Featured The doctrine of preservation

I didn't mention either providence or miracles did I? I simply asked you whether you think God helped you spot this error.

 

Here is your previous statement:

You wrongly assumed that I would not give God credit for helping me. Do you think that was fair?

Now, I hope you'll get back to the actual OP and answer it.

 

Well, I believe it was a minor miracle that you spotted this error just before it was sent out. I guess a miracle is in the eye of the beholder.

The original OP was;

I believe God's promise applies to all people. Does this mean that every country and every language will have a perfect printed word of God? No, at least not to begin with. But I believe God would send faithful missionaries who would preach and teach from a perfect Bible.

But as you have pointed out, it is man's responsibility to keep these scriptures committed to him, and it would be the responsibility of men to translate an accurate copy of what they know to be the accurate scriptures into that language.

I still don't understand how someone with the viewpoint that an accurate translation cannot be performed would take on the task of doing what he thinks is impossible. I can understand the many people who are skeptical of translations here at BB, but not you.

I cannot count how many times I have read here that all translations contain error, that none of them can accurately represent the original autographs.

Again, I can understand that from the many skeptics here, but I cannot understand that viewpoint coming from a person who is actually translating the scriptures into another language.

Maybe you can explain that to me, it doesn't seem quite right.

 

Then you define miracles differently from what the Bible does. Study your KJV as I just did with my Bible software, then get back to me when you have a Bible definition for miracles. The term occurs in 37 verses in the KJV. It is quite easy to get an accurate definition from the usage of the words in your Bible.

Tell me how that works. I've never had anyone able to do that. Here I've been working on our Japanese translation for 11 years, and no one has ever told me how to get a perfect translation in Japanese. I've spent literally thousands of hours on it.

I've read the Bible from cover to cover with the express purpose of determining how God preserves His Word. I've translated the entire NT from the Greek. I've read the Bible cover to cover many, many times, and frankly haven't found what you are saying. So teach me. As a missionary translator, where does the Bible say I can produce a perfect translation. Don't give me your opinion, give me the Word of God.

I'm getting tired of this. This is several times now that you've presumed to know what I believe or think without asking me. That is rude and wrong. If I did not believe that an accurate translation could be produced I'd be a fool. I do believe an accurate translation can be produced and am working very hard at that.

Have you read the underlined statement from me?

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. Tell me from the Bible where I'm wrong. Tell me where the Bible says I can produce a perfect, errorless translation in Japanese, and how to do it, because I certainly don't know how. I'm a fallible human being, not the perfect Lord Jesus.

As a Baptist, I believe in the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. I'm not interested in your opinion or what you feel to be right.

You said above that not every translation will be perfect into other languages, "at least not at first." So tell me how I'm supposed to have one "at first." If the KJV was revised to take out errors, why won't you give me the same latitude to be human and error-prone in Japanese?

 

Well, folks get all nitty gritty don't they? Perhaps I can explain my view from questions I have been asked by you and others in the past.

I have been asked about textual changes in the KJB from 1611 until today. And there certainly have been a few.

A famous example is 1 John 5:12;

1 Jhn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

I have read that the words "of God" which I have highlighted were not in the original AV1611, but were added later.

Does this change the meaning of this verse? No, even without "of God" a person would understand that a person who does not have Jesus does not have life. So why the change?

Now, I can't answer for the scholars who determined to add these two words, but I think they did it for clarity. Now, as this verse was originally written, it contained no error, it was "perfect". Yet, by adding these two words we have a little more clarity. After all, Jesus also called himself the "Son of Man" frequently, speaking of his human nature. But now Jesus has been glorified and it is more precise to call him the Son of God. He is no longer mortal man.

But as it originally was, it was no error. It was perfect in that it contained no error.

If a person wanted to publish a King James Bible and simply replace all the archaic words with modern words, as long as they were perfectly accurate and represented the true meaning of the original words, I would not have a big problem with that. I believe that was in fact the idea behind the New King James, although that is not what they did whatsoever.

That said, I believe in the old proverb "Don't fix what ain't broken", so I would be reluctant to make any changes in the King James. The KJB can be studied and understood easily, even the old archaic words. So I think this unnecessary, and I think you take the risk of introducing misunderstanding and perhaps outright error. So I say leave it alone.

 

Well, maybe I do define miracle differently than you do. Childbirth is the most natural ordinary thing, yet practically everybody refers to it as "the miracle of life", and indeed it is. I consider any supernatural intervention by God a sort of miracle. When Samson fought a thousand men, he looked down and saw the jawbone of an ass. Perhaps a very ordinary thing, perhaps not.

