Featured The doctrine of preservation

You see, I can understand this view coming from you. But I cannot understand this view coming from any translator.

If I was not certain I knew the exact word of God, there is no way I would DARE try to be a translor knowing the stern warnings from God.

So, I do not understand how John can be in YOUR camp. He should be in MINE.

 

Translation is a complicated process which you are over-simplifying. Since I am a fallible human being, there are times when I do not understand, or am mistaken in my understanding of the original. That is why a one man translation is often error filled, and why much revision is required on any translation. My son (who recently got his Ph.D. in NT Greek Linguistics) has often pointed out my errors, and I'm sure there are some we both missed, as well as the other translators and editors. There is no Scripture promising perfect understanding or translation.

I certainly did answer, quickly and plainly, and you should have seen it. I am translating from the TR.

It's possible to get it wrong after 4 revisions, as I found out last week. Don't underestimate the tremendous difficulty of the task. The most conservative Japanese translation was proofed 8 times.

 

Yeah, I'm a little embarrassed. But thank you for the kind words.

 

If you knew any other translators you would understand. I'd be very surprised if any translator would tell you they could produce a perfect translation.

As for knowing the "exact word of God," that is a great underestimation of the depth of God's Word. Do you understand the "exact word of God" in English? If you think you do I'd be very surprised. Then how do you expect a translator to understand perfectly in Greek or Hebrew, a second language?

 

Here are some quotes from "The Translator to the Readers" (http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm):

About the Septuagint translators:

The need for multiple revisions:

There will be imperfections in the translation:

The need for revision:

 

"Essentially a miracle?" No. A miracle is "an extraordinary event, inexplicable in terms of ordinary natural forces" (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, by Merrill Tenney, p. 544). On the other hand, concerning providence, Tenney writes: "The meaning is 'prearrangement.' As used historically the theological term 'providence' means nothing short of the universal sovereign rule of God" (ibid, 692).

A tire going flat is entirely explicable in terms of ordinary natural forces. (I said nothing about it being "impossible for humans," which is not what a miracle is.) What makes it providential is God working behind the scenes in non-miraculous ways.

Now, since I made that specific point in regards to God's providential preservation of Scripture, I'll not answer the rest of your post, which is irrelevant to the OP, and threatens to derail said OP.

 

...........

So is human cognition, learning, and memory recall thus: God deserves no credit miraculously nor providentially for helping you find your error.

 

I don't know of anyone (on B.B.) who holds to a "preserved TRANSLATION Theory".......only that God's words were preserved (not in a translation per se)....and that they are knowable. Thus....IF a particular translation exists which is translated from those preserved words, and not a corruption, then you know you have a faithful translation of what is "God's Word".

He doesn't promise a preserved "translation"...only his words will be preserved.

 

I can appreciate that it is very difficult, almost impossible sometimes. As I wrote earlier, I have read there is no word for privacy in Russian, Japanese, or Chinese. So how would a translator convey this word? I can understand this might be very difficult.

Well, I would have to believe I knew the correct text and be sure it is free from error before I would translate.

You say you are translating from the TR, then you must believe the TR is the preserved word of God, no?

That basically puts you in my camp, not C4Ks.

Most of the folks here believe all texts are full of errors. Now if I believed that, I would not be a translator, because I would be translating and passing on error to others. I am sure this was a consideration of yours.

Do you also believe the TR is full of errors?

 

Okay, fine, I did say "human." I wish you had quoted me in entirety, though. Right before that I said, "A miracle, on the other hand, is when God reaches down into the natural world and works against nature."

Now, I'm not sure what you are saying in this post. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me. But I believe it was in God's providence that I found those errors by diligent proof-reading.

 

We are already dangerously close to complete de-railment I think...I'd love to start a thread on another forum wherein we can perhaps discuss such things...so, I'll let it go for now.

Of course...I DO think God presumably was involved in your catching of that error. And thank God for it!!!:thumbs:

 

All I can go by is what you and others have said here many times, that all translations contain errors.

To begin with, I do not know how anybody knows this without the original autographs. How do you know the text behind the KJB does not agree with the original autographs perfectly? You don't, and neither does anyone else, yet most here proclaim to know for a fact the KJB contains errors. It is impossible for you to know that.

Second, I have no idea what you folks mean by a "perfect" translation. If a translation is accurate and conveys the exact meaning of the source text and does not introduce any errors, how can that not be perfect?

Does that mean a text cannot need a little tidying up here or there? No, as the example I gave of 1 John 5:12. It was not error when it did not contain the words "of God", but it was improved and made more clear or precise when these words were added. Obviously, the men who made this addition felt that is the sense the original text showed.

All I can say is, that if I did not believe I had the exact word of God, I sure would not translate it into another language. But that is me.

 

I believe God preserved his actual words in the original Greek and Hebrew. It might be possible that more than one word in English (or another language) can convey the correct sense of these original words. I know in the KJB that the same Greek word is often translated with many different words. I think though in most cases one word would have to be deemed the most accurate, and I am sure that translators have great debates over the proper word to use at any given time. I do not think this easy work.

Now, everybody knows there were variants in the many copies that are still extant. Does that mean that we cannot determine with a great deal of certainty what words are supposed to be there, and which words (or omissions) are errors? No. And I think the KJB translators were the greatest team ever assembled to do this very thing.

And this is the point I am trying to make, it would seem that any translator must lean toward the "only" camp, whether he believes the CT is the only preserved text, or the RT. This is what I mean by him being in my camp and not in yours. You are one who constantly criticizes me and others for being KJB only.

But I do not understand how any translator cannot be an ONLY.

 

I do not agree with you, and in my opinion you contradict yourself. How can you trust something you believe is full of errors?

And no, I am not going to start another thread. That is the thing that kills me, KJB only folks like me are constantly accused of starting trouble. I don't start threads condemning folks who use the MVs, but many people constantly start threads condemning folks that are KJB only like me. Who are the trouble-makers?

So tell me once and for all, are you CT only? or TR only? or KJB only? or any particular version only?

I doubt you will respond.

But once again I'll say this, I do not see how any translator cannot be in the "only" camp, whether he believes it the CT only, or the TR only, or some other text ONLY. But I certainly would not translate a text unless I believed it was perfectly correct. I take the warnings of God seriously.

 

OK, here you go, you said this just yesterday;

I call this a criticism of folks like me who are KJBO. You imply that we cause great division in the church, your friend WEPT because of the division KJVO was going to cause.

I absolutely call this a criticism of KJVO.

What about the MV folks, don't they cause division too? It takes two to tango.