A Doctrine of Translation

[Van]

Actually, it has nothing to do with Baptist doctrine what you think about tongues. Baptist doctrine follows the Baptist distinctives, which do not mention miracles. Furthermore, the view that "tongues" in 1 Cor. 12-14 are non-miraculous languages is held not only by myself but by many other Baptists. No less a Baptist theologian than John R. Rice taught that the tongues of 1 Cor. 10-12 were not miraculous, but only ordinary languages.

Now, I pointed out that "interpretation" is needed in 1 Cor. 10-12. Here are the verses:
1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. {two...: by two or three sentences separately}
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If these verses were talking about a miraculous gift of tongues for evangelism as in Acts 2, then why would interpretation be needed? Interpretation was not needed in Acts 2, because the actual languages were given miraculously. However, interpretation is a process, not miraculous. (I say this as one who has interpreted many times, and made many mistakes in doing so. )

Contrary to this disinformation, Baptists are distinctive in that they do not allow "speaking in tongues" in our assemblies. Do not let those pushing gnostic knowledge promote confusion and disharmony. Being gifted in language skills is certainly a benefit to those seeking to understand the original languages of God's word, and then translate accurately the intended message. But exclusivity is no where to be found. It is a worldly driven power grab!

 

[SavedByGrace]

You don't believe there is any perfect Bible that I can hold in my hand

for ANY Bible translation to be "perfect", as you suggest, it would have to be 100% Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, on the same level that the Original Autographs were. There are some who are KJVO (you?), and hold that this translation is perfect and even inspired by God, and hold this equally to the Originals. By your own reasoning you condenm all the other translations, like the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc, to being the mere works of men! There is NO basis or evidence to even suggest that the KJV, or any other translation, is "perfect", as there are variants in the texts that they use as their basis. Some, like the KJV used the TR, while others used the UBS or N-A texts to translate from for the NT. If you can compare these you will see that there are differences in the readings, like John 1:18; 3:13; Acts 8:37; 20:28; 1 Corinthians 10:9; 15:47; Colossians 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7; Jude 5, etc, all of which are important Doctrinal texts. It is the science of textual studies that determines which is the correct reading, and not just because I like what it might say! You will have to have a good working knowledge of the original languages, like Hebrew and Greek, as well as access the the manuscripts, versions, Partistic works, and texts, to be able to determine which reading should be accepted as the original, and more to the point, why!

 

[Van]

What in the world are you talking about??? Gnostic knowledge???

That is your "special knowledge" not mine...

 

[Van]

Thank you. Then you agree with me that the interpreter mentioned in 1 Cor. 12-14 is a non-miraculous gift.

Cite a specific verse, please. Speaking in an unknown to the speaker language is miraculous. Your view claiming exclusivity is unbiblical nonsense. Baptists do not believe in "translator priests."

 

[John of Japan]

Contrary to this disinformation, Baptists are distinctive in that they do not allow "speaking in tongues" in our assemblies. Do not let those pushing gnostic knowledge promote confusion and disharmony. Being gifted in language skills is certainly a benefit to those seeking to understand the original languages of God's word, and then translate accurately the intended message. But exclusivity is no where to be found. It is a worldly driven power grab!

But I'm not advocating "speaking in tongues" as the Charismatics and Pentecostals believe. Just the opposite--I'm arguing that their "speaking in tongues" is NOT Biblical, but the Biblical meaning of "tongues" is always, always humanly intelligible language. I have quite often opposed Charismatic "tongues" both here on the BB and elsewhere as being unbiblical.

 

[John of Japan]

Cite a specific verse, please. Speaking in an unknown to the speaker language is miraculous. Your view claiming exclusivity is unbiblical nonsense. Baptists do not believe in "translator priests."

Are we even talking about the same thing? I cited five verses which talked about interpretation and interpreters in 1 Cor. 12-14. My point is that the gift of interpreter is obviously not miraculous. Acts 2 does not have interpreters, but only miraculously given, intelligible languages.

I would like you to counter this argument, if you can.

 

[John of Japan]

I figured it out, I think, friends. Van's is calling me a Gnostic for no discernable reason. Therefore, it must be like the Internet (and now political) convention that if you are losing the argument you call your opponent a Nazi. That way you don't have to actually and logically counter his argument.

 

[SavedByGrace]

As far as Hebrews 1:2, 21 English translations chose to see the implication of instrumentality and translated "en" as "by or through." The preposition in John 1:3 is "di" which literally means through, and figuratively "by the means of." Thus God the Son was the means by which God the Father caused the world and everything else to be made. 27 English translations translated "di" as through or by. Nuff said.

you are making a fool of yourself here, as your understanding of the Greek prepositions are WRONG! If you don't know Greek, especially the Grammar, not Strongs concordance, then you should not make these rather silly statements!

 

[Iconoclast]

Pay no attention to those pushing Gnostic knowledge, scripture teaches the priesthood of believers, with everyone able to share their understanding of God's word.

Once again you have gone off the reservation.Gnostic knowledge?
You deny Archangel dismantled your strange postings?
Do I have to look that up in the archives?
JoJ has been used of God in a special way having given himself to Kingdom service along with his wife, for more than half his life ,and continues on training others.
Your foul misguided attack has no merit and is to be rejected as puerile.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't mean the translation, I mean the original language text. So in the NT for our Japanese translation, I chose Scrivener and stuck with it. This was according to our skopoi (translation goals) for the translation. For the OT I am going from the Masoretic text (of course, since that's all anyone uses).

is that considered to be the best TR text then now available for use?

