KJV question

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

This verse has been used by the ignorant to attack the KJV for many years. However, the Greek word for "spirit" is a neuter noun, and a neuter noun demands a neuter pronoun, so the KJV translation is technically correct.

 

Although it is true that the noun is neuter in Romans 8, translating the Holy Spirit "itself" is just too literal. 'Self' and 'it' should not be together, but 'Self' and 'Him'. i.e. "The Holy Spirit Himself..."

 

If you believe as I do, in verbal inspiration, the KJV is the better translation, however, if you deny verbal inspiration in favor of conceptual inspiration, then "himself" would be an acceptable translation. Personally, I believe in verbal and plenary inspiration, and don't believe the translators had the right to change case/number/gender of the words in the original language.

 

I think the dichotomy between verbal and conceptual inspiration is a false one. Pneuma is a neuter noun and therefore takes a neuter pronoun in most cases because of the parent language. But when you translate, you should translate into the equivalent conventions of the receptor language. In that case, itself should be translated himself.

 

Only if you wish to force your pneumatology into the bible, rather than getting your pneumatology from the bible.

And your view of inspiration has everything to do with the issue. If God inspired a neuter noun/pronoun, a person who believes in verbal inspiration does not have the liberty to change it.

 

Dr. C.,

Em...I can't help but think you're going a little overboard on this "exactness of translation" thing. Greek is quite a different language than English, and significance in one language is not indicative of significance in another.

In Greek, it is standard to see proper names after definite articles--Ho Iesous for Jesus, for instance. Now, God inspired the entire phrase Ho Iesous every time it occurs, but there is no translation that says "The Jesus" every time "Ho Iesous" occurs. It is an idiosyncracy of Greek grammar that is not put over well into English. Likewise, every translation takes the present tenses of the Gospels and transforms them into past tenses, as is considered a more regular English sense of storytelling. God inspired those Gospels in the present, though.

What I'm trying to point out here is that a translation as exacting as you would imply is not possible, and certainly not done. The Greek pneuma is a neuter word, and as such requires a neuter reference. However, gender is a concept less built into English than any other language. "It" generally refers to a nonliving object, whereas the Greek neuter did not necessarily do so. For this reason, translating "itself" in Rom. 8:16 based on gender may not be the best of ideas. Hence, it is a choice between one non-exact translation, "it" (not denoting the essence of the Spirit as a living thing) and another, "him" (implying gender where none was originally implied). The question is not literal translation, for this is a point where I don't believe it possible, but rather of choosing whether to reflect the linguistic gender or the living nature of the Spirit.

Personally, I think the latter is more important. It's a big gray area, though, and not as black and white as you've portrayed it. I don't mean to put you down, just to show you that the alternatives are also quite valid.

-Wayne

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Only if you wish to force your pneumatology into the bible, rather than getting your pneumatology from the bible.

And your view of inspiration has everything to do with the issue. If God inspired a neuter noun/pronoun, a person who believes in verbal inspiration does not have the liberty to change it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then you agree that in Rom 3.4 "Certainly not!" (NKJV) or " Let it not be!" (MKJV) is more literal and more accurate than "God forbid" (AV)?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only if you wish to force your pneumatology into the bible, rather than getting your pneumatology from the bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you denying that the Scripture teaches the masculinity and personality of the Holy Spirit?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And your view of inspiration has everything to do with the issue. If God inspired a neuter noun/pronoun, a person who believes in verbal inspiration does not have the liberty to change it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that your view of inspiration does affect translation. However, you and I both know that absolutely literal translation does not work. Where a neuter pronoun is used because of grammar or linguistics, it sometimes clearly refers to an antecedent with gender. In such cases, I think we should properly reflect that because our language allows it.

I did a quick computer search to cross reference neuter, singular uses of autos with an English correspondent of “him” in the KJV. The following list reflects part of the results. There were 31 verses, some of which I deleted as not applicable or questionable. These appear to be the clear cases though perhaps I have missed something in my haste. In these verses, the KJV does exactly what you accuse the MVs as doing in bad translation. Don’t deal with all but take a look at a few and see what you think. I know it is a lot but I wanted to show the extent to give a good representation.