What is important is that you discovered this error before everything was sent out. Thank God.

Again, you have me at an unfair advantage. I do not speak another language and I have not been trained to translate. I am not poo-poohing what you do, I just read a post by yours about translating languages that do not even have a written language, and I agree it is a tremendous undertaking. I do not have the skill, knowledge, or patience to do what you do.

That said, I would never take on something I did not believe I could do properly. This is a Bible concept.

Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

If I've made you angry it's because my questions have touched a nerve. Now you say you indeed know how to produce an accurate translation. That is what I would call perfect. If you are properly transmitting the true meaning of scripture, that is what you are supposed to do. You might have to add a few words here or there, just as those who translated into English have done.

But I think you do. You have said you can produce an accurate translation. That is perfect. If you transmit the correct meaning of scripture and do not introduce error, that is as perfect as you can get.

Then why is everybody here asking my opinions? I haven't asked yours.

You mentioned a translation in Japanese that you said was "lousy". Did it have to be lousy? I think not, although I am in no position to criticize something I know nothing about, which is translating from one language to another. I do know that the scriptures say "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might", so there is no excuse for a "lousy" translation.

It is the defeatist attitude I do not get. Perhaps that is because my Dad was a very successful coach who won many championships. I was taught to always believe I could win even though in reality you will lose many times.

You talk like the skeptics. You ask me how to make a perfect translation. Then when I question your defeatist attitude you claim you are fully capable of translating an accurate translation. Good man, that's what I want to hear.

I don't understand why you are arguing for the skeptics, you are the last person who should be a skeptic.

But again, I was trained to win.

If that makes you angry, well, what do you want me to say?

 

Then, you didn't get your definition of "miracle" from the Bible.

Amen!

What makes you think I don't believe I can properly produce a translation? I believe I am approaching the task properly and doing the very best I can at it.

I'm not angry, just disappointed. I thought better of you than to have you give false witness about me.

"Accurate" and "perfect" are certainly not synonyms. You are playing fast and loose with your terminology. Words are not little chameleons that change when you want them to. They have meaning.

Now, let's look at it from a different direction. For me to produce a perfect translation I would have to be perfect myself. Am I perfect? Absolutely not. Do I do the absolute best I can? I certainly do. In spite of that I still make mistakes like the terrible one I found last week.

I absolutely agree. And I am doing this translation "with my might." Since beginning I have built up a large library on Greek, Japanese, translation theory, linguistics, etc. And even read almost all of them. I work very hard at this translation--"with my might," with my God-given talent and skills.

But once again, I ask you, how is a perfect (not just accurate) translation produced? No one is able to tell me that, including you so far. What should I do that I am not doing? Give me a plan.

And don't give me the excuse that you don't know another language. The principles for a Japanese perfect translation and an English one should be the same.

I don't have a defeatist attitude. I have an expert one, honed by thousands of hours prayerfully studying and translating. And why do you compare translation to sports? They are completely and totally different activities.

What am I a skeptic of? That man can be perfect? Yes. Do you believe that a Christian can become perfect on earth? Or are you also a skeptic of that?

What does winning have to do with translating? Do I win a prize of some kind when I finish? A medal? A blue ribbon? There could not be two more dissimilar fields than sports and translation.

I'm not in a race with some other translation. Quite the contrary, I am taking all the time I can to produce what I want to be the best Japanese NT in history.

Now, it sure would be nice if you would give me some Scripture as I have asked you to about how to produce a perfect Japanese Bible.

 

It stands to reason that IF a man can produce a perfect translation of God's word, then the man himself must be perfect- i.e. sinless.

An impossibility.

 

I understand what you mean by miracle, such as God parting the Red Sea. That does not mean God does not intervene in "ordinary" ways that might not get much notice. I think you understand what I am saying.

Yes, I am sure that could have been a big problem, thank God that you discovered this error before anything was sent out.

A translation? You mean a "lousy" translation? Or do you believe you can produce an accurate translation?

What false witness? You are the one who has said you don't know how to do a perfect translation. I simply do not like your defeatist attitude.

Well, I think they are. If your translation conveys the correct meaning of scripture and also does not introduce error, that is both accurate and perfect I believe.

How would anybody even know what "perfect" is? When people say perfect, they mean without error.

I do not know what you personally mean by "perfect". To me it is enough that your translation is accurate, that it conveys the exact meaning the originals meant to convey without introducing error. That is the best any man can do, and all I would ever expect of you or any other translator.

I cannot possibly understand what it is like to translate from one language to another. I do not understand how translators translated from Greek and Hebrew to English.

You repeatedly say you do not know how to make a "perfect" translation, whatever that means. Who would recognize a perfect translation if you came up with one? So, this is a meaningless argument.

