FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The following quote from the “William Carey Society” is a woeful disgrace:
Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
Hello Bro. Avery, it's been a while.
Quote:
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. Quote:
"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." Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#5
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Hi Folks,
Greetings, Manny. Nice to chat again. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-05-2008 at 11:40 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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: Quote:
Quote:
Dr. Cobb's last statement was, "So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!" |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by Manny Rodriguez; 12-06-2008 at 03:59 AM. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
|
|