Matt. 2:13; Matt. 17:19; Matt. 18:2; Mk. 5:8; Mk. 9:25; Mk. 9:28; Mk. 9:36; Lk. 1:59; Lk. 1:62; Lk. 2:28; Lk. 2:40; Lk. 9:40; Lk. 9:47; Jn. 14:17 (About the Holy Spirit; same form as Rom 8:26); 1 Jn. 2:8; 1 Jn. 2:27; Rev. 13:2; Rev. 13:4; Rev. 13:5; Rev. 13:7; Rev. 13:12; Rev. 13:18; Rev. 19:20;

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne Rossi:
Em...I can't help but think you're going a little overboard on this "exactness of translation" thing. Greek is quite a different language than English, and significance in one language is not indicative of significance in another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to have missed the point of the thread. I did not mention what you call, in quotes no less, "exactness of translation." We were discussing dynamic equivalency. If you will go back and read what I actually wrote it may clear up some of your confusion.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Are you denying that the Scripture teaches the masculinity and personality of the Holy Spirit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I am not denying the personality nor masculinity of any person of the Godhead. I am just saying you cannot teach such from the Greek grammar of the verse in question. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In these verses, the KJV does exactly what you accuse the MVs as doing in bad translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did not make any such accusation. Please don't make things up as you go along. What I said was that due to the Greek grammar the KJV was technically correct.

 

Tom,

So, as Chris brought up, is the KJV technically incorrect with "God forbid" for the mh genoito?

Chick

 

Furthermore, is translating the present as a past technically incorrect (i.e. "Jesus goes down to Jerusalem" - technically correct, instead of the usual translation "Jesus went down to Jerusalem" - changes the present to past)?

Also what about the point brought up about the use of the article why don't we translate "technically correct" with "The Jesus", "The Paul" and "The Peter"

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
If you believe as I do, in verbal inspiration, the KJV is the better translation, however, if you deny verbal inspiration in favor of conceptual inspiration, then "himself" would be an acceptable translation. Personally, I believe in verbal and plenary inspiration, and don't believe the translators had the right to change case/number/gender of the words in the original language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

In view of your last post to me, let me ask for clarification. In Rom 8:26, since you believe in plenary, verbal inspiration, you don't believe that the "translators had the right to change case/number/gender of the words in the original language." Yet the "superior" KJV does it numerous times as I have just listed. So were the KJV translators wrong to do that? Is that an error in translation on their part or is it acceptable to do and therefore not an error? In other words, it seems you are being inconsistent or possibly just confusing. Perhaps the best way to get to the point is simply to ask: 1) Are the MVs right or wrong in Rom 8:26? and 2) Is the KJV right or wrong in their translation of the above listed verses?

 

&lt;sigh&gt; Larry, why does everything have to be a confrontation with you? If you will go back and read my first post on the subject and stop trying to get me to say things I don't believe, you would understand exactly what I said and what I meant! It is very simple, here, let me post it again just in case you missed it: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
This verse has been used by the ignorant to attack the KJV for many years. However, the Greek word for "spirit" is a neuter noun, and a neuter noun demands a neuter pronoun, so the KJV translation is technically correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I then said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. Personally, I believe in verbal and plenary inspiration, and don't believe the translators had the right to change case/number/gender of the words in the original language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I stand by that statement. I don't believe the KJV translators should have done so and neither should the MV translators. It does not mean to do so is a mistake, only that it takes liberties I don't believe they should exercise. I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. You seem to have great trouble understanding simple statements, especially when I post them. For some reason you have adopted an adversarial posture toward me and anything I say will be argued against by you. Sorry, but I am not interested in that "Ruckmanisque" type argument. Try someone else.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Personally, I believe in verbal and plenary inspiration, and don't believe the translators had the right to change case/number/gender of the words in the original language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If God inspired a neuter noun/pronoun, a person who believes in verbal inspiration does not have the liberty to change it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are the two ideas I wrote my earlier post to counter. I was trying to point out that you're asking for exactness in translation in a way that I don't feel is desirable. Certain amounts of "dynamic equivalence" are necessary in any translation, merely to express one idea in another language. I will agree with anyone who says that this is a risky thing, and should be limited, but it becomes useful and necessary at different times. Since I had set out to show that it may not be appropriate in a given place to assume 1:1 interpretation of the Greek neuter gender into the English neuter pronoun, I provided a couple of examples where the exact translation of the Greek is not used even in formal equivalence translation because it does not create the same sense. I believe that the "itself" phenomenon in Rom. 8:16 is much like the "Ho Iesous" or present tense situation, in requiring some dynamic equivalence, but at the same time it is a touchy issue that shouldn't be approached lightly.