You know what the scriptures say in the original languages and English, now you need to accurately transmit that meaning to Japanese.

And sports relates to everything, even Paul used sports analogies, he compared himself to marathon runners.

Go back and read my posts. When have I insisted on a "perfect" translation? It is you and C4K that keep talking about perfection, not me. I simply believe you must accurately represent the original scriptures, which you have said you are able to do.

It is not about winning, it is about attitude. Telling us over and over you cannot do a perfect translation is not exactly comforting, although I perfectly understand what you mean. It is you and C4K that keeps talking about perfection, not me. I simply believe your translation should be accurate, that is the best anybody can do.

No one even knows what perfection is. But quit blaming me for introducing the topic of perfection, I am not the one doing that, YOU ARE.

And how am I to give you scripture about translating? I do not know of any such scripture, although there may be some scripture that pertains to the subject I am not aware of.

There is no scripture that tells you how to drive a car, does that mean you are not able to drive properly? What kind of argument is this?

 

That is one of the main points that I have also been making. The accuracy of all translations has to be determined by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The correction of errors in translations is based on the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

It is undeniably true that God's preserved Word in the original languages must govern the translation since the translation cannot govern what it was translated from. The very word "translation" by definition when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language indicates its need of a source or sources from which to be translated. By reason of this definition concerning what constitutes it, it is unequivocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from another language source. What is more essential to the being or constitution of a translation than the source or sources from which it was translated? A correct analytic statement is true by virtue of the meanings of its terms alone. It is logically and Scripturally impossible for a translation by men that were not directly inspired by God to be the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. A translation cannot be an exact duplicate of the originals; otherwise, by definition it is not a translation. By definition, a translation cannot be the translation of nothing. A translation without any underlying texts or sources from which to be translated would not by definition be a translation. A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. The source of a translation would be one of its causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources and causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed? The original language texts cannot be and not be the authority, cause, and foundation for a translation at the same time.

John Gill did not suggest that inspiration or preservation could be transferred to translations. I am presenting the same view of Bible translations as that held by John Gill.

 

This is what I've been saying. It's called the providence of God when it is not miraculous.

I have told you very plainly that I am doing my best and believe the result will be an accurate translation, and even that it will be the best Japanese NT. Now you are beginning to harass me. And I don't like your attitude in doubting my plain statements. I am upbeat and positive about my work, and God is helping me. You don't even know me, so how can you know I have a "defeatist attitude"? I do not.

I mean what the dictionary means: "Without defect, blemish or any imperfection" (The Funk and Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, p. 1001). A perfect translation would be one with no translational errors, typographical errors, any kind of errors. Because the translator is imperfect, this is a physical impossibility.

If you can't understand it, why are you even discussing it?

See above. It is quite obvious what a perfect translation would be: one without translational errors, typographical errors or any other kind of errors.

That's exactly what I am doing.

Baloney. I've played on six different sports teams in my time and I assure you that sports and translation are nothing at all alike. You on the other hand have done no translation work, so you are not qualified at all to discuss it. What you are trying to say is that sports are analogous to life. That being true, the only lessons from sports for a translator are very general ones: to do his best and not quit, things that one does not need sports to know. "Winning" as you are saying is not a consideration in the slightest in Bible translation work. The work I am doing is not in the slightest about competition.

You have said that "accuracy" and "perfection" are synonyms. In this very post you said, "If your translation conveys the correct meaning of scripture and also does not introduce error, that is both accurate and perfect I believe." So every time you talk about accuracy you mean perfection, do you not? And you have talked about accuracy over and over.

It's the argument of one who has studied preservation and translation extensively in the Word of God. There is much in the Bible about both. For example, Matthew and Luke translated Talitha cumi differently under inspiration. This is very instructive to the translator.

 

Well, if you go back, I never said anything about miracles. YOU brought that up, not me.

I am not trying to harass you at all. You are the one who said repeatedly you cannot do a perfect translation. You are the one saying "I can't do this, I can't do that". That is what I consider a defeatist attitude.

Well, it might not be perfect at first, but you can spot errors and correct them can't you?

Hey, I didn't start this thread, C4K did, but it is addressed to those who believe God has preserved his word like me. You jumped in right away, also wanting to know our opinions. Then when I gave my opinion, you complain.

If you don't like my opinions, then don't ask for them.

OK.

Then you DO believe you can make a perfect translation? Good.

If you've played on six different sports teams, then you know how important it is to have a positive attitude. You don't want some crybaby on your team that says "We can't win, we don't have a chance..."

