[bibleprotector]

The following quote from the “William Carey Society” is a woeful disgrace:

On the other hand, a translation taken only from the English might be less accurate than one also using the Greek, especially if it is done too literally. For instance, Revelation 3:20 says, “. . .if any man hear my voice. . .” This first-year Greek student can see at a glance that the word “man” is not found in the Greek phrase. The English uses the word “man” to mean any person; therefore “man” is a good choice. However, suppose that in the receptor language the word “man” can only refer to an adult male. Then a literal English translation would be an inaccurate one. Paul asks a ridiculous question in Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” He answers his question with, “God forbid.” A look at the Greek shows that the word “God “ is not found in this phrase and neither is the word “forbid.” The Greek uses a very strong word meaning “no” any another word meaning “to be.” The Spanish Bible translates this phrase as “in ninguna manera” (in not any way). The Greek, Spanish and English are all different; which is correct? They all are! By studying the Greek along with the English, the translator may get a better understanding of the text, something he desperately needs. He also sees that there is a certain amount of liberty in choosing the best word in the receptor language. Perhaps the receptor language best expresses it, “never, never.”

“never, never.”!?!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Overall I am more warm to such a web-site, preferring in a case like this to emphasize agreements more than differences. Or at least to point out that they can still be largely allies, even while their presentation has flaws.

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.

Stephen, they are referring to the Greek Scrivener back-translation, not the deficient Cambridge Paragraph Bible done by Scrivener. The back-translation to Greek (ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other) is a decent scholarly work, the Greek text today closest to the King James Bible.

The list of Bibles in other languages is fairly good, and at least can be a help. I have seen one other web-article with similar information.

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.

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. 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.

Another strange aspect that pops up continually is how there could be over 50 pages (in two articles) on the "LXX" with no mention of the Psalm 14 gross tampering. This always amazes me.

Beyond that, I hope to look at those articles a little closer. Oh, I note that they mention Josephus but miss the fact that the Antiquities Preface indicates the lack of an available Greek translation of the Old Testament histories in the late first century. This is a bit more nuanced than the Psalm 14 issue but should be in every substantive "LXX" article.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[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.

[bibleprotector]

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.

God prepared English to be the vehicle for presenting the Word of God. The same cannot be said for Pidgin.

The authority of meaning or "proper" sense is not locked into the Greek. If God could not get it out of Greek, how could anyone be saved?

The solution for the PNG people is teaching them the English word "modest", rather than foolhardy adventures in cultural equivalency... we believe in the Lamb of God, but are they to have the pig or rooster of God?

Australian Colonial Policy was successful in PNG when they laboured to bring them up to our standard. Now we have people trying to reduce things to the standards of benighted worldly hearts. If the most successful missionary activity of the twentieth century carried the idea that the best-taught natives would have an English and western Bible College-style education, what must the standard now be, but to improve on this in line with the KJB.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Manny. Nice to chat again.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

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

Yes, your position has always been stronger than what is on the web-site.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation".

I agree that it is imprecise, and modified it later. "(ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other)". The problem with calling it a back-translation is that it can imply new translation. A better phrase would be back-reconstruction and I likely will switch to that in the future, or something similar (back-compilation, reverse-source-text .. hmmm, what is best). Perhaps "source reconstruction with Beza as the primary text".

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

.. 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.

I agree. There is an isolationist tendency among King James Bible defenders that allows our opponents to ignore the foundational base of our position.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence.

From my way of thinking, a "dynamic equivalence" translation can, on occasion, be an accurate translation, more meaningful and accurate that a slavishly literal translation. However if you view DE as ipso facto a bad thing, then you need a more involved construct, as you have given. A Formal Equivalence translation can, on some occasions, be un-literal (e.g. some idioms in either the source or target language). I just allow for calling those occasions "dynamic equivalence" and you are concerned that this would represent or allow a DE translation philosophy, an understandable concern.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God"..

Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to.

