Biblical errancy.

All translation involves some interpretation.

You present your interpretation of how words should be translated.

Jakob Van Bruggen wrote: "Every translator must make decisions about the meaning and purpose of the text" (Future of the Bible, p. 105). Bruggen noted: "Translators invariably must interpret, and godly interpretation requires the ministry of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 46). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark stated: “Every translation is to some extent a commentary or interpretation” (p. xiv). David Sorenson admitted: "To a certain degree, all translation is subjective" (Touch Not, p. 242). William Einwechter, who defends the KJV as the best available English translation, acknowledged: "All translation involves some degree of interpretation" (English Bible Translations, p. 16). William D. Mounce wrote: “All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretive” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 24).

John Owen stated: "To reject all interpretation would thus be to deprive themselves [those who do not know the original languages] of the Scriptures entirely, for all translation is, of necessity, interpretation" (Biblical Theology, p. 806). William Ames (1576-1633) observed: "Among interpreters [translators], neither the seventy who turned them into Greek, nor Jerome, nor any other such held the office of a prophet; they were not free from errors in interpretation" (Marrow of Theology, p. 188).

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators also referred to translators as "interpreters" and not "prophets." Morgan Edwards (1722-1795) said: "The Greek and Hebrew are the two eyes of a minister, and the translations are but commentaries, because they vary in sense as commentators do" (Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 362). Max Margolis commented: “The right kind of translation must not turn itself into a diffuse commentary, but an abbreviated commentary every translation must necessarily become. When the original admits of more than one interpretation, the translator must chose one to the exclusion of the others” (Story of Bible Translations, p. 122). Gary Gilley acknowledged that “all translations involve a certain amount of interpretation” (This Little Church, p. 84). John William Burgon wrote: “The mere English reader can scarcely require to be reminded that, reading his Bible in a translation, he is in the position of one who receives a message through an interpreter” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 65). Every translator interprets the text to some degree since he renders it as he understands (or misunderstands) it.

 

No, it is not interpretation. It is exegesis. If you don't recognize the difference between the two, we can get nowhere. I'll try again.

The grammatical form we are talking about is called the genitive of subordination. It is used to point back to a substantive (in this case the noun prototokos) to which the genitive noun must be subordinate. Therefore, creation is subordinate to Christ. Daniel Wallace say about this grammatical form: "the genitive substantive specifies that which is subordinated to or under the dominion of the head noun" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 103).

Your exegesis is mistaken in that it ignores the "because" (Gr. hoti; "for" in the KJV) immediately after the phrase in Col. 1:15. In other words, the reason for v. 15 (Christ as firstborn) is that He created everything (v. 16). Then in v. 18 we have a second way He is the firstborn, though not an explanation of v. 15 since it does not have "because" but "and" (Gr. kai). The second way is that He rose from the grave, making Him the firstborn of the dead.

 

Jesus is Firstborn as to his rank and position, as being the head over all creation, and especially of His church!

 

Yes, but the Nkjv and Nas teams used less actual interpreting than say the 2011 Niv team did!

 

They chose to translate as they did, knowing that the scripture there indicate that since Jesus was and is the Creator, he would thus have to been in a position of authority over His own creation...

 

The passage does not mean as you intend it meaning, as they would have seen that the author tied jesus in as being the Creator, and thus supreme over all of His creation!

 

You are not paying attention. Please deal with what I pointed out about the "Because" (Gr. hoti) occurring at the beginning of v. 16, but not later where you want the explanation for the first "firstborn" to be.

Please tell me. Have you ever taken a course in beginning Greek, or in exegesis, or (best answer) Greek exegesis? If not, why are you trying to argue from the Greek?

Are you aware that making Jesus part of creation is a heresy just as bad as Arianism? How can He be the Creator, yet part of what He created?

 

Folks, according to a recent survey wherein 78% of evangelicals agree with the idea that Jesus is the highest of created beings. (See: Evangelicals Are Confused about Christianity's Core Beliefs, Survey Says.) We are seeing that error right here, right now. Jesus is not a created being, but the pre-existent Son of God from all eternity.

 

That is the very reason why translators choose to have it state there that Jesus was supreme over His creation, not either under or in it!

 

Even that term Son of God carrys some baggage, as Mormons/JW agree with that term! I prefer to say God the Son....

 

Refers to His status as Supreme being, not being part of His own creation!

 

Where did you get that? Fundamental doctrine: Jesus is the eternal Son of God, and became fully human at the incarnation. So in the hypostatic union, settled against Arianism at the Council at Nicea, Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

 

Are you going to deal with the "because" of Col. 1:16 or continue to ignore my points?

 

I was just going through some files and found the source of this quote from Dr. Kerr. It was from Dr. Kerr's review of Dr. Price's book, and Rippon misquoted. Here is the complete quote: "Optimal Equivalence Theory does not lend itself easily to a simple definition, and Price’s glossary entry could equally be applied to Dynamic Equivalence, Functional Equivalence, or Meaning-based theory." So the quote was about the glossary entry in Dr. Price's book, not about the theory per se. (Find the Kerr review here: The Life and Research of James D. Price).

Furthermore, Dr. Kerr is very much in favor of OE, and believes it is a valid method of translation, contrary to the impression Rippon was trying to leave. Later on in the same review, Dr. Kerr wrote, "As a Bible translator, I find this theory appealing in every way, charting as it does an alternative to the current frustrations in the translation community as to how Relevance Theory (which concerns oral communication, non-verbal communication, and pragmatics) can be applied to an ancient written text. It is also a welcome alternative to translation theories that deal almost exclusively with semantics and ignore the structural equivalence issues."

So Rippon was either careless in his representation of what Dr. Kerr said, or dishonest. I'll choose to believe he was simply careless. And for the record, Dr. Kerr has earned an MA and PhD, and has consulted on over 30 missionary translations. He knows his stuff.