Adding words for clarity

Ain't language fun, Mexdeaf? Reminds me of the time I pointed to a stuffed creature in a Japanese toy store and told the clerk, "That is candy!" instead of "That is strange!"

 

Rob,

Thanks for a belly laugh! You said (to translate) 'I (He) speaks (a) piñata.' Thanks to you I now need a new keyboard. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, none of us are perfect, which brings me in a roundabout way to my point. I have no problem with words being added for clarification purposes. After all, it is impossible to have a 100% word-for-word translation that would make sense to any readers except those fluent in the original language(s).Many times it is necessary to add words for clarification. But we must also keep in mind that these words of clarification, since not in the originals, can be influenced by the opinions/beliefs/feelings of the translator(s). We must pray that the Holy Spirit will give us discernment for what is the truth as opposed to what isn't the truth.

[ January 20, 2006, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Keith M ]

 

Click here: God forbid

 

Doesn't matter "God forbid" is not in the source texts. The source texts read "Let it not be so". God forbid was strictly a 17th century phrase, the same as "God save the King". Given that the phrases do not appear verbatim in the source texts, it cannot be argued that the phrases are, at best, dynamic equivalence. While the phrases do not contradict or compromise scriptural doctrine whatsoever, both phrases are arguably not the best choice for translation of the original phrases into English.

It is hypocritical for someone to argue that another translation modifies the number of times the word "God" appears without also acknowleging that the KJV translators are guilty of that exact thing.

 

Punctuation marks were never in the original text. Lower case letters were never in the original text as well. Therefore, according to Askjo all Bible translations are a lie because they are incorrect. In the KJV Eph. 5:20 is incorrectly punctuated because 5:21 is a transtional phrase linking the previous passage to the following passage.

 

Click here: God forbid </font>[/QUOTE]Honestly, if this was written by apologists regarding the NIV, ESV, NKJV, et.al., would this be an acceptable answer?

 

Probably not.

It doesn't address the issue about adding words to the translated text without apograph source, and in addition adding them without the familiar KJV italics in this case.

This is not the issue. The AV translators were highly educated men in their fields. They knew full well that the deity was not invoked in the mss languages of these passages, but an honest assumption of invocation by the human author on their part.

To me it is something of the nature of the 20-21st century profane statement "Oh my goodness" (with "goodness" usually substituted with "God").

While the site article is probably true in that it is "perfect 1611 parlance" IMO it is not perfect koine Greek translation into the English language of any period.

But since the KJV has so many other things going for it, it is easy to overlook.

So, please note this is not an attack, just a statement of fact and opinion.

But, concerning the OP question concerning whether or not adding words invalidates a Bible?

Perhaps, depending on the motive. For instance, the NWT for John 1:1 reads:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God
and the Word was a god" (sic).

The little indefinite article "a" being added (which may or may not be technically incorrect since koine has no specific indefinite article) along with the lower case "g" in "god". However those two changes turn the passage into a denial of the deity of Christ.


HankD