Biblical errancy.

[John of Japan]

The same Greek text, but translated differently with a another meaning. One meaning would not be true. Two different readings of a Greek text, one would be God's word and the other not, as to that word.

ESV "before" and KJV, NKJV, NASB "from." Revelation 13:8.
ESV, NASB "God" and KJV, NKJV "Son." John 1:18.

KJV "on me", NKJV "in Me" and ESV, NASB omits. John 6:47.

This ignores the fact that quite often God has put ambiguity in the inspired text. Quite often the translator must choose between two equally valid renderings, and to say either one is wrong is to show a lack of understanding of the translation process and/or linguistics.

For example, you mention John 6:47. The preposition is eis, which has a very wide range of meaning. (It occurs 1,753 times in the Greek NT, according to David Alan Black, Learn to Read NT Greek, p. 38.) In English, either "on me" or "in me" are entirely possible in the English language, with very little semantic difference. As my friend Bill points out (has translated the Word of God into 10 languages), there is no such thing as a "perfect natural equivalent."

 

[Yeshua1]

This ignores the fact that quite often God has put ambiguity in the inspired text. Quite often the translator must choose between two equally valid renderings, and to say either one is wrong is to show a lack of understanding of the translation process and/or linguistics.

For example, you mention John 6:47. The preposition is eis, which has a very wide range of meaning. (It occurs 1,753 times in the Greek NT, according to David Alan Black, Learn to Read NT Greek, p. 38.) In English, either "on me" or "in me" are entirely possible in the English language, with very little semantic difference. As my friend Bill points out (has translated the Word of God into 10 languages), there is no such thing as a "perfect natural equivalent."

Are there any well known examples where the difference in how the team chose to translate those ambiguous terms/words actually caused any real changes though in doctrines and theologies?

 

[37818]

This ignores the fact that quite often God has put ambiguity in the inspired text. Quite often the translator must choose between two equally valid renderings, and to say either one is wrong is to show a lack of understanding of the translation process and/or linguistics.

For example, you mention John 6:47. The preposition is eis, which has a very wide range of meaning. (It occurs 1,753 times in the Greek NT, according to David Alan Black, Learn to Read NT Greek, p. 38.) In English, either "on me" or "in me" are entirely possible in the English language, with very little semantic difference. As my friend Bill points out (has translated the Word of God into 10 languages), there is no such thing as a "perfect natural equivalent."

Yes. But in the case of John 6:47 it is not the issue of "in Me" or "on Me" but the textual variant which omits it. Omits ". . . εις εμε . . . ."

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. But in the case of John 6:47 it is not the issue of "in Me" or "on Me" but the textual variant which omits it. Omits ". . . εις εμε . . . ."

As I understand this issue it is restricted to the matter of copies and translations rather than the original text. Haven't had the time to read all the posts yet.

 

[37818]

As I understand this issue it is restricted to the matter of copies and translations rather than the original text. Haven't had the time to read all the posts yet.

In the case of John 6:47, 99.5% of the evidence supports the "in Me" reading.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes. But in the case of John 6:47 it is not the issue of "in Me" or "on Me" but the textual variant which omits it. Omits ". . . εις εμε . . . ."

I hold to Byzantine priority. The prepositional phrase is in the Byzantine Textform, therefore there is no problem with inerrancy. Both the Byzantine and it's derived text, the TR, are inerrant in and of themselves. So I fail to see the purpose of this thread.

Probably won't be able to post again until Monday. So, have a good weekend.

 

[John of Japan]

Are there any well known examples where the difference in how the team chose to translate those ambiguous terms/words actually caused any real changes though in doctrines and theologies?