 

[Yeshua1]

why is this? if the wrong text is adopted, the the translation is also wrong! for example, John 1:18, if "Son" is adopted as the correct reading, then this is done on the basis of a faulty text, as the greater textual evidence is for the reaging "God". Not only so, but by adopting "Son", I believe that this text is robbed of a very clear testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ, and the plurality of Persons in the Godhead. You cannot separate textual issues from the making of a good translation!

Nas and Esv are very good translations.... as are Kjv/Nkjv!

 

[Yeshua1]

In my experience, it is one or the other. Seems like either profession/gifting is a very time sensitive task. In other words, if one is a committed textual critic, it is difficult to find time to be a translator too, and vice versa. I spend a lot of time on translation theory and translating; though I enjoy textual criticism, I don't see how I could find time to do well at it.

Does one even need to be Christian though to be a notable textual critic?

 

[John of Japan]

is that considered to be the best TR text then now available for use?

It's the TR text closest to the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Part of my theology of translation is that language ability is the spiritual gift of "tongues," (meaning "languages" both in the Hebrew, the Greek, and in 1611 English) and translation is the spiritual gift of the "interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor. 12-14).

As for translators or textual critics that do not walk with the Lord, one can still be gifted by God in an area, and yet use that gift selfishly instead of for the Lord. For example, many who should be pastors or evangelists turn to selling real estate or something else.

One can assemble and put together a decent Greek text with out even being saved? As know Thayers made a really good NT Greek lexicon for its time, even though was a unitarian!

 

[John of Japan]

Does one even need to be Christian though to be a notable textual critic?

Yes, I think they should be. They are handling the Word of God. I shuddered when I saw the name Bart Ehrman, noted atheist, as one of the co-authors along with Bruce Metzger of the 4th ed. of The Text of the New Testament. Ehrman has thrown away every right to handle the Word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is a bald assertion. Please prove it. In my experience (not just opinion), the idea that "anyone can do it" is a complete myth.

I believe I have far more experience in this area than you do. I've known some "wannabes" who should not ever be involved in translation. I have interviewed people who wanted to be involved in our Japanese translation who should not go near a Bible translation effort. On the other hand, I graded some beginning Greek papers last week, a translation assignment, and marveled at the work of one young lady who shows obvious translation ability. Not coincidentally, she is surrendered to be a missionary to India, where she should have ample opportunity to use her obvious gift of translation ability.

P. S. I did not say the gift I was speaking of was miraculous. The language gift in 1 Cor. 12-14 is not miraculous but providential. Please pay attention.

One can know the Greek and Hebrew and ones own language. and yet miss the various nuances that make for really good translation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Forgive me. I'm willing to admit you are an experienced translator with sufficient knowledge to make these statement. (I have little patience with "wannabes.") I'm working on a D.Min. and I'm planning my dissertation to be on the formation of Bible translation efforts. So, I'm making a preliminary list of such efforts and their contact information. (I already have names from efforts in India, Mongolian, Nepal, Lithuania, the Tajiks, Farsi [one of my students on Bible translation in our seminary], etc.) Please help me out. I'll ask for some preliminary information here, and you can send me your real name by PM--and of course I'll give my name and contact information that way. So:

What is the target language for your effort?
What is your source language and source text?
What form does your effort take (single linguist, working as a consultant, supporting a committee of national translators, lead translator yourself, etc.)?

Thank you.

Just think that there is much more that goes into into this then our friend Van would allow for!

 

[John of Japan]

One can assemble and put together a decent Greek text with out even being saved? As know Thayers made a really good NT Greek lexicon for its time, even though was a unitarian!

Was he actually a Unitarian? I've never seen proof of this charge. His biographer states, "It is interesting to note that, while as a young man he usually attended Dr. Gannett's church (Unitarian) with his father, yet his own views followed those of his mother, and led him into the Congregational church. His experience thus resembled that of Phillips Brooks, and resulted in a large charity and understanding for those of differing beliefs, together with a firm and discriminating hold upon his own" (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/472978, 249).

 

[Yeshua1]

The irony is just too rich because 2Timothy 3:16, in its immediate context, refers to the scriptures which Timothy had in his hand as a 1st century half-breed Greek.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul applies the doctrine of inspiration to the actual hand-held scriptures that Timothy had, which evidently could not have been the original autographs. So Paul believed that copies are given by inspiration of God.

We thus lay aside the wisdom of this world which the serpent has fed the seminary and college professors, and stick to a Biblical view of inspiration.

And not a word of this was about the King James Bible...so don't even go there to change the subject.

They can be copies of the originals and still be scripturas to , but not in inherit inspiration!

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, it has nothing to do with Baptist doctrine what you think about tongues. Baptist doctrine follows the Baptist distinctives, which do not mention miracles. Furthermore, the view that "tongues" in 1 Cor. 12-14 are non-miraculous languages is held not only by myself but by many other Baptists. No less a Baptist theologian than John R. Rice taught that the tongues of 1 Cor. 10-12 were not miraculous, but only ordinary languages.

Now, I pointed out that "interpretation" is needed in 1 Cor. 10-12. Here are the verses:
1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. {two...: by two or three sentences separately}
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If these verses were talking about a miraculous gift of tongues for evangelism as in Acts 2, then why would interpretation be needed? Interpretation was not needed in Acts 2, because the actual languages were given miraculously. However, interpretation is a process, not miraculous. (I say this as one who has interpreted many times, and made many mistakes in doing so. )

The tongues in operation at Pentacost were actual languages bearing witness to Jesus Christ, the tongue in the local assembles were?