04 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephw
Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translation is not about words, it's about preserving the meaning that we can best guess that
the author had. It is well established that the meaning of words changes over time, so an old translation
well necessarily have to be riddled with footnotes where a new translation would be easier and less
cumbersome. Similarly, our understanding of what the author meant by a certain Greek word changes
over time. In the 16th century, Greek scholarship was not what it was today. So some renderings
by the translators in the KJV are necessarily bad (even though it reflected the best of their
day, and a towering achievement in scholarship) because they didn't have the wealth of Scripture
study that we have today. And tomorrow's translations promise to be better than today. Lastly, the
two most important complete Greek codices (Codex Vaticana and Codex Sinacticus) were not even
available and predate the ones used by Stephanus by almost a millenium (for the Christian Scriptures,
of course).
Second, when a person says 'This is the only true translation,' they are committing an act of idolatry.
Even reading in the Greek is an interpretation, an effort to reach the meaning intended by the
author. I fully agree that the KJV is a beautiful and inspiring translation; whenever I set a text to
music, I use the KJV just because of the sonority of the words. But it's a horrible place to start for
Scripture study because we're not a 16th-century audience. When we read the words, we are imposing
our own 21st-century meanings on them without even trying. If we pretend otherwise, then we are
violating the commandment (first or second, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI have to say I'd disagree with josephw.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translatio ...[text shortened]... d, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio[/b]
Kelly
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you disagree with my essential contention: There is no 'one fixed translation' for all time, but
I have to say I'd disagree with josephw.
Kelly
only constantly evolving series of interpretations which help point the reader in the direction of the
author within the abilities of the translation skills at the disposal of the current scholars?
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioYes, I'd agree with you there too. God has left us to do a lot of things
Do you disagree with my essential contention: There is no 'one fixed translation' for all time, but
only constantly evolving series of interpretations which help point the reader in the direction of the
author within the abilities of the translation skills at the disposal of the current scholars?
Nemesio
and keeping translations is one of them, but I do believe that God
has also been keeping an eye on His Word so we have had and do
continure to get God's help in that area as well.
Kelly
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioThat is absurd. And your original post is so full of holes I don't even want the headache of going through it.
Do you disagree with my essential contention: There is no 'one fixed translation' for all time, but
only constantly evolving series of interpretations which help point the reader in the direction of the
author within the abilities of the translation skills at the disposal of the current scholars?
Nemesio
If I have time later, maybe I'll get to it, but right now I have to finish laying the tile or my wife will, well, if you have a wife you know what I mean. 😉
04 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwSo a translation is not about preserving meaning? You think that a translation of a text (any text)
That is absurd. And your original post is so full of holes I don't even want the headache of going through it.
If I have time later, maybe I'll get to it, but right now I have to finish laying the tile or my wife will, well, if you have a wife you know what I mean. 😉
can be so perfect as to endure for all time?
Lay your tile, but bring it on. I don't know anyone -- ANYONE -- who has ever claimed that a single
translation can be 'THE TRANSLATION.' It goes against the very fundament of what a translation is.
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayBut of course you don't believe God can and does preserve his word?
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. God has left us to do a lot of things
and keeping translations is one of them, but I do believe that God
has also been keeping an eye on His Word so we have had and do
continure to get God's help in that area as well.
Kelly
Or maybe you believe we are left with no way of knowing just what is true or not!
God designed his word so that a 3rd grader can read and understand the simple truths contained in it. But some unbelieving man comes along and tells us we have to reinterpret the word every generation, and hordes of christians fall into lockstep with that obtuse ideology.
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwSo God came down and authorized the perfect translation (into English) of 'His Word,' and that
But of course you don't believe God can and does preserve his word?
Or maybe you believe we are left with no way of knowing just what is true or not!
God designed his word so that a 3rd grader can read and understand the simple truths contained in it. But some unbelieving man comes along and tells us we have to reinterpret the word every generation, and hordes of christians fall into lockstep with that obtuse ideology.
translation is the King James Version?
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwAs was pointed out, words change meaning. Look at the quote about "suffer the children to come to me" which some people interpreted as the thought that children should endure suffering ... since the word changed meaning over time. A proper translation would be "allow the children..." Years from now a scripture scholar may discover that the word really means "encourage" in which case a new translation would reflect that. When it was first written, the KJV was phenomenal, but that was 4 centuries ago. Nemesio is quite right. I'm not sure how you've decided that no word's meaning has changed in 400 years and how it was done absolutely perfectly then and it's all the other versions that are wrong. And most of the third graders I've known were lucky to be able to read and understand the Good News version; the King James version is basically a foreign language for American children.
But of course you don't believe God can and does preserve his word?
Or maybe you believe we are left with no way of knowing just what is true or not!
God designed his word so that a 3rd grader can read and understand the simple truths contained in it. But some unbelieving man comes along and tells us we have to reinterpret the word every generation, and hordes of christians fall into lockstep with that obtuse ideology.
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerActually, it was using antiquated language even when it was being composed. The style of English
When it was first written, the KJV was phenomenal, but that was 4 centuries ago.
used in 1611 was very formal and already outdated (as any English linguist will tell you). The
purpose, even back then, was to offer an elevated, English language translation to be read in
churches, not a 'simple version' that even a child could understand.
Nemesio
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwI do believe God preserves His Word he watches over it to see fullfilled
But of course you don't believe God can and does preserve his word?
Or maybe you believe we are left with no way of knowing just what is true or not!
God designed his word so that a 3rd grader can read and understand the simple truths contained in it. But some unbelieving man comes along and tells us we have to reinterpret the word every generation, and hordes of christians fall into lockstep with that obtuse ideology.
yet I do not think He does the same thing with our words. I also since
you brought it up believe that God is alive and well today, His Spirit
is still here leading and guiding those that belong to Him too. We are
not left here to fend for ourselves He has never left us, nor will He
forsake us.
Kelly
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwLet us suppose for a moment that God did assist with one (and only one) particular translation into the English language. Why do you think that that particular translation is the KJV?
But of course you don't believe God can and does preserve his word?
Has he done a similar service for translations into any other language? If so, what are those versions? If not, then what was so special about English?
05 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThe proof is in the pudding.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translatio d, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio[/b]
"First, translation is not about words, it's about preserving the meaning" Your words.
When the words are changed, so is the meaning.
I'll site one example: Galatians 2:20 KJV "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
RSV "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
These two verses don't say the same thing because of one word.
But I want to see if you can find it. I think you can. And when you do, maybe you can tell me how it changes the meaning. And just how significant that change in meaning effects how we live the christian life.
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwAnd if you are told that the RSV version of that verse is closer to the meaning of the best known version of the Greek or Hebrew Original will you say that the Original is wrong or that anyone making such a claim is mistaken?
These two verses don't say the same thing because of one word.
But I want to see if you can find it. I think you can. And when you do, maybe you can tell me how it changes the meaning. And just how significant that change in meaning effects how we live the christian life.
05 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe original autographs are dust by now. I base what I believe on the extant manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV, to be the best there is.
And if you are told that the RSV version of that verse is closer to the meaning of the best known version of the Greek or Hebrew Original will you say that the Original is wrong or that anyone making such a claim is mistaken?
Is that wrong? If so, then please tell me what manuscripts you believe are the most reliable.