The superiority VS the Inferiority

The whole process is rather subjective, with neither side being able to 'prove' their position. But I think that all the evidence should be considered, rather than just some. My personal opinion is that the CTs don't consider the Byzantine texts enough and the TR is off in many places that other texts shed light on. If I had to choose, I would go with the Majority Text. But that is not the most popular nowadays. I would be interested to find out if there is a MT translation.

Neal

 

Levels of Inerrancy:

-3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid
-2 The Bible has major errors
so is only marginally useful
-1 the Bible has minor errors and should
be used with caution
0 The Bible has minor errors but is still useful
1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues:
doctrinal, historic, and scientific
3 The Bible is inerrant in the origional autographs
4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR)
5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611
(exclusive of translator notes)
6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611
(including the translator notes)
7 The Bible is inerrant only in the
KJB1769 and/or KJB1873
8 The Bible is inerrant in any English
translation based on the TR
9 The Bible is inerrant in any
English translation translated
by dynamic qeuivalence
10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations
11 the Bible is inerrant as implemented
in the Doctrine of the Church of England
12 The Bible is inerrant as
implemented in the US Republican
Party platform

How inerrant do you believe the Bible
to be? I give it an inerrancy of TEN!!!

 

Do you actually believe that? Are all English translations innerant? What about when they contradict each other? What about the New World Translation? And if they're all inerrant, why do we keep getting new ones that "correct" old "errors"? Sorry, I'm not meaning to throw your position out of the window, but am genuinely confused as to how you can maintain this idea. Or do you define "inerrant" to mean something other than "without error"?

 

Bartholomew writes:
>>Sorry, I'm not meaning to throw your position
>>out of the window, but am genuinely confused as
>>to how you can maintain this idea.

Don't worry: you didn't throw his position out the window.
Edifier, your point didn't evade me.......

Are any English-Translations perfect?
No.
Are there some English Translations are that subpar and lackluster? Yes.
Is KJV inferior?
No.
Are the Modern Versions inferior?
Yes, some are.
Is the KJV superior?
No.
Is any English Translation superior?
That is a matter of opinion. I feel that three are superior, but that is my opinion, not doctrine.

 

>>Please explain why you said no?

Because I love the KJV, but I am not a KJV-Onlyist.

Is it an inferior translation? Of course not. Is it superior to all other translations? Again, of course not. It is the Divinely-Inspired Word of God, but so are the Geneva, Tyndale, Wiclif, and ESV versions. Additionally, I love the NKJV as well.

 

Here we go, under my own name:

Ed: "10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations"

Bartholomew: "Do you actually believe that?

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: This is a philosophical belief.
In a practical sense, I've only thoroughly checked
a half dozen English versions. I've also checked,
but not a complete check, a couple of dozen
English versions. I found no errors (and i've spent
seven of the last ten years professionally
being a glorified proof reader /i.e. a quality
assurance type engineer/)

Bartholomew: "Are all English translations innerant?
What about when they contradict each other?"

Yes, all English translations
of God's written workd: the Holy Bible, are
inerrant. They do not contradict each other.
Oh, we might "see" a contradiction, but this is
due to our limited understanding of
the inerrant/perfect written word.


Bartholomew: "What about the New World Translation?

Practical answer: I have no copy of the NWT.

Philosophical answer: it is an inerrant English Version
of the Bible.

Bartholomew: //And if they're all inerrant,
why do we keep getting new ones that "correct" old "errors"?//

It is the English language that changes, not the
inerrant/perfect written word of God.
English language varies from site to site and from
time to time. I.E. a given translation of the Bible
is not forward compatable. This is NOT because God
changes, or because God's Holy written words changes.
It is because the English language changes.

English English, American English, Canadian English,
Australian English, international English are all
various variants of the English Language.
You catch me drift, mate?

Even the venerable KJV of 1611 has been
"upgraded" in the English KJV1769 and
the American KJV1873.

