View Single Post
Old 12-06-2008, 03:39 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76

Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
This implies that the sense as rendered in the KJB as it stands, i.e. “God forbid” is subject to change > not perfect > wrong. “God forbid” does not exactly mean “never, never”. They are different words with different meanings. If we have perfect words in English, i.e. “God forbid”, then the words “never, never” are imperfect renderings of the Word of God. They might be a possible translation, but it is not a perfect translation. On the level of total perfection, we have to say “God forbid” is exactly right. Therefore, any variations to “God forbid” in English are just going the wrong way, and to have those kinds of translations in other languages shows that they are always inferior to the KJB. That is why people from other lands should continue learning English.
Again, you just don't get it. And I sense that you refuse TO get it because you want to convince yourself that you know what you are talking about. Yet you don't. "Never, never" is the EXPRESSION of the idiom in question (ma genomia). The point of the article was simply that a literal translation of an idiomatic expression will not always work and make sense in the receptor language. Therefore, the translator must understand the expression of the idiom in order to know how to translate it and in this case the expression is "never, never". In English, the strongest way to convey that expression is to say "God forbid". But that may not be the strongest way to convey that expression in another language. The point is that when dealing with idiomatic expressions an exception to translating literally must be made in order for the translation to make sense in the target language. But I feel that I can explain this point a hundred times and you still won't get it.

If the KJB is perfect, how could we think that the same perfection could exist somewhere else (except in heaven?) By perfect we mean:

a. exact wording/text/version (this is not found in any single extant edition of even the originals)

b. exact sense of the inspired original (this is not found in any translation in complete perfection, except the KJB)
In the Smithsonian Institute is a ruler on display that is considered THE standard for what is exactly 12 inches. It is not impossible to produce a ruler that is the exact size as the standard on display in the Smithsonian Institute. God has given us a standard. If we use this perfect standard that God has given us how can we go wrong especially if we are led by the Holy Ghost. Your insistence that no Bible in another language can be just as accurate as the KJV is totally faithless. God did not die in 1611 nor in the Philadelphian Church age.

Near enough may be sufficient, but it is not EXACT. It is better for people to have access to the EXACT words and meanings as presented in the KJB, where there is absolute certainty. Other translations do not match up to this high standard, though many have been acceptable and useful.
By your standard even the KJV would be invalidated because if you want to get technical in terms of EXACTNESS God did not breath out His words in English when He dictated the original writers. He breathed out His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So if you want to play the EXACT card, quit using the KJV and become a "TR guy" to the extreme by ONLY using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Your position is self-defeating and self-contradictory.

I will give an example of the perfection of the KJB which comes down to its very presentation. This, I assume, would be totally absent from other translations. We note in the English Bible that the word “vail” is used for a covering cloth or curtain. However, we also find the word “veil” is used. “Veil” is always used meaning that the hidden thing is revealed or made known. (Not to be confused with a vail being taken from someone’s heart so that they understood something.) Do other translations differ or distinguish between “vail” and “veil” in their places?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the translating of idiomatic expressions. Again, you just don't get it.

If the exact form of the Word of God is in English and the people learn English, then the missionary can be certain that he is teaching people exactly what the highest advances of Christians in English-speaking countries believe. Moreover, since we are told to teach nations, baptise nations, and make them observe the exact words of God according to Matthew 28:19, 20, then to bring in the existing foundations of Christian national culture, and more importantly, to give them the exact Word of God in English cannot be wrong.
Again what you are proposing is a distortion of scripture. In Mat. 28:19-20 Christ was not mandating His disciples to teach all nations English, it was a mandate to teach and preach (Mark 16) the Gospel, not "the existing foundations of Christian national culture" (whatever that is).

Existing national cultures being Christianised is proper. Teaching English or bringing in elements from Anglophone cultures is not wrong. But if people are against English or the Gospel because they are “proud of his culture, race, and language”... pride is a sin, and where patriotism or any other thing gets in the way of the Gospel, it is wrong. (It is just as wrong to enforce wrong unbiblical things onto cultures because they are from “civilised nations”, etc.) Racism is wrong too.
I never said that pride was not a sin. It definitely is. But what I did say is that pride of culture, race, and language exists and is a reality that must be dealt with. The best way to deal with it is not impose "elements from Anglophone cultures". That is actually the worse thing to do and the quickest way to turn people away from what you have to say. What you propose is definitely not how Paul operated according to 1 Cor. 9:19-23.

