Hey, I'm done. I know nothing is going to change here. I am not even going to respond to M S and argue. It isn't going to change anything. Let's go back to the "of Heaven" vs. the "of the heavens" discussion then we can come back to this.

Tim, as you have often pointed out, no translation is exactly literal, therefore, a proper translation which accurately transmits the words should be acceptable. A perfect, and solitary example of this is the KJB.

You mean to say that the KJV (I love how you call it the KJB and I call it the KJV; and others call it the NASV and I call it the NASB; we are so biased) always "accurately transmits the words" and never just the idea?

Oops, I said I was done. Oh well.

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench really hard.

What is the Word of God? What is the bible? Are they the same?

Could it be that the bible is just the text we read to gain an understanding of the Word of God, which in actuality is the revealing of truth in our minds?

Could the problem of text cause us to not be able to hear the Word of God? Since I believe that God communicates to us through His Word, and that medium is through the texts, then if we are reading an incorrect text, then can the Word of God be revealed to us?

Just some thoughts...

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 01:14 PM by Jim.

And not fair, I think you should continue! This is a good debate now, don't stop just cause your losing......

JK!!!!!!

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 01:16 PM by Jim.

Fine, I will continue if I have to.

Hey, no fair, I asked a question first. Did the KJV/KJB always "accurately transmits the words" and never just the idea?

Intersting questions. We got the word "bible" from the Greek word βίβλος (woohoo I did it). I wonder when in history God's Word started to be called "Bible." I like the term though - the βίβλος or "the Book". It is the only one that matters.

As far as the text being the medium (to which I say amen as opposed to the charismatics), they communicate God's Word to the extent that they agree to the inspired text. Thus if there is a text that is missing one verse but the rest is good, then the whole text is not wrong. Just that one error (the whole baby/bathwater thing). So it is God's Word to the extent that it is correct (in this case all but one verse). I don't think I exaplained myself very well.

Why wasn't there a translation in another language other than Latin(which is really no good if you look at the overall Latin translations) during the times of the founding church fathers? If an argument can be made that English is the sole authority on biblical translation for today because of it's common use, then isn't that evidenced by the fact that Greek was the sole authority for scripture during the time of Jesus because Greek was the common langauge of the world at that time?

It makes sense to me. God knew the common human tongue would transition from Greek as the accepted language of global commerce to English. Knowing this, what better way to adapt God's Word than to have it translated to English? This was performed in the KJV. It was accurate, it used the best texts, and nobody argued it's authenticity, until my esteemed brother in Christ pointed out, "scholars" got it it.

You can take a look at the reasoning and lifestyle behind these translators too, many of them unsaved. On the contrary, take a close look at some of them. It is actually quite frightening who it was translating a sciptural text. Imagine one of them trying to walk into the Holy of Holies, lol.

But I think you are talking about inspiration (Greek text) vs. translation (English text). The Greek auto's were inspired but that language was used b/c it was the common man's language. To say what you are saying is to imply that the English text is inspired and the Greek text is no longer inspired. Thus the idea of reinspiration. Either inspiration goes to the originals or the new common man's language of the day - English and the inspired English translation. I only see a "either/or" scenario not a "both/and."

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 01:36 PM by Greektim.

OK, you're right, you beat me to it. That is a good question. If something is to accurately transmit the idea (which has to come from the Holy Spirit) see 1 Cor 2:14, then it must accurately reflect the original source of the texts, you are right.

Congrats

OK, don't get a ballooned head here. I agree with this, whereas I did not before. BUT......................

You must need to take into consideration that since we have the bible in the English text, that there are few people, if any at all, that would know where those textual errors were/are. Knowing that, then they would obviously follow whatever the bible says, "errors" and all.

You see, the translators of the KJV, yes 54 of them, who even gave the pages to each other to go over, proofread and check each others work, ended up believing that they had the most faithful translation to the originals as could possibly be done. They did it for the glory of God, and it was painstaking. Imagins the process of sorting through all those thousands of mss's along with the TR's and comparing and poring over them day after night, and night after day. I would conclude that it must have been a pretty accurate translation to be had.

This is opposed to many of the MV translations of today, who consider "older" to be better, and use "dynamic equivalency" as opposed to "textual criticism"(Which I think you agree with, reading your statements above).

So, in conclusion, can anyone point out what "errors" there are in the KJV translation, and why it is considered an "error". What makes one think that since we have more resources than they did, that they would have translated it any differently if they had those resources?

Just some thoughts again....

No, I never said that nor believed it. I believe the originals to be inspired, and the copies and translations to be preserved ( Yes, I know this is sooooooo hard for you to swallow, lol)

This is where faith comes in to play. If we are to believe that God is Holy, then how much more should we believe that He is present and helping when we are messing with His texts? What did God say about that? The same men who did copying in many cases also did the translating. God never said He would preserve His word in copying, just as He never said he would preserve His word in translation. He simply said that He would preserve His Words.

Obviously the Lord is serious about His Words in text.

What I was talking about was dynmaic/functional equivalence. Would you say that the KJV ever used such a philosophy in translation?

