Attacks on Gods Word?

Do you feel that exposing errors in a translation is considered an attack on Gods word?

If yes, how is it an attack?

If no, how is it not an attack?

I voted no. I don't believe the translators to have been infallible or inspired. As a matter of honesty, it is clear there are errors in all translations, whether they be grammatical or a poor word choice by the translators. It is not an attack to honestly acknowledge the truth. That being said all faithful translations are true to the manuscripts used and are God's Word to His people.

Bro Tony

This thread has the potential to get out of hand quickly. If it does it will be shut without noice.

That depends on what you mean by "exposing errors in a translation." I see a lot of "exposing errors in a translation" that is nothing more than ignorance of the original language, ignorance of the receptor language, or ignorance of the translation process itself.

The question is too ambiguous for a meaningful answer.

Yes, "exposing errors in a translation" can often be an attack on that translation.

No, "exposing errors in a translation" is not always an attack on that translation.

If you can PROVE an "error" (like we can in the New World Translation) then it is a part of defending the doctrine of inspiration.

Remember, most "errors" are not so intentional; they are just word/phrasing choices in line with accepted hermeneutic - dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, etc.

If you spout the typical RHETORIC about a translation that is different than the one you like, then it moves to "attack" (or actually "hate speech"!)

Obviously it is not an attack on the word of God to point out translational errors in any version.

Hey, C4K = looks like we're on the same page . . LITERALLY!!

IMHO it is not an attack against God's word when errors are pointed out. The true attacks on God's word come from those who claim a certain legitimate Bible version is not the word of God just because it is different from another version. Neither is it an attack when someone says a version like the CWT or the NWT is not a legitimate Bible version because it was translated in order to support erroneous doctrines.

Please keep to the topic at hand without bringing other issues into the debate.

I voted no. If problems in translation are never pointed out they can never be corrected, or at least acknowledged by the average reader.

As others have said, most "errors" are actually textual or word choice differences, not flat out mistranslations. Though I still think it is valid to suggest a better translation of a word or phrase than those in whatever version it may be. It helps add to the understanding of the text and promotes discussion and learning about the Scripture (when people don't get too defensive and rant), which is always a good thing.

No.

NOT pointing out errors in translation is an attack on Gods word.

However pointing out imagined errors is also an attack on Gods word.

Constructive criticism of a translation, including pointing out errors committed by the translators, is not an attack on God's Word.

If anything, it is a defense of God's Word, because it shows where it has been handled improperly, thus encouraging future translators to do better.

Sometimes a perceived error can be another meaning for a given Greek or Hebrew word or phrase. And this meaning, while valid, may not be, in some opinions, the BEST translation of a word/phrase. While this should be pointed out when found, it's not an attack upon God'e word unless someone tries to make a federal case over some minor detail to the point of discarding a whole Bible version because of it.

And pointing out an OBVIOUS MISTAKE is not an attack, but is a GUARDIANSHIP of His word.

No, if you are ACTUALLY pointing out errors in translation, even if you are mistaken, is not an attack of God's word. It is an attempt to attain accuracy.

By the same token, if any mistake is an attack, rather than just a goof, the KJV translators attacked God's word in each of their mistakes, and so did all others.

I would think it would have to be KNOWINGLY pointing out "errors" that they know arent errors, which we see alot, would be attacking God's word.

The reason I ask is because I see people who will expose errors in X and Y translations. Then when they see their Z translation errors exposed, it is called an attack.

Exactly. The main translation I use is the NASB. None of its translators claimed inerrancy for their work. No scripture ever claimed I would have a perfect translation in English. I have absolutely NOTHING by which to claim that the NASB is a perfect translation, even if I agree with every translational and textual choice it contains.

Therefore, if someone wants to criticize it, they can do so. IF I AM HONEST, I will continue to do so, and look at the facts OBJECTIVELY to make sure that these EARTHLY MEN did an accurate job of translating God's Word.

Do you feel that exposing errors in a translation is considered an attack on Gods word?

Click to expand...

Actual errors, no.

Claiming differences between how one translations says a verse and how another translation puts it are errors, yes.

