Featured The doctrine of preservation

I am not familiar with these differences and so I cannot comment on them.

I might ask the same of you. Since the original autographs no longer exist, it is impossible for any man to KNOW for an absolute certainty if any version is perfectly correct to the originals. But it is also impossible to state as fact that all versions are full of errors. You cannot possibly know this.

This is why I have always said I believe in preservation by faith.

Years ago I read many books on both the TR and CT. In my opinion the TR came out way ahead.

I don't. I do not know if they are accurate, but I also do not know if they contain errors. This is why I believe in preservation by faith.

I don't know this, as the original autographs were lost centuries ago. I have no way to know if the TR or CT is accurate or corrupt compared to the original autographs. Neither do you.

But... when comparing the two texts, the TR comes out way ahead in every category, so I tend to believe it is the preserved text.

 

What kind of question is this? How could I know which translations are accurate in languages I do not know?

The fact is, I do not know for an absolute certainty that any version in any language is perfectly correct. I also do not know for an absolute certainty that all texts or translations contain errors. I cannot possibly know either without the original autographs which no longer exist.

Once again, that is why I believe in preservation by faith. You guys just don't get faith do you?

You guys crack me up. You think that asking a question your opponent cannot possibly answer proves your view is correct. It does no such thing.

 

God preserved for us His Word in the original language Greek/hebrew texts, and I do see that reagardless if one hold to MT/Bzt/TR/CT etc, or the various hebrew texts...

So ANY english or other native language translation based off any of them would be their version of word of God to them!

 

Do you understand sound Biblical faith or are you advocating blind faith?

If anyone can claim that something is true just because he believes it to be true then he can believe without any justification anything he wants to believe.

If faith can be based on contradiction, how could God hold anyone accountable for mistaking His commands for their contradictions? A command and its contradiction cannot be both true. Therefore, it is important that believers break down the false opposition which has been set up between truth and faith.

Does claiming to have faith make uninformed opinions or wishful speculations become true?

A faith that does not rest on scriptural truth or rational evidence is fideism, which is essentially the leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox. According to Karl Barth, a person with faith can accept a contradiction, rest in it, and even base their life on the contradiction. A blind faith such as this is an irrational act of subjective arbitrariness. Herman Hanko noted: "Faith is not the acceptance of something which no one can prove, a kind of blind acceptance of the unprovable" (Battle for the Bible, p. 15). Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon wrote: "Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure" (All of Grace, pp. 46-47). Pastor Norvell Robertson stated: "Faith, properly so called, always rests upon evidence; hence to believe without evidence is not rational; and in respect to our relations to God, it is extremely dangerous" (Handbook of Theology, p. 62). Pastor Conjurske observed: "Any faith which sets
facts at defiance is no faith at all, but only superstition. The Bible squarely bases faith upon facts, and faith cannot exist without them" (Olde Paths, Sept., 1997, pp. 212-213). J. Gersham Machen declared: "It is a dangerous thing to encourage faith in what is not true" (What is Faith, p. 179). Puritan Thomas Watson pointed out: "A man can no more believe without knowledge than the eye can see without light" (Body of Divinity, p. 57). Theodore Beza wrote: "It is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of" (Christian Faith, p. iv). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes noted: "Faith hath ever a ground--a reason for it, and is ready to render it" (Selected Writings, p. 114). John Wycliffe maintained that “every point of faith is included in Scripture” (Levy, John Wyclif, p. 355).

 

How can one text that includes the last 12 verses of Mark 16 and one text that omits the last 12 verses of Mark 16 both be preserved? Either one is corrupted, or they both are corrupted, but they both cannot be preserved.

You like others claim a corrupt text can be preserved. If you had a copy of the Constitution, but it was missing the Bill of Rights, would you call that preserved? I wouldn't.

The last 12 verses of Mark 16 are supposed to be there, or they are not supposed to be there, but it is impossible that they are both supposed to be there and not, yet that is your ridiculous view. Pure nonsense that only an idiot would believe. I would be embarrassed to propose such a view.

And we know from Acts 8 that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the original Hebrew text in Isaiah, and yet the scriptures call this passage he was reading "scripture" twice, so this refutes your other argument as well.