To your conclusion, I pointed out one in the "of Heaven" vs. "of the heavens" error. The Greek is plural but the KJV (and most English ones) have it as singular. That is an error is it not? As to the resources like updated lexicons, we have found non-Biblical materials that helped give the semantical domain of words that were unkown before. Those semantical domains have helped to clarify what was once difficult to understand (though I am sure this is subjective).

Do you mean dynamic/formal equivalence? But to answer your question, my understanding is that everything was exact and directly translated except when any type of equivalence was made, it was italicized, therefore admitting its use, and not left up to one to wonder where it was used. As to what type of equavalence, I believe it was almost a democracy of unanimity. They all would have to agree what was meant, and the best way to convey that through translation. The English language at that time had the most vocabulary available to best convey what was meant as other languages could not.

Couldn't you be just as mistaken? Will you say that all Greek scholars unanimously agree that it should have been translated "heavens". Even then, just because everyone says it, doesn't necessarily make it true. Is there any possibility you could be wrong?

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 02:06 PM by Jim.

The issue with faith is that it is not outside the bounds of reason. It is not unreasonable to believe in Jesus Christ, His death, or His resurrection. With what I know about English, Greek, and Hebrew (and my knowledge might be holding me back, or not), it is outside of the bounds of reason to say that preservation has carried over to the English. That is only because I do not believe (nor have I been shown) where the English 100% can convey ever minute detail and nuance of the original language. M S has mentioned that English has a much larger dictionary. But I am talking about more than just words. I am talking about syntax. I am also talking about advanced grammar. I am talking about those things that are never seen except when studying the HOT & GNT - like a completed or continuous emphasis that is not stated in the translation but it is present in the Greek. For instance, the command to "be filled with the Spirit" in Eph. 5:18 communicates a continual filling. I only know that from the present tense of the passive imperative. The English doesn't communicate the contiuous action of the filling. It is a simple past tense that communicates a one time thing.

Formal equivalence is literal translation. Functional equivalence is paraphrase. So I did mean dynamic/functional equivalence. Would it have been wrong if the KJV used a dynamic equivalence or paraphrase?

I could be mistaken. That is possible (but not probable ). But for "heaven" to be a legitamate translatoin, then it must be proven that the intended meaning in "kingdom of heaven/the heavens" was the actual realm/abode of God. But it has already been unanimously agreed that it is a reference to the Messianic Kingdom. So the realm of God is not likely. Thus the translation should remain literal - "kingdom of the heavens."

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 02:25 PM by Greektim.

I agree with that

I cannot agree with that. I believe that when God preserves his Word, he is preserving His ability to reveal to you through that translation, what is truth. For that to happen, he does not appear to you at night and say, “Tim, I am commanding you to do this”. No, he does not do that anymore. He uses scripture instead of prophets and angels. The only way He can convey the truth is by using His Word in textual scripture, which we read, and He reveals to us. If that text is so altered that the truth cannot agree with it when it is revealed, or cannot be revealed at all for that matter, then those texts are corrupt.

I don’t believe it has to convey every minute detail and nuance of the original language. It simply doesn’t matter. It is God’s Word through the text that is important. If the translation is so altered from the originals that it cannot convey the truth through the Holy Spirit, then that translation is corrupt. But if the translation has the ability to convey exactly what the Holy Spirit desires us to understand, then that translation is preserved. We HAVE to understand that text in scripture, CANNOT be understood by the unsaved. the scripture I gave in my last post makes that obvious. So, in essence, that is evidence that the text can be translated and preserved. It is the Holy Spirit that reveals that written text to us. That text, as long as it is preserved in doctrine, will convey the orginal doctrine of the source, and it will be revealed through the Holy Spirit.

A better question answered would be like the document I sent out. What doctrine is affected by translation? If no doctrine is affected by the translation, and the doctrine is conveyed completely from the originals, then that translation is preserved.

And yet our understanding of this term leads us to believe that it is indeed a continual filling as like unto a glass of water, when you fill it, and don’t dump it out, then it is full. If we dump it out, we refill it. A glass that is full is full. The bible doesn’t tell us to dump it out.

Sorry, for a second there, I was understanding the slash (/) as a device pointing out an antonym, not a synonym, my bad. Don’t know why I did that. Either way, functional equivalence is a contradiction in terms

Yes it would have been wrong.

Unless the Kingdom of Heaven does, in fact, represent something different than the Kingdom of God……..which I am not so quick to dismiss. I insist on studying this as I believe there is more there than what is being discussed between us.

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 03:01 PM by Jim.

What is probably meant by the term (which I think you will agree) is that we need to let the Holy Spirit have control of our lives continuously. He doesn't always however because we are selfish and usurp His authority at times. The command is to allow the Holy Spirit to have continuous control in our life. But that idea is not in the English. The English makes it sound like it happens one time (kinda like Spirit baptism). But that is not the case. It is like sanctification. It is a process. A Spirit filled life means continuous submission to the Spirit. I reject the view that says we need to get more of the Spirit. We have all the Spirit we are going to get. The question is, how much are we going to let the Spirit have of us.

Since functional/dynamic equivalence would be wrong in the KJV, then it must not have happened. Do you agree with that statement? Let me ask another question. This is not a tough one, but do you know what the Greek word is for God? If not, could you find out? (I am going somewhere with this)

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 03:09 PM by Greektim.