The BV/T forum SHOULD BE a place where we can learn from each other about the plusses and minuses of various translations... not the ugly, unChristian battleground that some turn it onto.

In Christ,
Trotter

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
No, if you are ACTUALLY pointing out errors in translation, even if you are mistaken, is not an attack of God's word. It is an attempt to attain accuracy.

Click to expand...

I agree with DD here. What is needed is a sincere heart, and a deep belief that the Word of God should be translated correctly.

DD's post contains the statement, "attempt to attain accuracy." Accuracy should be paramount in translating the Bible. If I were hired by the White House to translate for President Bush on a visit to Japan (okay, okay, I know this is a pipe dream ), I would want to be as accurate as I possibly could. If while I was preparing a colleague told me I was getting a word wrong, I would absolutely want to be corrected.

In 1945, the Japanese government misread the Potsdam Declaration, believing it to be a negotiable document rather than the ultimatum that it was. This must partly be the fault of the Japanese translator. The Japanese categorical rejection of Potsdam resulted in Truman authorizing the use of the atomic bomb, and we all know about that tragedy.

I have twice now been involved in translation revision projects where the Japanese translator softened the original language of the American author, making it more palatable to the "sensitive" Japanese. We do not have the option of doing that with the Word of God. Accuracy is absolutely imerative.

John,

You and I agree alot, (save for that whole KJV being the best thing,LOL), but I dont think many others agree with us IN REALITY. I think this has far more reaching effects that just bible translation.

Think about this: When it comes to our beliefs, doctrines, and even practices, do most Christians
REALLY want to believe and practice the TRUTH, or do we just want to be convinced that what we already believe is the truth? I feel that the true Christian would be more than willing to have any belief of his honestly challenged, and will defend it HONESTLY, not HOSTILE, until he finds himself unable to do so. I dont mean we need to be good debaters, but if we say we believe something, we should be able to express it through scripture and plain reason. Otherwise, the only honest thing to do is stop calling such an idea a "belief". Its more closely called "hearsay".

I think far too many people are being swayed by good debaters who happen to be Christians, rather than a good Christian debate. Good debaters are not necessarily intellectually honest, but rather adhere to a "win at all costs" mentality. They will go as far as they need to go, play on heartstrings, and misrepresent facts in order to convince someone of what they think the truth is.

We have an example right here on our campus. There is a freshman (just became a soph) who is a hardcore calvanist. He finds a way to bring it up constantly with others (thankfully, I have never discussed it with him. Ive only spoken to him once or twice, but we have several mutual friends). However, rather than lovingly or even fairly express his beliefs, he uses his very well honed debate skills to upset others (he will often cut you off mid-sentence and say "its ok, you dont have to be soveriegn, God is"), then uses their frustration as proof that he is right. That is how you convince people. (Even though I disagree with Calvanism, this is not meant as an attack on it, or even to bring it up, but merely as an example of the tactics some people use to spread a belief they feel is important.) I am reminded of a line from Jeffress' "Hell, Yes" (a great read, BTW), where an old man told him that "it is easy to force your opponent to disengage from a debate, as any married man can testify, but you didnt convince her of anything, except that you are a jerk."

When we bring our beliefs into the discussion, we need to be able to explain them from facts and scripture. We need to be willing to have them challenged, opposed, and refuted. Then we need to be prepared to repeat the process, either until one sees the truth, or both lovingly agree to disagree.

I feel the main problem is NOT the anger which comes from 2 opposing beliefs, but rather from one who refuses to allow their belief to be challenged honestly. When such a belief is claimed to be bound to everyone (like KJVO, predestination) then refusing to allow such a belief to be challenged is going to cause frustation.

Example: If I challenge a reading in the KJV, and back it up with manuscript evidence and Greek word study, the KJVO will be pretty offended.

How angry will they get if I refuse to support my claim?

Disagreeing with someones belief isnt an attack on that belief, whether it be about Bible translation, eternal security, baptism, or anything else. If we are Christians, we should EXPECT to be opposed.

I voted no too because we are talking about human translators and language which has a lot of wiggle room. In some cases what is pointed out as error is in reality translation dealing with a language where many words have the same or similar meaning.