View Single Post
Old 12-05-2008, 10:06 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76

Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,
Hello Bro. Avery, it's been a while.

There is an irony in placing the Scrivener back-translation, derivative from the King James Bible, over the King James Bible itself. This is only a result of paradigmic muddle, the refusal to simply see and declare our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.
Just for the record, and I speak for myself, but I do not hold the TR as superior to the KJV. I believe the KJV and the Greek and Hebrew words that underlie it are equal. For those who don't know me, I believe the KJV is PERFECT. It is the infallible word of God. There are no errors in it whatsoever. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. God's words have always been around and always will be because Ps. 12:6-7 and a score of other verses says so. And before 1611, yea before John Wycliffe's translation in the 1300s, the words of God existed in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac and other languages before it ever did in English. Just because God has chosen English to be the universal language of today, and He has given us a perfect Bible in that language, does not mean that his words in other languages ceased or expired from being God's words as well. So I furthermore believe that these Bible-believers who utterly despise any consideration of the Greek and Hebrew make absolutely no sense and shoot themselves in the foot.

Of course, Bro. Avery, I'm sure you already knew these things about me from past conversations. I state my position for the sake of others.

the Greek Scrivener back-translation
If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation". I've done a little write-up about this which I have yet to publish. Here is a portion of it:

"First off, Scrivener’s Annotated Greek NT is not necessarily a “new Textus Receptus”. According to Scrivener’s own testimony (see the preface of Scrivener’s Greek NT), his text is basically Beza’s 5th edition (1598) save in 190 places. For these 190 places, Scrivener replaced those readings with Greek renderings that matched the KJV more closely. But these replacements were not new TR readings nor were they a back-translation of the English into Greek as some have suggested. These renderings already existed in prior editions of the TR and were borrowed from those editions to replace the 190 instances in Beza’s 5th edition which did not match up as closely with the KJV. So there is really nothing new about Scrivener’s TR text. It is simply an edited version of Beza’s text in just 190 places with renderings that already existed in prior TR texts."

Among those who believe that Bible translations into other languages can be a positive effort, the issue of the source text (when skills in Greek or Hebrew as well as English are available) is a fascinating question. As of today I would not belittle the arguments on either side.
I'm glad not everyone is so close-minded. The subject of Bible translation is an important subject. It would do us as Bible-believers some good to listen a litter better and actually try to understand what is going on before delving into something half-cocked. Even if we don't agree with everything a certain individual is proposing, some of these men have a sincere desire to help people by providing them the pure words of God. They are doing the best they know how to figure out what is the best way to do that. Instead of "biting and devouring" one another, we should set are pride aside, and see what we can contribute to the discussion in assitance of those who have a true burden to help people receive God's pure words in their language.

Although the "men" argument for Greek translation given in their article is flawed since someone translating from the King James Bible is likely to know full well when "men" is inclusive of men and women, simply by English knowledge and context. They also would likely know full well that "God forbid" is idiomatic, or dynamic equivalence.
I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence. Bible believers need to understand that Formal Equivalence (word for word translating) is not necessarily a demand for an exact translation IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE. It is a demand for an exact word for word translation WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE. Anyone who has studied a second or third language knows that a word for word equivalent is not always available for every word in every language. In such cases, an exception must be made and the translator must diligently and prayerfully search for the closest to an equivalent that is possible. This is what the KJV translators did when 2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God". There is no 1 word available for "theopneustos" therefore they had to improvise in order to convey the Greek word properly into English. There is right now a team of Bible-believing Missionaries in Papua, New Guinea translating the word of God into the Pidgin dialect. They do not have a word for "modest" in Pidgin. So the translators had to do the same thing as the KJV translators did in 2 Tim. 3:16 with the translating of "theopneustos". They had to use several words to convey the English word "modest" into Pidgin.

Another example of when an exception must be made is with idiomatic expressions. The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to. The KJV translators were so fluent in the original languages as well as the cognate languages that they could identify the idiomatic expressions in those languages.
Most Greek and Hebrew professors today have not even begun to understand the languages that they teach at a level in which they can identify the idioms. The KJV translators could. Those who criticize the KJV translators for translating an idiom in the original languages (mA genomia) into an idiomatic expression in the receptor language (God forbid) fail to appreciate the expertise of the KJV translators for this proper methodology.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here. The vast majority of words in any language WILL have an exact word for word equivalent. Therefore, a dynamic equivalent translation is never justified. However, it is an error to refer to exceptions in word for word translation as Dynamic Equivalence because the dynamic equivalence method of translating is not concerned with conveying the most literal sense of the source but rather the most "understandable" sense for the reader. This is a big difference. The KJV translators were not concerned with an easy to understand translation. They were concerned with an ACCURATE translation of God's pure words.

And the web site articles clearly do not see God's hand in the English Bible as we do. And by their theories could easily end up translating incorrectly from "the Greek" (e.g. they could crash-up some 'faith of Christ' into 'faith in Christ'). Thus the Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic TR alone would be a very dubious source option today, if the KJB was not included.
Bro. Avery, you obviously must have skimmed through the articles. Dr. Rex Cobb was trying to explain that both the KJV and the original languages should be used when translating into another language. And I agree wholeheartedly with that. I believe the Received Texts should be the foundation, but the KJV should be the standard on how to translate. In fact there is not translation on planet earth, including the KJV, that was ONLY made from the original languages without the collaboration of a foreign translation (or several) and vice-versa.

I have talked extensively with both Dr. Stringer and Dr. Zeinner of the WCBS on several occasions about Bible translation. These men would never accept a translation that is not equivalent to the KJV or at least an attempt to be and in order to accomplish that the KJV must be used as the standard in the translation process. In fact, on this same website Dr. D.A.Waite wrote an article critiquing another man for insisting that a KJV equivalent is not possible. These men are on the right side of the fence. It's time for Bible-believers to quit with the "friendly fire" and start realizing who their fellow-soldiers are lest Satan should get an advantage in this war.

Last edited by Manny Rodriguez; 12-05-2008 at 10:14 AM.