Biblical errancy.

[Dave G]

All translation involves some interpretation.

Not if someone knows the language as their own.

All translation involves carry-over, but not "interpretation", which is private, not public, as I see it ( perhaps it's the common usage of the term, "interpretation" that I shy away from ).
If one knows the languages as their own, then the carry over ( translation ) will be exacting.
To me, "interpretation" is like a foundation of shifting sands...never reliable, never based on solid, never-changing rules....again, perhaps my view of the word ( and it's contemporary usage ) is clouding my perception of its real meaning.

Like "bible colleges", each man-sponsored translator ( or group of them ) has a different set of beliefs about God's word.
From my perspective, translations ( like anything that is done "for the Lord" ) are either God-directed, or man-directed.
If men alone are behind them, they can vary in accuracy and faithfulness.

If God ( who created the languages ) is behind them, then the work will show it.
Either one believes that God directs things, or one doesn't.
Either one believes that certain things are evidence of His directing, or one doesn't.



As I see it, accuracy and faithfulness are the marks of a good translation.
Therefore, find a good translation that is accurate and faithful, and stick with it...it is God's word in your language.

Being valiant for the truth ( Jeremiah 9:3, John 17:17 ) and faithfulness ( Galatians 5:22-23 ) are marks of a child of the living God.
Being "relevant" and always-changing, is not.

God does not change, but men do.
God's children are like their Saviour...they love the things that He loves, and hate the things that He hates.
Their affections and desire towards the truth only ever grow...they do not diminish.

The genuine words of God are inerrant.
Find them, and you'll find comfort and hope ( Romans 15:4 ).

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Or he did not fully understand what was being stated.....

 

[Yeshua1]

Not if someone knows the language as their own.

All translation involves carry-over, but not "interpretation", which is private, not public, as I see it ( perhaps it's the common usage of the term, "interpretation" that I shy away from ).
If one knows the languages as their own, then the carry over ( translation ) will be exacting.
To me, "interpretation" is like a foundation of shifting sands...never reliable, never based on solid, never-changing rules....again, perhaps my view of the word ( and it's contemporary usage ) is clouding my perception of its real meaning.

Like "bible colleges", each man-sponsored translator ( or group of them ) has a different set of beliefs about God's word.
From my perspective, translations ( like anything that is done "for the Lord" ) are either God-directed, or man-directed.
If men alone are behind them, they can vary in accuracy and faithfulness.

If God ( who created the languages ) is behind them, then the work will show it.
Either one believes that God directs things, or one doesn't.
Either one believes that certain things are evidence of His directing, or one doesn't.



As I see it, accuracy and faithfulness are the marks of a good translation.
Therefore, find a good translation that is accurate and faithful, and stick with it...it is God's word in your language.

Being valiant for the truth ( Jeremiah 9:3, John 17:17 ) and faithfulness ( Galatians 5:22-23 ) are marks of a child of the living God.
Being "relevant" and always-changing, is not.

God does not change, but men do.
God's children are like their Saviour...they love the things that He loves, and hate the things that He hates.
Their affections and desire towards the truth only ever grow...they do not diminish.

The genuine words of God are inerrant.
Find them, and you'll find comfort and hope ( Romans 15:4 ).

What would you do then when you come to a passage where there are 2 legit ways to understand how it should be translated?

 

[Dave G]

What would you do then when you come to a passage where there are 2 legit ways to understand how it should be translated?

I would do my best to be patient and to let the Lord show me His legit way to understand it.

To me, there is no "fast-tracking" it ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).
True understanding comes over time, and involves patience and a waiting on the Lord and His timing.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would do my best to be patient and to let the Lord show me His legit way to understand it.

To me, there is no "fast-tracking" it ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).
True understanding comes over time, and involves patience and a waiting on the Lord and His timing.

That is why the Nas and the Esv might have translated some thing slightly different fashion, as both chose to render one of the 2 acceptable ways!

 

[John of Japan]

Or he did not fully understand what was being stated.....

That's entirely possible.

 

[John of Japan]

I would do my best to be patient and to let the Lord show me His legit way to understand it.

To me, there is no "fast-tracking" it ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).
True understanding comes over time, and involves patience and a waiting on the Lord and His timing.

The thing is, sometimes our Lord has built in ambiguity in the text, such as in the Greek of 1 Tim. 3, "husband of one wife." In such a case, the translator does his or her best to keep the ambiguity, but if that is impossible in the target language (and sometimes it is), the translator must choose one possibility or the other.

 

[Dave G]

The thing is, sometimes our Lord has built in ambiguity in the text, such as in the Greek of 1 Tim. 3, "husband of one wife." In such a case, the translator does his or her best to keep the ambiguity, but if that is impossible in the target language (and sometimes it is), the translator must choose one possibility or the other.