Yes, it was YOU that kept bringing up perfection, not me. I never said I expected absolute perfection from you. I know you will make some mistakes, we all do, but those can be corrected in time. All translations have errors at first, that is to be expected in such a monumental work.

I do not doubt for one second it is a tremendously difficult work. I commend you for taking the word of God to the Japanese. That is all excellent.

What I did not understand is this attitude that you cannot do a "perfect" translation, whatever that means. If your translation accurately conveys the meaning of scripture and does not introduce error, that is enough. Errors and typos can be ironed out in time when they are discovered.

This is the very thing people criticize the KJB for, there were many typos and errors. That does not mean it was not a fully accurate translation, it was, it just had some human errors that had to be spotted and corrected. It must be remembered that typesetting was very primitive back then. They didn't have "spell-check".

 

True. So??

Yes, you've said that several times now. One time is an opinion. Several times is harassment. And I categorically deny a defeatist attitude.

At last I get your view of how a perfect translation can be done: by revision. And if this is true, then you admit again that a perfect translation is not possible the first time, right? It takes revision and review, assuming it to be possible.

I much prefer informed opinions. Yours are not, self-admittedly. Ignorance is embarrassing, and we see so much of it on the BB, especially in this Bible Translations forum.

Once again, it is humanly impossible for a first printing of a book, ANY BOOK, to be perfect. I've worked as a proof reader, I know this to be a fact.

You like sports analogies. Okay. What would you say to a high jumper who said, "I'm going to jump 20 feet" when the world record is only 8'1/2", meaning a 20 foot jump is physically impossible? Would you say, "Great man, that's a winning attitude. I'm sure you can make 20 ft.!!"

Again, the "winning" thing. and again I say, "winning" has absolutely nothing to do with Bible translation. If you think it does, prove it.

So then, are you denying that to you "accurate" and "perfect" are synonyms? Come on. You said they were.

I've answered all of this, including defining perfection. The repetition gets boring. Please don't bore me.

 

You were the one who brought up the difference between providence and a miracle, I brought up neither.

Actually, this started over this comment you made;

To which I responded;

And I would still ask this question to you or any other translator, how can you possibly translate the word of God into another language unless you first know for a certainty what the word of God is in the original languages?

This is why I brought up the CT versus the RT debate, there are two main texts out there, which one would you pick? Or perhaps you would pick your own Hebrew and Greek text?

But how in the world can you do a translation unless you are settled on the correct text? That is my question to you. And when I asked which text you chose, you did not answer.

And this is absolutely relevant to the preservation of scripture, I believe the text behind the KJB is the preserved text, I do not believe the text behind the MVs is the preserved text.

Oh, it's possible to get it right the first time, but highly unlikely. It is an enormous work, I appreciate that.

Again, I didn't start this thread, and nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to participate in it. If you do not care for other folks opinions here at BB, then do not ask for them.

I understand, I have worked in Quality/Inspection most of my life, I completely understand that people make errors, lots of them.

Well, the human body has limitations. But you can get a text perfect.

Now, that said, I do not know what you mean by "perfect". You say you are only human, you cannot do anything perfect, so you seem to consider perfect as belonging to the realm of the supernatural. I have no idea what a "perfect" text would be like if this is the criteria that is used. I have seen folks who said the Lord's prayer in the garden was perfect, the number of words in his prayer could be divided by 7, the number of vowels, consonants, nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives.... ALL can be divided by the perfect number 7. I do not know if this is true, but I don't think anybody is expecting this kind of supernatural perfection from you.

I think you know better, I am not talking about winning, but I am talking about a "can do" attitude. I do not understand how anybody can translate the scriptures from one language to another unless they believe they "can" determine the exact word of God in the source language they are using to translate from.

I don't expect you to believe you can high jump 20', but I do expect you to believe you can beat the other high jumpers there. If you don't believe that, you probably should be doing something else.

 

I think it is absolutely wonderful that John is translating the scriptures into Japanese.

What I do not understand is that he seems to be in the camp that believes the scriptures have been corrupted, and that it is not possible to determine the exact word of God.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the impression I get.

I find it very difficult to understand how anybody who is not sure what the exact word of God is could be a translator, especially if they take the warnings of God seriously.

This is why I keep returning to the CT versus RT debate. It is absolutely relevant to the question of preservation. The only way a person can be certain that they are translating the proper text is if they believe in preservation.

Of course, you get the ridiculous argument that both the CT and RT are the preserved texts. This is impossible, you cannot have a text that includes the last 12 verses of Mark 16 and a text that omits the last 12 verses of Mark 16 BOTH be the preserved word of God. That is an absolute impossibility.