I've corresponded on a BB with a men of Singapore
who says the NIV is closer to the language
he actually uses than that
of other versions.


Bartholomew: "Sorry, I'm not meaning to throw your position
out of the window, but am genuinely confused
as to how you can maintain this idea."

I understand your position.
I hope I've said something that will
help you undertand mine.

Bartholomew: //Or do you define "inerrant" to mean something
other than "without error"?//

"Inerrant means "without error".

Brother Bartholomew, which is the highest number
on my "inerrancy scale" that you
can agree with fully?
I realise the negative numbers are not inerrancy, but I
included them for completeness sake.

 

Thank-you for clearing that up! I was a little confused with that last post's origin!

Neal

 

Neal. I have learnt that there are 3 versions based on the Majority Text. They are: Analytical Literal Translation (ALT) translated by Gary Zeolla, English Majority Text Version (EMTV) translated by Phil Esposito, and World English Bible (WEB), translators many, and said to be an update of the ASV of 1901. All these are available e.g. through the e-Sword free downloadable Bible study program. I have them all on my PC. I cannot now tell from memory which of them is based on which version of the MT, as you know there is the Pierpont&Robinson MT, and there's the Hodges-Farstad MT. From what little I have acquainted myself with these three I can tell the ALT is the most literal. EMTV and WEB quite the same as for literalness.

Personally I am pro-TR or TR-preferred or TR-only. The MT is second best as I see it, better than the eclectic text type of GNT's. While I am critical of some renderings of the ALT I would lift my hat off to the translator for his attempt at a literal translation. I have also acquired two e-books of his which touch upon translating the Bible and the versions issue. From what little I've read so far I agree with much what he says.

I think it is hard to find a version which tops the ALT when it comes to literalness and faithfulness to the original text, in this case the said MT. According to its translator only two other versions can legitimately be classified as literal versions, YLT and LITV. He classifies KJV, NASB, NKJV et. al. as formal equivalency versions, as distinct from literal versions. Yet due to a few mistranslations in the ALT I am forced to say the LITV is the best official version I have encountered so far.

Harald

 

It is difficult to rate by an objective standard, though some offer percentages of differences. Some of those differences are merely spellings or word divisions (i.e., since Greek text was written without spacing, there are a few places where a division makes a difference). Some involve just a word form (e.g., verb tense). Some involve addition or deletion of a word or phrase.

What is important to realize is that all these texts are the result of teh diligent work of men in compiling the evidence. There is no "handed down text from the apostles." All these texts have been compiled by men who sat down with teh evidence in front of them and made choices about what was authentic based on the criteria they deemed important. The text criticism theories of Erasmus are probably the least familiar. The Majority text by Hodges and Farstad uses a different set of criteria than the Majority text by Robinson Pierpont. The UBS text is slightly different than the NA, I believe.

In all of these texts, there has also been revision as the committee reviews its work. Erasmus took his text through 4 or 5 revisions. The infamous Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) was not added until the 3rd. The UBS is on its 4th edition. The NA text is on its 28th I believe.

YOu must also remember that the "Majority text" family still has divisions in it. To say that one follows the Majority text does not mean that there is no more controversy. Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont are different. They chose different readings for some of the variants.

In all of them, there is absolute doctrinal unanimity, though some verses might read slightly different.

 

Sorry Ed, but I don't agree. Take Isaiah 9:3, for example:

Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. (AV - probably 1769)

You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice
when dividing the plunder. (NIV - 1984 I think)

We see that the NIV and AV say the opposite thing. Surely one of them got it wrong? How, then, can they both be inerrant?

I don't know if you've ever seen one, but it says "In the beginning the word was with God, and the word was a god" in John 1:1. Surely THAT can't be without error?

I see what you're saying, Ed, but that doesn't account for a lot of the changes in the MVs compared with the AV. For example, the RV of 1881 was in the same, "old-style" English as the AV, yet it made many changes. For exmaple, the changing of "God" to "He" in the NIV in 1 Timothy 3:16 has nothing to do with changing English.