Yes, I agree that there are some things in Scripture that appear not to be fully covered by outright declaration.
I say where He is clear to us, then there should be agreement.
Where He is not, then we should agree to disagree...and then wait on Him to show us the truth about it.

But I don't see very many places in Scripture where He is unclear about any given subject.

I also think that that is where the multiplicity of translators comes in.
The way I see it, many men, all dedicated to working on something with the utmost focus on pleasing the Lord ( instead of making money for a publishing house, for example ), would be preferable to one man or a small group of men, in my estimation.

With regard to anything that may contain ambiguity ( or perceived ambiguity ), I say leave the text as untouched as possible, and carry it over as faithfully as possible.
Better to treat it as the ancient Israelites did, who threw away a copy when they messed up one jot, or one tittle.
Any other way invites God's wrath, from my perspective.

As for motivation:

Any translation effort should be done with an eye to accuracy, and an eye to pleasing the Lord above all.
The reason for any translation is to give people the very words of God in their own language...something they can point to and say, "That is God's word...not man's.".



When all is said and done, the only reason for translation should be to give brothers and sisters the words that they can take comfort in...not to doubt.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, I agree that there are some things in Scripture that appear not to be fully covered by outright declaration.
I say where He is clear to us, then there should be agreement.
Where He is not, then we should agree to disagree...and then wait on Him to show us the truth about it.

But I don't see very many places in Scripture where He is unclear about any given subject.

It's usually the nuances of the text that are at stake, not the clear message.

I also think that that is where the multiplicity of translators comes in. The way I see it, many men, all dedicated to working on something with the utmost focus on pleasing the Lord ( instead of making money for a publishing house, for example ), would be preferable to one man or a small group of men, in my estimation.

There have been some great translations done in history by single translators: Ulfilas (4th century to the Goths), Adoniram Judson, etc. (Tyndale worked with his students.)

However, I agree that the best translations are done with teams. Caveat: on the team there must be linguist translators with great knowledge of the source language, and also those with native speaker level understanding of the target language. (These may not be the same person.) Otherwise, great mistakes are certain.

Illustration: the word for "forgive" in Japanese is a homonym to the word for "permit." Only the Chinese character is different. So I (the Greek guy) suggested a different word. But Uncle Miya (the Japanese guy), pointed out that my suggestion was only used in negative situations.

With regard to anything that may contain ambiguity ( or perceived ambiguity ), I say leave the text as untouched as possible, and carry it over as faithfully as possible.

Agreed. This principle is a major difference between literal translation philosophies (who follow it) and dynamic equivalence (aka functional equivalence).

Better to treat it as the ancient Israelites did, who threw away a copy when they messed up one jot, or one tittle.

That's not translation, but copy. In translation, only an arrogant translator would assume his first effort was sufficient. Revision is vital. Our Japanese translation was not complete until 3 or more drafts. And even then the proofreaders have caught errors in syntax and semantics.

Any other way invites God's wrath, from my perspective.

My perspective is that any honest, believing translator of the Word of God will never face wrath from God, even if he makes errors in translation, or has a mistaken translation philosophy.

As for motivation:

Any translation effort should be done with an eye to accuracy, and an eye to pleasing the Lord above all.
The reason for any translation is to give people the very words of God in their own language...something they can point to and say, "That is God's word...not man's.".

Agreed.

When all is said and done, the only reason for translation should be to give brothers and sisters the words that they can take comfort in...not to doubt.

I believe that is not the only reason, but evangelism--reaching the lost--is also a reason. Therefore, we had 86,000 printed of our "John and Romans" for purposes of evangelism. This is very common among fundamentalist translators, and evangelicals also put out a trial version of Mark or John (or whatever they start with) for purposes of evangelism and evaluation by the native speakers.

John 20:31 covers this: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

 

[Dave G]

That's not translation, but copy. In translation, only an arrogant translator would assume his first effort was sufficient. Revision is vital. Our Japanese translation was not complete until 3 or more drafts. And even then the proofreaders have caught errors in syntax and semantics.

Agreed, and my slip.
Even the KJV translators admitted to their work as only being a further development of that which had come before.
However, I must emphasize, again, the importance that one do it for the correct reasons:

To honor the Lord and to be used as a servant to further His work.

My perspective is that any honest, believing translator of the Word of God will never face wrath from God, even if he makes errors in translation, or has a mistaken translation philosophy.

Perhaps, but better to tremble at His words, than not.
They're His words, not ours.

I believe that is not the only reason, but evangelism--reaching the lost--is also a reason.

That is, without a doubt, where we differ in understanding.

To me, "the lost" are those who will never truly believe from the heart, while evangelism, in the truest sense, focuses on God's elect... both regenerate and unregenerate.
Only Christ's sheep will hear His voice ( John 10:26-27 ) and believe.
Only one who is "of God" will "hear" His words ( John 8:47 ).