The basis for the Bible today is not by going back to “the Received Texts” if that means Hebrew and Greek. Why? 1. There is no settled existing text/version in those languages.
Wrong. There is a settled text in Greek and Hebrew. In Greek it is Scrivener's Annotated Greek NT, which as explained early is the exact Greek words that underlie the KJV from Mat thru Rev. In Hebrew it is the Bomberg Masoretic Text of Ben Chayiim. These are the Greek and Hebrew texts that underlie the KJV word for word.

2. There is no certain sense ascribed to each word or perfect method of translating 100%.
By this statement you just contradicted your own position because if that's so than even the KJV is not perfect since it was a translation.

(Waite even says that no translation brings over 100%, which is a wrong idea on several grounds, first, that God is able to providentially get all His Word over, otherwise people cannot be saved, secondly, that English specifically has been prepared and had the full outworking to get the exact meanings present today in English.)
I will speak for myself. I believe wholeheartedly that the English of the KJV perfectly conveys everything that God said in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words that he dictated to the original writers. But when it comes to the matter of translating, it is wise for the translator to avail himself of ALL available resources (just like the KJV translators did) during the process of translating. Because when you get involved in translating, you're going to find out quick that you're going to need more than one language source to aid you when trying to figure out what word or words to choose to accurately translate. Those who say that the KJV is ALL we need, or the Greek & Hebrew is ALL we need, have obviously never been involved with translating before and therefore do not understand the nature of translation work.

Even slight variations in the sense in good translations as when compared to the KJB are on the final level in conflict with the KJB. Historically they do not conflict with God's will, because of the principle of sufficient truth. But finally, once we go to the very jot and tittle, the very sense of the meaning of each word, the very structure of the sentence, etc. etc. we find that only the KJB is final authority, not the body of many versions/translations/editions of the original languages. That is to say, that the KJB supersedes and is successionary to them all, or “supersuccessionary”, therefore, why keep on making usurpers when we have the true king?
Translating God to Dios, or water to agua, or man to hombre, is not usurping anything. It's translating and there is nothing wrong with it.

Biblical reasoning shows there is an end of God’s promise as far as text and translation, there is NOT and end as far as the continual preservation of this particular Bible. God gave us the KJB, and we now use the KJB as the standard so that other nations and men of other languages may come to it to find His pure words. Yes the Scripture is pure, and purity may be found in other languages. But complete, seven-times, linguistic purity is only in the KJB today. (Revelation 14:6 shows one Gospel going to all languages, and Revelation 10 one book [KJB and KJB-based preaching]. This of course is the ultimate fulfilment of the prophecies, as it has been good to translate to other languages.)
You're whole position is built upon assumptions and speculations. You are assuming that the promises of preservation in the scriptures had an expiration date on them and that the preservation process expired with the KJV. That is nothing but an assumption. You are speculating that the one book in Rev. 10 is the KJV yet you are building an entire premise based on this speculation.

No, God was for translating to other languages. He is still using them today. But the trend and the manifest providence of God is to go toward one language. It is the Church where Babel is reversed, and where the possibility of Babel is unperverted, i.e. that all things are possible to him that believeth.
Chapter and verse. I'd love to see you demonstrate that in the scriptures. What I do find is God gifting the Apostles in the book of Acts with a supernatural ability to preach in unknown tongues. The book of Acts is the very manual for Missions. And when we go to the word of God we don't find God telling His disciples to teach everybody Hebrew. We find the disciples ministering to people IN THEIR OWN TONGUE. Your position is not supported by the examples of scripture.

Since the Jews are to hear the truth in another tongue, which means not Hebrew, and since the Jews know English ... the KJB must be for all, including the Jews. (When did the Greek preaching of the NT convert the Jews? It was only a "former rain" blessing which had modest [by today's Laodicean standards, "impossibly wonderful"] results.)
Sorry, but no matter how you try to twist it, Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anyone learning English. Paul already told what it was a reference to in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 and so why you would try to make it be something different than what the Holy Ghost through Paul already revealed it to be is beyond me.