Yes there are, but I don't have time to delineate them. Have to run. Have a good weekend.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have read much of the debates on transmission of the text and variant textual lines. My view is that the original text was inerrant and the purpose for inerrancy of the original was to secure a contextual self-defining text that cannot be "broken" due to copiest or translation errors which divine providence prevented from destroying the contextual pattern. Let me illustrate what I mean. Take an afghan that has been carefully made without mistakes that contains a major pattern that permeates the whole afghan. Through the years it is handed down to many, and many copies are made but due to wear and tear holes develop here and there and are passed down with it. However, by carefully studying the immediate and overall pattern such holes can be easily repaired. The same is true with the copies and translations. We have so much materials that by studying the immediate and overall context of any given text where a discrepancy occurs the intended meaning, or missing word or words can be easily supplied simply by the hard work of exegesis and comparison of copies. For example, one of the biggest debates within Christendom has to do with the meaning of baptizo. However, the originals provided a contextual framework that provides self-defining provisions. For instance, in other related texts the Christian ordinance is described in only terms that demands immersion as the mode ("buried with him in baptism" etc.).

This argument concerning the proper interpretation of the preposition "en" can be settled the very same way. Of course, the interpreter whose major views are based on eisegesis instead of exegesis will choose what is consistent with their eisegetical platform.

 

[37818]

I hold to Byzantine priority. The prepositional phrase is in the Byzantine Textform, therefore there is no problem with inerrancy. Both the Byzantine and it's derived text, the TR, are inerrant in and of themselves. So I fail to see the purpose of this thread.

Probably won't be able to post again until Monday. So, have a good weekend.

Where errancy is alleged. Without exception it can be shown to be one or more of three causes. The interpreter and or the translation and or a textual issue.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where errancy is alleged. Without exception it can be shown to be one or more of three causes. The interpreter and or the translation and or a textual issue.

Inerrancy is only claimed for the originals, but we can and do have Infallible Greek/Hebrew/English translations now!

 

[Yeshua1]

I hold to Byzantine priority. The prepositional phrase is in the Byzantine Textform, therefore there is no problem with inerrancy. Both the Byzantine and it's derived text, the TR, are inerrant in and of themselves. So I fail to see the purpose of this thread.

Probably won't be able to post again until Monday. So, have a good weekend.

Inerrancy holds for just the originals though...

 

[37818]

This argument concerning the proper interpretation of the preposition "en" can be settled the very same way. Of course, the interpreter whose major views are based on eisegesis instead of exegesis will choose what is consistent with their eisegetical platform.

Well, the preposition was "eis."

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, the preposition was "eis."

Makes no difference as any good Greek student knows that "eis" is not without debate as to its meaning and context is the deciding factor.

 

[37818]

Inerrancy is only claimed for the originals, but we can and do have Infallible Greek/Hebrew/English translations now!

Inerrancy is not the reader, not any translation, nor any variant from the original autographs.

 

[John of Japan]

Where errancy is alleged. Without exception it can be shown to be one or more of three causes. The interpreter and or the translation and or a textual issue.

In the inerrancy debate among evangelicals that has been going on since the 1970's and Lindsell's book, The Battle for the Bible, textual issues have never been the focus. Interpretation has also never been a focus. One can interpret a passage wrongly and still not affect whether or not the passage is inerrant.

Concerning textual criticism, that has also not been a focus of the debate until the KJV-Only movement came along--the genesis of which I put in 1970. As I said above, whichever Greek text you use, an argument can be made that it is inerrant in and of itself.

 

[Rippon]

As my friend Bill points out (has translated the Word of God into 10 languages), there is no such thing as a "perfect natural equivalent."

And there is no such thing as "optimal equivalence" "complete equivalence" or any other regrettable marketing ploys.

 

[Rippon]

whichever Greek text you use, an argument can be made that it is inerrant in and of itself.

No, copies are not inerrant --only the originals are. Your argument is in error, in and of itself.

 

[TCassidy]

No, copies are not inerrant --only the originals are. Your argument is in error, in and of itself.

Whenever someone says that I immediately realize that person does not understand either inerrancy or preservation of the Scriptures.

 

[John of Japan]

Whenever someone says that I immediately realize that person does not understand either inerrancy or preservation of the Scriptures.

He doesn't know Greek (or Hebrew, or any other language than English), so he naturally cannot understand my point. Yet he still frames his posts as if he were an expert in bibliology, translation and/or linguistics.

 

[Yeshua1]

And there is no such thing as "optimal equivalence" "complete equivalence" or any other regrettable marketing ploys.

There are formal and dynamic translations still though!