Bible Translation: Christian Liberty?

Wasn't this what they said about the translation of the Latin Vulgate??? (I have some quotes for those who doubt it). What this what they said about the KJV in 1611? (I think I have some quotes but I wouldn't swear to it).

My point would be that this seems like a recurring argument ... for every translation. If King James had listened, there would have been no KJV.

 

Doc Cas I believe this is a baptist first we have converted an erring brother... Brother Glen

 

johnv,
Still, I'd like to know which lexical resource gives you the opinion you have. The verse in question contains a present-middle-imperative. There seems to be no indication of a mutual submission here, only in verse 21, where the passive voice is expressed relative to submission.

 

Oh surely not! Be still my heart!

 

A few words I'd like to say on liberty and versions. I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead all genuine converts into all truth, as much truth as God sees fit to teach them while on earth. And as the Spirit teaches His own they will more and more learn to approve things which are excellent and to reject mediocre and bad things. This is also the thing concerning Bible versions. I believe it is the real saint's duty to get to know God and His truth more thoroughly, and this he does mainly by studying the word of God. And in his studying he ought to get his hands on the most accurate version in the language he wishes to study in. If he wishes to study from an English translation he should use that English version which most accurately and faithfully renders the original God-breathed words. I believe in God's sight he does not have any other option than to do just this. Before men he is at liberty so as not to be bound to men in his choice. He may heed their advice or listen to their recommendations as respects versions, but is at liberty to choose for himself before his God. But if he arbitrarily chooses an inferior translation such as the NIV he may have to answer to God for this in due time. Personally I am convinced a saint of God ought to use a translation based on the divinely authorized Textus Receptus, and one at that which as accurately and faithfully as possible renders the original words. If in English this happens to be the KJV or the Geneva Bible or Young's Literal Translation etc I am not the right person to say, for I have not done a thorough comparison of them with the Textus Receptus and the old Masoretic Text.

Harald

 

What if he uses an "inferior version" like the KJV? Will he also have to answer for that?

Where did God "divinely authorize" this?

My point in these questions is that you have stated as definitive two things that are far from definitive. These are areas where we have Christian liberty (unless you have some verse that we don't know about). It is the opinion of most that the TR is least accurate of the three major choices. But there is still a matter of liberty ... use it if you wish; just understand its weaknesses and understand that people who are equally committed ot inerrancy and inspiration use other texts.

 

[ June 08, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

is the following an example of "poisoning the well"?

it was defined for me earlier, n we didn't have to wait too long for something to seem to fit right here!

i have to wonder, tho, is there a term for poisoning the well by co-opting the Third Person of the Godhead?

[ June 08, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]

 

Forever settled in Heaven said:

I'm sorry I was reading along fine until I came to this comment... What do you mean by co-opting the Third Person of the Godhead?... Brother Glen

 

I'm sorry I was reading along fine until I came to this comment... What do you mean by co-opting the Third Person of the Godhead?... Brother Glen [/QUOTE]

means implying that the Holy Spirit is somehow responsible for choosing the KJB or "divinely authorized Textus Receptus" over other versions n that preference for another version (e.g. NIV) is simply an arbitrary choice of an inferior version.

i'm not sure if the Spirit "itself" hath granted permission for such negative advertisement.

 

This really is a big concern of mine, though, DocCas. I think we are beginning to reach a point where the KJV is "broke," not in the sense of being in error but in being too difficult for the modern reader. I've stated this before, but it's been a long time ago. I primarily work with young people in a camp setting. I have asked one question of every teen I've been a counselor of at camp, "How much time do you average a week in devotions." This is followed by an explanation of what I mean by "devotions": Spending time alone communicating with God (Bible reading and prayer). As of today, out of over 2,000 teens, I've not had one of them tell me over 5 minutes a week. (And these are kids from some of the best churches in this country.) I've also asked the kids why they don't read the Bible more. I've never received any other answer than "I don't understand it." Now this is not completely an issue of spiritual discernment. Many of these kids truly don't understand the English of the KJV.

I have been raised on the KJV. I have most of the NT memorized in the KJV. Yet, I still struggle with understanding the KJV language in the OT, especially in the prophets. I can certainly see how a 16-year old might struggle with a language that he does not speak.

I personally favor the eclectic text, but that issue is incredibly insignificant to me in comparison to the vast language gap between the KJV and modern English. If we do not change to a modern translation relatively soon, we will sacrifice an entire generation of young people on the altar of tradition. The KJV is not as "foreign" as the Vulgate was when Erasmus lived. However, I don't think many people realize just how hard it is for the common man to understand Elizabethan English. The Bible is being taken out of the hands of the "plow boy"

 

This really is a big concern of mine, though, DocCas. I think we are beginning to reach a point where the KJV is "broke," not in the sense of being in error but in being too difficult for the modern reader. </font>[/QUOTE]whoa there. u cld be mocked, "Which part of 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' do you not understand,'" like i've been.

what u've mentioned, Mikeyahu, is a phenomenon that has been documented by serious researchers (NOT those who think their defective knowledge of the Flesch-Kincaid formula qualifies them to opine on readability!). i've freely offered the references of these works, but i've not seen ANY KJBO take up the offer n go do a little serious reading on the topic themselves. they prefer to listen to fables.

it's lamentable that many KJB defenders wld rather stop their ears (n the ears of young people) than admit the Word of God in the many readable n reliable versions for life-changing effect.