I can't really say, Ed. I belive the Bible is inerrant WHEREVER it is; but I don't think the MVs are pure "Bible" - I mean, I think they CONTAIN much of God's word; but I also think there is a little error thrown in there. So, obviously, I can't call them "inerrant". What surprises me is that people use them and freely admit they contain errors, STILL call them "inerrant"!

 

In Isaiah 9:3 the problem is that the KJV has added the word "not" where it does not belong. The MV's, including the NKJV, have it right.

 

Bartholomew: "Sorry Ed, but I don't agree."

No need to appologize. We don't need to agree.
But we are charged here to disagree agreeably,
which i appreciate you have done well.

Bartholomew: "Take Isaiah 9:3, for example ... "

O.K. I'll take that for example. I like to use
the REAL Authorized Version, the KJV1611.

Ifaiah IX:3 (KJV1611):

Thou hast multiplied the nation,
and ||not increased the ioy: they ioy before
thee, according to the ioy in haruest,
and as men reioyce when they diuide
the spoile.

Translator sidenote: Or, to him

I take this to then allow the reading:

Ifaiah IX:3 (KJV1611):

Thou hast multiplied the nation,
and to him the ioy: they ioy before
thee, according to the ioy in haruest,
and as men reioyce when they diuide
the spoile.

Yes, this is speaking of the joy of those
who have seen the great light spoken of in
verse two. How the "not" gets in there,
i don't know. I see some MVs have taken
the "not" out. I don't think it changes the
meaning at all. But others may see otherwise.

 

Amen, Brother Terry_Herrington -- preach it!

"Inerrant" still applies to both the original
KJV1611 and it's MV's: KJV1769 and KJV1873.
However, among the inerrant Bibles, once
can still apply the terms "inferior" and
"superior" as a matter of personal opinion.

 

Ed: "Philosophical answer: it [the New World Translation] is an inerrant English Version
of the Bible."

Bartholomew: //I don't know if you've ever seen one,
but it says "In the beginning the word was with God,
and the word was a god" in John 1:1.
Surely THAT can't be without error?//

I've never seen a NWT.
I have seen excerpts from it.

"Inerrant" is a axiom.
This means that any perceived error is
a problem of the perception
of the individual (NOT a God problem).

May God's blessing flow rich and thick
unto Brother Bartholomew, his family,
and his ministry.

 

Hi Ed, thanks for the reply.

But Ed, if that is the correct reading, then aren't you saying the actual text is in error by having the word "not" there? And if so, how can it then be "inerrant"?

And regarding other changes the MVs made: do you think the AV is in error when it reads "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16? If not, surely the MVs are in error for replacing the word "God"? And if so, then how can it be inerrant? I don't see how you can hold ALL English translations to be without error.

 

Bartholomew: //But Ed, if that is the correct reading,
then aren't you saying the actual text is in error
by having the word "not" there? And if so,
how can it then be "inerrant"?//

It isn't like a mathematical expression
where the "not" changes the whole character of
the equation. The Statement in Isaiah 9:3 is spiritual
and is whole, complete, perfect, inerrant, pure
with or without the "not".

Bartholomew: "And regarding other changes the MVs made:
do you think the AV is in error when it reads
"God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16?
If not, surely the MVs are in error for replacing
the word "God"? And if so, then how can it
be inerrant? I don't see how you can hold ALL
English translations to be without error."

By context in the MVs, "he" refers to God and/or
to Christ. The KJV is correct; the MVs are correct --
both are free of error, though different.
From some Greek evidence i've seen, the KJV
added "God" to what the source says. This is
NOT an error, but a correct comment added by
the KJV tranlators.

I know especially went reading 1-2 Samuel,
1-2 Kings outloud, i add to the "he" the
person whom is being referred to. This gets
difficult when three different persons are
being talked about. I like modern versions
like the New King James Version (nKJV) which
capitalize pronouns referring to the Diety.