 

Oh, so you are the determiner of sound biblical faith now? :laugh:

You have no idea what the original autographs said, so you have no way to know if the King James Bible is corrupt or not. This is a blind faith based on ignorance.

My faith is not based on the unknown, but specific promises of God to preserve his word to all generations.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

These verses in Revelation 22 imply that men can know they have the preserved word of God, else they could not possibly know if they are adding or taking away from his word.

So, my faith is sound, based on scripture itself. Your faith is not sound, you presume all scripture is corrupt, when God has promised he will preserve it.

 

None of the verses you cited suggest that preservation was transferred to translations. Your opinions concerning preservation having to apply to one translation are not sound and are not found in the Scriptures.

Do you suggest that preservation does not concern words?

To preserve the exact, same "pure words of the LORD" given to the prophets and apostles would demand the preservation of those exact, same original language words.

Different words in a different language would not be a preservation of the same exact words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Are you advocating some type of dynamic equilavent meaning preservation instead of word preservation or verbal preservation?

 

The verses in Revelation do not suggest anything that would imply preservation was transferred to different words.

Verses such as those in Revelation 22 demonstrate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages.

Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures.

Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense.

These commands also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands also reveal that the copies were not given or made by a miracle of inspiration. For a king or whoever copied them to be able to “keep all the words,“ they would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19).

In addition, a logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected.

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5).

That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture indicate.

 

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

How does this verse teach that scripture can only be preserved in the original languages? Yes, we are stictly commanded not to add or diminish from God's word, but that cannot possibly mean we are forbidden to translate God's word.

When God told us to go to all nations "teaching them", do you believe it is our job to teach every single person the original languages? You really believe that??

Isn't it more practical for the missionary to learn the language and then translate the scriptures into that language? Isn't this what God performed at Pentacost? The apostles and other disciples were able to miraculously speak in the hearer's native language. These persons heard the gospel in their own language, not the original languages. Those that believed then returned to their home countries and told the gospel there in their own native language.

Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

So scripture does not support your view at all.

Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

You have pulled this verse out of context, God was not speaking of translating his word here.

Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I agree we should not add unto God's words, but do you interpret this scripture to teach that a missionary should go to China and teach several billion Chinese ancient Hebrew and Greek?

You can't be serious. Which is more practical, to translate the scriptures into Chinese, or to teach a country with several billion people the original languages?

I don't think you have given this serious thought.

 

I did not say anything against the translating of God's Word. I did not say that those cammands mean that we are forbidden to translate God's Word. Believers are not forbidden to translate God's word.

You are ignoring the fact that all translators have to add words and omit words in translating in order for the translation to make sense in the different language.

What I properly noted was that those commands were obviously and clearly stated concerning the original language Scriptures and the copying of the original language Scriptures since adding words is necessary in all translating.

If those commands were stated concerning translations as you seem to suggest, they would strictly forbid the adding of any words.

One reason that early English translators indicated words that they added in translating by putting them in italics [or a different type] was perhaps because of these commands. Translators often failed to indicate consistently all the words that they added for which there were not original language words. Where in those commands is permission given to add words so long as the added words are put in italics? There were no exceptions stated for putting added words in italics; thus, confirming my point that these commands obviously had to be given concerning the original language words of Scriptures and not concerning translations.

 

It's Sunday morning, there have been a lot of posts, but I'm still waiting to find out how I determine which Japanese version is God's preserved Word.

Even if one does not know Japanese (or as C4K says in his OP, a language without a Bible), if one believes in a perfectly preserved translation, there must be principles by which such a thing may be determined.

 

Baptist scholar John Gill (1697-1771) presented the Baptist view of Bible translation of that period that was also in agreement with the view of the early translators including the KJV translators and the view in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists.

John Gill wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.” Gill added:


To the Bible, in its original languages, is every
translation to be brought, and by it to be examined,
tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended;
and if this was not the case, we should have no certain
and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all
the translations together, or some one of them; not
all of them, because they agree not in all things: not
one; for then the contest would be between one nation
and another which it should be, whether English,
Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it
could not be read and understood by all: so the papists,
they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has
been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though
it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes;
nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even
assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to
submit to, and be corrected by their version; which
is absurd and ridiculous (Body of Divinity, p. 18)

 

If you do not know what is God's word and what is not, you are in the wrong line of business don't you think?