Since the Jews are to be turned to another language so that they may call upon God, are we to think that the conversion of Israel is only AFTER the Millennium begins? No, they are to believe before the return of Christ, and if you look at Romans 11:25, 26a, it says, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” ... That is not in the Millennium. The salvation of the Jews must accelerate now, while the Church is yet here. Therefore, it is the highest aim of missionary activity to get the Gospel to all the Gentiles, and to the Jews. Who is going to preach to the Jews? It has to be the people of God doing this missionary work. Zeph. 3:9's context is pre-Millennial.
During the Tribulation period the church is not going to be here. So the ones preaching to the Jews are going to be the converts of the 2 witnesses in Rev. 11 (most likely Moses and Elijah). There will be 144000 Jewish converts according to Rev. 7 and I have a hard time believing that they Jews are going to ditch their Hebrew scriptures and ditch their Hebrew language and start doing everything in English.

Actually, God preserved His Words in Hebrew and Greek for 1611 and to today so that they may now, that is to say, the knowledge of His words in those languages, may diminish. It is obvious that knowledge in Hebrew and Greek have diminished substantially in the last 100 years. How can we expect today’s translators to even come close to the KJB, as much as they might be KJB users and supporters? That is why it is better to teach the people English than to try and get second-rate Bible translations to them. They might not be “bad”, but they are just not the best. At present foreign Bible continue to be used, sure, but if we change our focus and aim now, we are sowing for a better future and the long term excellence for the whole Church.
I don't disagree that we do not have anyone today that could even shine the KJV translators shoes. But what I am arguing for is the validity of foreign Bible translations. It is much needed. You are insisting that it is not needed. And I am trying to inform you that trying to teach English to the 6912 living language groups in this world is an unrealistic option. Sure, perhaps it is possible to teach some groups English. But first off, do you even realize how long it would take to teach an uneducated tribalman, who can't even read or write his own language, one of the most complex and difficult languages in the world. We need people to get saved NOW, not 2 years later when they might understand English good enough. THINK about what you are proposing. It is ridiculous. The resources used to teach English and American culture could have been used translating the words of God into the language of the people. You accomplish that (a Bible translation) and you will leave behind something that God will continue to use to minister to those people generations after your gone and dead. What's going to happen when the English teacher is gone and/or dead. Will those who learn English, learn it good enough to teach it to others and pass it down from generation to generation? You tell me which of these 2 options is more efficient and will yield the most lasting effects.

You seem to have made up your mind that this endeavour would fail. I urge you not to accept Satanic thoughts that doubts that the Gospel can spread. I would to God that missionaries had much more success than what they have had. And that each of us grows to be many times greater Christians.
A missionary will have all the "success" that God intends for them to have by simply obeying the Great Commission, which is to preach the Gospel, not to teach English and American cuture.

What I am saying is nothing short of a Christian Restitution. What we need is strong and proper conversions. Having the KJB as foundation to national and a proper world-wide evangelistic and teaching movement has to be the best thing. Don’t say it is “unrealistic”. Just look at how different Europe was after Luther! If the Word of God does not have power, then why even bother preach?
This is precisely what I am saying. Give these people the word of God in THEIR language and watch what kind of wonders God's holy words can work in the lives of people. The power of God's words are not bound to any one language.

Past and short term outworkings are quite fine for foreign preaching and teaching. Unless there is a Christianity infused with divine mandate on a solid Bible as foundation, we will see the same (sad to say) lack and failure in the West as much as in the little results of missionary activity.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

“And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.” (Isaiah 58:12).

The KJB is foundation.
God's pure words in any language is foundation.

Why did David Livingston teach the brightest and best Christians in Africa English? Why did missions in Australia teach Aboriginals English? Surely this is a sign of the providence of God. There has been the day of going to other languages, now is the day of other languages coming to the Biblical English.

We don’t have to wait for the Millennium for Christian success, if you interpret Scripture in line with the symbols of the Church age of grace:

“And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:2).
And the simple fact that David Livingston himself translated the Bible into a foreign language is proof enough that even he disagrees with your position.

Last edited by Manny Rodriguez; 12-06-2008 at 04:04 AM.