 

I didn't use a lexical resource. I contacted my college Greek teacher.

 

Published lexical sources are a far better place to go for information. However, they won't support your view. No lexical source that I am aware gives any notion of the idea that you have put forth. There is a reason for that -- it doesn't mean what you have said it does.

 

Forever settled in heaven... So who poisoned the well?

QUESTION: Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

ANSWER: The original Scriptures (in Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek)
were inspired (II Tim. 3:16 and II Peter 1:21). The King James Bible
is those same Scriptures preserved up to today, in English. There
were other Translations prior to the King James Translation of 1611
that also "preserved God's word'. There are also other Translations
in other Languages which "preserve" the Word of God. Are we so
foolish to believe that God left his people without his Word until
1611 AD? What Bible did the great preachers of God's word use
prior to 1611? Are we so foolish to believe that God has preserved
his Word only in the English language? While the Originals have
long been lost, decayed or faded away, the INSPIRED Word of God
has always been "preserved" for his people.

EXPLANATION: The best way to distinguish between inspiration
and preservation of the Scriptures is as follows:

Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus,
vellum, or ROLL, etc. - Jere 36:2) and uses men to write His words.

Preservation is when God takes those words already written
and uses men to preserve them to today. See Jeremiah 36:27-28.

Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as
recorded in Psalms 12:6, 7.
Verse 6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in
a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Verse 7 "Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever."

In Psalms 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even
though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of; murder
(Moses and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial
of the lord (Peter), the chiefest of sinners, Paul. God's words are
untainted by the sins of those whom he inspires to pen them.

That the originals were inspired perfect in their entirety is an
undisputed belief among Bible Believers today.

Psalms 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever." Thus we have God
promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. This is not
too much of a feat to overwhelm our omnipotent God.

Philippians 1:2
Elder Bob Allgood... In response to who poisoned the well I don't know who poisoned yours but this I do know our well was never poisoned... Brother Glen

 

Bob,

The only problem is that Psalm 12:6-7 do not refer to the preservation of words but to the preservation of the godly man whose extinction is under consideration. Since this has been beat up in many places on this board, I will simply refer you to a search to find them.

Additionally there are several problems:
1. That verse is in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, etc. In other words, its appearance in the KJV does not argue that it refers to the KJV any more than its appearance in the RSV or NASB means that it refers to the preservation of those translations.

2. This verse was written c. 1000 BC, 2600 years prior to the preservation of the KJV. It could not have been referring to the KJV because the author would have had no way of knowing of a translation in a language that would not exist for another 2000 years.

In other words, the verse has nothing at all to do with the translation issue. In reality, it has nothing to do with the preservation issue (other than the preservation of the godly man).

 

So what you are telling me is that this in reference to godly men that God will preserve from generation to generation forever?

The translation is not in question but the words of God that make up the written words handed down from generation to generation. In every language the plenary inspired word of God!... All I know it what I believe to be the truth yet you say it is something different? I won't beat a dead horse and I won't change my mind. Each of us has the right to interpret the scripture as we understand it and I won't debate it!... Brother Glen

 

Published lexical sources are a far better place to go for information. However, they won't support your view. No lexical source that I am aware gives any notion of the idea that you have put forth. There is a reason for that -- it doesn't mean what you have said it does.</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm, I knew somehow you'd some up with that. Which is why I purposely didn't mention that my Greek teacher was the professor who was one the bible teachers in college. He was fully versed in the understanding of biblical NT Greek and its cultural lexicon during the time that the NT texts were written. He's also an ordained pastor and accomplished archeologist, holds multiple degrees in language, letters, theology, and divinity. He's also extremely well versed in NT scripture. Not in English, but in the original Greek. Our bible college was and still is blessed to have him on board. I consider him a leading authority in NT Greek interpretation.

 

Yes ... that is the point of the Psalm. The godly man will not perish from the earth. God will preserve him from extinction, not as an individual but as a group. There will always be godly men.

You are entitled to your belief but you must remember that proper interpretation depends on the words used in the text and on the author's intent in using those words. "Interpretation" is not a smorgasboard where we can pick and choose. It is a math equation where there is one right answer. The psalmist did not intend to communicate that the words would be preserved from that generation and therefore, it is a wrong interpretation of that psalm to say that it means God's words will be preserved. (That does not deny that God will preserve his word; it asserts that Psalm 12 is not the point to prove it from).

 

Then tell us the source that he cites to come up with this strange interpretation. If he is well versed, then he should be able to support his assertion. As it now stands, there is not one lexical or grammatical source that I know of that agrees with him. So what sources does he use to support this?