Right, no comparison. Likely, very few today can take an unpointed Hebrew text and give a sermon in English fluently, directly out of the text. Similar with Hebrew and Greek "lexicon scholars". This stumbling limitation is the soft underbelly of today's computer-oriented scholarship. The folks (with an occasional exception) simply are not fluent masters of the languages, as were the Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster scholars of the 1600s. Publish or perish, consult on a version, study arcane cognates, but no simple, powerful depth and clarity. No living, breathing, daily conversation, study and understanding of the languages. Replaced by looking into an Akkadian cognate and running around town to pick up a roast beef sandwich and dozens of media and puter and scholarly diversions ; of little import. I've had enough discussions with the 'experts' today to tell that their brain synapses tend to be somewhat frazzled as well, it seems more important to them to try to prove the Bible is unpure or unknown or strange than simply the pure and perfect word of God.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

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.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here.

Right, most verses and sections do not have these types of questions.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

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.

Since "dynamic equivalence" historically was a term used for a translation as a whole, I'll consider only using it in that regard in the future.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

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.

The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894

No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Manny Rodriguez]

Bro. Avery,

As usual, we seem to be on the same page on most of this. The only responses to your statements I offer are the following:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

I only brought that up to demonstrate that an exact word for word equivalent is not always possible. I was using that example to preface my next statement that idiomatic expressions are also an example of when a literal translation is not possible. (bearing in mind that such are exceptions and exceptions prove the rule) Nevertheless, I'll try to be more clear next time.

The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894

No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.

Dr. Cobb's last statement was, "So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!"

[bibleprotector]

Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.

That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.

[MC1171611]

While I'm not (yet) a missionary, and I do not yet speak Spanish well enough to be an authority, let me insert something here to try to calm down the altercation. I didn't read the William Carey site, and I don't really have any intention of doing so (that's their business, I'm doing other things ), but is it really possible to argue that for basic salvation and discipleship of people in foreign countries, their own language is the best way to reach them? Regardless of the "inerrancy" of the Bible used in that language, as long as you can teach them how to be saved and get them started growing in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, as much as they can glean from their Bible, they will profit from it.

Now, being that I'm only familiar with the English Bible issue and the Spanish, I cannot speak authoritatively about any other language. However, if God has provided an excellent translation of the Bible, like the Valera 1865 in Spanish, that can be used to teach and expound even the deepest Biblical doctrines, then there is no reason to spend years teaching them English just so you can turn around and struggle to teach them deep doctrine in a language they can barely understand. If that were to happen, then those men have to turn around and continue evangelizing their people, teaching them English, and struggling the same way again and again. That is if there is at least an acceptable Bible in that language.

However, if the language does not currently have a good, Philadelphian-age Bible, then you're stuck with a few people translating, to the best of their abilities, the Bible into that language, or a missionary spending years of his time teaching some people the second-hardest language in the world (English) and again struggling through Doctrine in a language the people are unfamiliar with. This is an option, and the best one at that (since God's perfect word is in English!), but if there are alternatives to that they should be considered fully.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool "Ruckmanite" King James Only Bible Believer. I will accept nothing over or equal to the King James Bible, in English or otherwise. That being said, I'm also (somewhat) multi-lingual and rather well-versed in idiomatic and linguistic problems between languages. I think this society is doing a good thing (for languages without a decent translation of the Bible currently, that is) even though I may disagree with individuals or whatnot. The point is that teaching English to every foreign convert, or even national pastor, is impractical and unnecessary as long as the word of God is available in a faithful, though obviously not perfect, translation.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.

Don't even try to compare what I am talking about to the NKJV. The New King James was an attempt to product an "easier-to-understand" translation, which we know turned out to be nothing but a watered down counterfeit. Besides, since the KJV is perfect it needs no revision anyways so the NKJV was nothing but a waste to begin with. What I'm talking about is something totally different. What I'm talking about is ACCURATE translations in foreign languages. It can be done so long as we have the KJV as our guide.

[PeterAV]

Brother Cob has a wonderful ministry at BBTI.
I would have been there in a shot had it not been for the "Independent Baptist member" pre-requisite.
He also chooses both the AV and the underlining texts.
BBTI's method is very good.
But, the only problem is this.
To learn a language takes years and years.
This means learning the nuances of the people and their idioms, etc.
All the grammar they have and the like. Lifestyle...
On the average, to transslate a Bible into any given language and do it a service, would take a couple decades to say the least.
But with ESL it takes 5 years at the most, and then they can learn the English with all of IT's idioms and grammar.
The locals simply put their children into the ESL children's course, while the adults have their own as well.
It is easy to have a whole generation learn English in less than ten years if logistics were available with financial support.