHING, not just what we think it encompasses. I The argument about not including translations I would believe if the scripture had said, "Thouse shalt preserve them (except for translating on paper into different languages)" I say that tongue in cheek of course, but you get my meaning. We so often forget context and simplicity in scripture, and we tend to create things that do not exist.

Greektim, Do you not realize basically what you said, and endorsed here with this statement? The Catholic church said the exact same thing to the common people through the dark ages when they said that only the priests were revealed scripture in Latin and people did not need to read it to understand it. That the priests were their to tell them what scripture said. You are saying the same thing. That we have to go back to 2,000 year old documents if we want the perfect Word of God, and we have to understand the language of it then. That common man today cannot understand it, and needs to seek out a scholar to have it revealed to them.

I think you are misinterpreting the context of what scripture is referring to in preservation. If preservation only lay in copying, then i reiterate what I said before, we are all in serious trouble.

Love in Christ,

Jim

And to come to this conclusion that inspiration has moved away from the originals and onto a translation is extra-Biblical. Not one verse in the Bible supports such a doctrine. Since my belief (which coincides w/ the statement of faith mentioned here) says that our rule of faith is the Word of God, then what the BIble doesn't say is important. You mentioned a verse about not adding to the Scripture, but in my estimation, that is exactly what you are doing.

If it encompasses everything, then there should be Scripture to back that up. Otherwise this is just man's philosophy on the matter.

The argument about including translations I would believe if the Scripture had said, "You will preserve them (even through translations above the original autographs of the original language)." I to say this in tongue in cheek, but I hope you get my meaning. We so often put our own ideas onto Scripture and make Scripture say what we want. Perhaps we should only hold to what is only written.

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just kidding. I am not trying to endorse RCC doctrine. I am not saying that I am the only one that can interpret it for the masses. A translation is useful in this regard because it helps the people to understand what they couldn't understand previously.

I consider myself a "common man" and I have a working knowledge of the language. I am even confident enough to say that you can learn the language. That is why I suggested that maybe all Christians should have a working knowledge of the language. All they need is passion for God's Word, 1 night a week, 30 min. a day for study, and a good teacher; and in one year they would have a working knowledge of the language.

GreekTim said:

First, could you define "working knowledge"? I know how to use Strong's. Does that qualify? Hardly, I suspect. Does it mean that one can pick up a copy of the TR and begin reading John 1, and then put into English the meaning, without the continuous aid of some lexicon? I have some comments and questions, based on what I would understand "working knowledge" to mean, that is, the ability to orally pronounce the words, to understand the meaning of a sufficient number of the words, and to communicate the meaning in some general sense without necessitating constant or frequent use of reference material.

Comments and questions:
1. Based on your what you have said, you are a pastor. I am not being critical here, but just wanting to make a point. How many people percent-wise in your congregation have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek? Remember that BOTH are required to fully understand the Scriptures, not just Greek. In other words, if you truly believe what you have written, have you followed through with it in your church? By the way, I would just be happy if the folks that attend my church had a working knowledge of English!

2. I am sure that I can speak for the others on this forum as well as myself. My passion for God's Word is the driving force in my life! With that said, the words I know in Greek or Hebrew are so few, I can honestly say I have absolutely NO working knowledge of either. That must mean that I am [a] not passionate enough, [b] to ignorant to know any better, or [c] satisfied that God can tell me everything that I need with my English Bible.

3. I hope that you are joking when you say that the average person can having a working knowledge of Biblical Greek in just one year. That really makes me feel dumb.

4. Even if having a working knowledge of the Biblical languages was necessary for full understanding, do you realize how impossible that would be to accomplish. The 1 night a week, and/or 30 minutes a day might be possible, but "a good teacher"?! Just how do you define such a creature? I would venture to say that there are not enough people alive today who are not only:

[a] spiritually qualified (their lives are Godly and they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures - at least in the extant Greek),

[b] and educationally qualified (the gift of teaching and a lot more than just a working knowledge),

[c] but also have the call of God to give themselves to this ministry

to meet the needs of the churches in just one large city.

I'll stop here to think for a bit...

This post was last modified: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:29 AM by Brother Tim.

Sorry I have not responded to these comments, I didn't even see them or got an email about it.

1) The translation I mostly use bases their NT text from the UBS 4th ed. That is an eclectic compilation. It might lean to one texttype over others, but all have been examined. Thus it would be unfair and incorrect to call it Alexandrian. Especially since it does not hold to the Alexandrian reading 100% of the time.
2) I find it intersting that the extremely low percentage of difference between the UBS & the TR are charactized as "significant" and "corrupt." Now in some places, there are some signficant changes, but as a whole, the simularities between the 2 argue for divine origin as well as divine preservation. Like I said earlier, I don't hold to one compilation over the other. I weigh the evidence myself and make an informed decision. For instance, verses 9-20 of the last chapter in Mark I hold to as part of the original text of Mark. I John 5:7-8 lacks mss support for the TR rendering so I go with the majority of the mss on the text. THose are just 2 examples off the top of my head.
3) While they both cannot be exactly what the original autographs said due to the differences (law of non-contradiction), they both contain (at least 97% of the time) the originals. The 3% of disagreement is what is up for debate.

Something else, no 2 mss ever perfectly agree 100%. So which mss preserved God's Word? This is why God gave us a lot of mss to compare, logic, and intellect so we could use Textual Criticism and determine what the originals said. Now theories on TC can be biased, but legitamate TC is there for us to use.