Should someone who is not sure what the word of God is be translating it to another language?

I am not trying to be a smart aleck here, I sincerely do not understand how a person could go about to translate the scriptures into another language when they are not sure what the scriptures are.

 

Gill is not saying the scriptures cannot be accurately translated here, he is insisting that an accurate translation agree with the original languages. Nobody would disagree with that.

But Gill is not saying a missionary should go to another country and insist the people there learn the original languages that the scriptures were written in. He is just insisting that any translation into another language be compared to and agree with the scriptures written in the original languages.

 

Thanks for the quotes.

 

You have apparently misunderstood my question. I have a very clear view in my heart and mind of what the Scriptures are. My question was not for my own information, it was to cause to think something through. I was using the method of discussion Jesus used: ask questions to cause people to think.

Here it is. The view that there is only one valid translation in the English language logically points to the view that this must be so for all languages. (This is exactly what is being argued about the Spanish Bible right now--which fundamentalist translation is the "Spanish KJV," and the Korean Bible and so forth.)

So, assuming by this logic that you believe there is only one valid translation, only one true Bible for the Japanese people, what procedure should be followed to find out which Bible that is? If you do not believe there is only one valid translation for the Japanese, why not?

This is not a frivolous question, it is directly based on various lists that have been produced to show the "Received Text" or the "----(name a language) KJV" in various countries.

 

Well, not being a translator, I have never had to deal with this question. So I am put on the spot to give a quick answer which is not quite fair. I am not complaining mind you, I am just saying this question of what I would write would be a very serious question in my mind. I take the warnings of Revelation 22 quite seriously.

First, it would have to be established in my mind which is the correct text. There are basically two texts out there, the Received Text and the Critical Text, however I know it is not quite that easy. Nevertheless, simply to answer quickly (which I would not do) I would choose the text behind the KJB as I believe it is the preserved word of God in English.

As for the translation itself, to answer quickly, I would try to record word for word as closely as possible (if possible) and to maintain the sense. I realize this cannot always be done. The sense of the scripture is what matters most.

Now that is a very quick answer, which I really would not give you if I was truly doing a translation. I am sure if I was truly doing a translation there is much more to consider. I appreciate that it is a science I am not familiar with.

Now there, I have answered, but I think you realize your question is rather unfair to a person who does not know other languages and has never studied or participated in a translation.

It would be sort of like me asking you to develop all the plays for a professional football team.

One thing I do know however, is that I must be sure in my mind what is scripture and what is not before I then decide how I accurately convey those scriptures in another language.

What text have you chosen?

 

The answer to my question has everything to do with the OP. You have come on the thread to answer the OP, have you not? Any other purpose on this thread would be unfair to the OP and thus to C4K. So I don't think anything about my question is unfair.

The OP and my question are not about English Bibles per se, but about foreign language Bibles. So really, to say you would choose the text behind the KJV is a non sequitor. Let's say you are talking to a young Japanese pastor, to whom the KJV is so far out of his experience it might as well not exist. What would you say to him?

So far your criteria for choosing a Japanese Bible would be (1) it must be from the text behind the KJV, and (2) it must be a word for word translation. Correct?

Now back to the OP. Let's say an Indonesian who does not have the Bible in his language were to ask you, "Why don't I have a Bible? Isn't God interested in me and my language?" What would you say?

I think the question is entirely fair. It is in line with the OP. The view that God has only preserved His Word in the English language is (1) prejudiced against people of other languages, and (2) a view that ignores the Great Commission. It is entirely fair to question someone about that position from the view of the Great Commission, which is what I am doing. The fault of your position is that you don't seem to realize the implications of the view for world evangelism.

I am translating from the TR. When we are finished, it will be the first ever translation in modern Japanese from the TR. There was one previous NT, but it was in Classical Japanese and is out of print. So Japanese pastors are almost all bewildered by the American view of the KJV being the only preserved Word of God in English. (Believe me, I've talked to them.)