There are two groups within mankind...
"Them that perish", and "us which are saved" ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).

I don't view evangelizing as some do, but to me, the results appear, from my perspective, to be the same... even though the motivations and methods differ widely, in some cases.
There are wheat, and there are tares.
There are people whom God's Spirit will work on and bring to a "saving knowledge" of Him, and there are some whom God does not work on, but only look like they believe from man's perspective.

John 20:31 covers this: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Well said, good sir.

 

[John of Japan]

That is, without a doubt, where we differ in understanding.

To me, "the lost" are those who will never truly believe from the heart, while evangelism, in the truest sense, focuses on God's elect... both regenerate and unregenerate.
Only Christ's sheep will hear His voice ( John 10:26-27 ) and believe.
Only one who is "of God" will "hear" His words ( John 8:47 ).

Wow. So how do you do this? How do you know to evangelize only the elect, only His sheep? And what about "every creature"?

 

[Dave G]

Wow. So how do you do this? How do you know to evangelize only the elect, only His sheep? And what about "every creature"?

"Every creature" means "every creature" of God, i.e. men.
Preach Christ crucified and why...not the benefits of it.

Did you read the Scriptures in the parentheses?

 

[John of Japan]

"Every creature" means "every creature" of God, i.e. men.
Preach Christ crucified and why...not the benefits of it.

"Christ crucified and why" is not the Gospel. What is your Gospel?

P.S. Catch you later. I have to go now--I'm "Charity Solicitor #1" in our church adaptation of "A Christmas Carol."

 

[Dave G]

The exact same thing Peter, Paul and the rest preached in the book of Acts.
The everlasting Gospel.

How is it that this is such a surprise to you?

 

[John of Japan]

Well said, good sir.

How so? You disagreed that we should pass out "John" for evangelism, yet the book of John states evangelism as it's ruling purpose in that verse. You can't disapprove of using "John" in evangelism, but then agree that it was written for people to believe on Christ.

 

[John of Japan]

The exact same thing Peter, Paul and the r.est preached in the book of Acts.
The everlasting Gospel.

You are leaving out something hugely important in the Gospel if you only include His substitutionary death.

How is it that this is such a surprise to you?

You're joking, right? I've preached for almost 50 years, including 33 years in Japan. You can't surprise me except with ignorance when you should have knowledge. So please, state your Gospel, because so far you simply don't have it.

 

[Dave G]

You're joking, right? I've preached for almost 50 years, including 33 years in Japan. You can't surprise me except with ignorance when you should have knowledge. So please, state your Gospel, because so far you simply don't have it.

With respect, why are you telling me what you've done, when it is what God has done for you that you should be telling me of?

I've no wish to insult you sir.
So how is it that I've somehow offended you?

 

[John of Japan]

With respect, why are you telling me what you've done, when it is what God has done for you that you should be telling me of?

I'm trying to be like Paul, who over and over talked about how he had preached the Gospel. Please don't get self righteous with me and accuse me of bragging when all I said was that I've preached the Gospel all these years.

 

[Dave G]

I'm trying to be like Paul, who over and over talked about how he had preached the Gospel. Please don't get self righteous with me and accuse me of bragging when all I said was that I've preached the Gospel all these years.

I'm not trying to be self-righteous, but to remind you of what we all stand on as believers...His mercy and grace ( Titus 3:5-6 )
I think it's best that we don't address one another in the future.
From my perspective, all we're doing is butting heads, and I don't see the need for it, as I have no wish to personally offend you.

Additionally, I think that we've wandered quite far from the focus of this thread.

P.S. Catch you later. I have to go now--I'm "Charity Solicitor #1" in our church adaptation of "A Christmas Carol."

I wish you well.
I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, though I once did.



May you always rest in His grace towards you.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not trying to be self-righteous, but to remind you of what we all stand on as believers...His mercy and grace ( Titus 3:5-6 )
I think it's best that we don't address one another in the future.
From my perspective, all we're doing is butting heads, and I don't see the need for it, as I have no wish to personally offend you.

Too late. You've already been very offensive. For you to rebuke me for simply saying I've preached the Gospel for 49 years is over the top offensive. Your philosophy then came through as, "Tell what God has done for you, but not what God has done through you." That is dead wrong.

Do you actually think I preach the Gospel and serve God for myself??? I am a preacher called of God, and I thank God for that almost every day, just as Paul did in 1 Tim. 1:12, "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry."

Rom. 11:13, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."

I wish you well.

Thank you, and the same to you.

I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, though I once did.

We are about to do our 4th performance, and about 50 people have professed faith in Christ so far. Christmas is an awesome time to spread the Gospel message.