-Wayne

 

Thomas, Thanks for reposting what we had all read. Had it been clear, I would not have asked. It’s like someone in my former youth group said, “If we don’t understand, just say it louder; that will help.” Well obviously, restating the original unclear post did not make it any clearer. My ability to understand is not really the issue. I have never had much trouble when people articulate a position clearly. I understand that in this forum (where brevity is right next to godliness), it is impossible to do so, and so when people (myself or others) make a short post that calls questions forth, we just answer them. We do not need to stoop to “inability to understand,” “can’t read plain English,” “argue like Ruckman,” etc. Just answer the questions and clarify your position.

Your implication seemed to be that the KJV was the only correct translation in Romans 8:26 because it used itself when the MVs used himself. Then I posted to you a number of places where the KJV did the exact same thing (with far less theological support) and you seemed to back off some saying it wasn’t all that big a deal, it just took too much liberty (I characterized your comments; I am not quoting you). That is why I asked for clarification. Is “too much liberty” a matter of error or a matter or preference? You pinned your belief to plenary, verbal inspiration and insinuated that the MVs compromise it by their choice in Rom 8:26. Then you say it is not a mistake to translate it himself, it is just too much liberty. However, it the doctrine of inspiration is at stake, then surely it must be a mistake, a matter of error. If it is a matter of error the KJV surely must have an error. If it is a matter of preference then the MVs cannot be said to be wrong and the doctrine of inspiration really does not apply here. Obviously, I believe the latter. In my last post, I laid out my points and asked two questions, neither of which you really addressed. I do not believe it to be an error in the MVs or in the KJV. It is the reality of translation. The point of the original post was to list verses and ask you to comment on them. You failed to do that and replied with a post that answered no questions very well but took pains to call me Ruckmanisque in my argumentation. Your position is quite simple until you consider the implications of it. That is all I was doing – looking to see where it went.

Contrary to your belief, I am not being confrontational with you. I have read your posts on this board for a long period of time and you have an amazing ability to be obscure in what you are saying, wording things in such a way to give yourself an out when you are pinned down. It is fine for you to do that, but when you are obscure, do not be offended when people call for clarification. My interest is simply this: In the bottom line for you, is the KJV wrong when it translates a neuter pronoun as a gender, or is it okay to do that?

You are well known for your support of the KJV and I was questioning whether you believe they made a mistake in these passages. You claim that verbal plenary inspiration demands itself (which I disagree with) but then seem unwillingly to identify the KJV as incorrect when it does the very thing which you say is inconsistent with verbal plenary inspiration. You seem to say that such translation technique is incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration but is not an error. That is inconceivable to me.

I have no trouble understanding simple statements. I have difficulty separating your response here from what you have vehemently argued in other threads.

I have not adopted an adversarial posture toward you. To associate me with ‘Ruckmanisque” technique is purely ad hominem as you are fond of saying. And you have read enough of Ruckman to know that what I have said here is in no way similar to anything he argues.

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne Rossi:
These are the two ideas I wrote my earlier post to counter. I was trying to point out that you're asking for exactness in translation in a way that I don't feel is desirable. Certain amounts of "dynamic equivalence" are necessary in any translation, merely to express one idea in another language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I direct your attention to http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000005&p=6 the very first post. It will clear up your confusion.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
&lt;snip&gt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have managed to mis-state virtually everything I said. It is obvious to me you don't want an honest intelligent discussion. Take it up with somebody else for I have lost all interest in discussing it with you. You seem to me to be an idiolog who will not or can not understand simple statements are written, but insist on twisting them to your own devices. No thanks. I get enough of that from the Ruckmanites.

 

Hmmm,

Dear Pastor Larry,

I think you owe some one a peace offering for pouring maple syrup all over his waffles.

HankD