"Attacks" on translations of the Bible

Charles - could you point out attacks on modern versions (not including paraphrases) which have not been dealt with please? I would like to snip or delete them as needed.

 

Interesting quotes from this thread regarded "attacks."

 

That would generally indicate that you are being even handed. I don't like the new restrictions but understand why you thought they were necessary.

Error must be debated. At least one side is wrong on this... I think it is potentially valuable to see it played out with warts and all for people who aren't decided or who can be persuaded.

 

I wish we could do that Scott, I really do.

Folks tend to let their emotions get involved and intellegent debate degenerates into attacks on versions, then attacks on each other. We have all seen the result of that in the past.

 

Good point, if that actually happenned. It does not. There is no shortage of KJVOists posting such alleged errors. I myself have pointed out translational issues in non-KJV translations from time to time. Yet, when I do it with, say, the NASB or NIV, no one raises an eyebrow. When I do it to the KJV, all of a sudden, I'm accused of attacking the Bible.

Pointing out such things in a respectful manner, and discussing them to discover the validity of the claim is not only permissible, it is frequent on this board. Yet I can't think of a single KJVOist that would ever acknowlege the same for the KJV.

But since KJVOism is false doctrine, it is no surprise to most that many of the allegations made by several KJVOists are typically refuted when searching scripture.

 

Hi Scott, I will add to C4K's answer.

As C4K has warned us; there are other's on the board (who usually don't even frequent this thread) that would like to see it completely closed down. We essentially had to compromise by cracking down tighter or this thread was in danger of complete shut-down.

Maybe I'm being a little more blunt and open than other moderators would like me to be, but I feel like you need to know what is going on. (No, I'm not Wade Burleson.)

Anyway, you are correct. I think it is an issue that should be discussed, and maybe things will lighten up as time goes by.

I have seen several decent discussions on TR preferred, etc., but C4K is right when it comes to discussion of hard-core KJVonlyism. It usually turns personal and we feel strongly about keeping this subject open, so we must compromise with those that think we fight too much and try to hold the peace with a stronger regulation.

I hope this helps some of you understand the reasoning behind a tougher stance against subjects that always turn personal.

C4K or Dr. Bob, if either of you feel I have said too much, feel free to edit or delete this.

 

I don't think you will find any intentional editing if someone truly has a doctrinal issue in a translation. Usually these issues are brought up based on emotion rather than intellect. For instance: "My Bible has 'the only 'begotten' Son' while your Bible has 'the one and only Son' so therefore yours is wrong."

I also think that you will find that very few people here appreciate "The Message" as a "GOOD" translation. I also think you will find that at least two of us who moderate this site are Byzantine preferred, but I for one am certainly not going to call manuscripts that are accepted by many very good scholars as being from evil sources, especially since I have read these translations and find no doctrinal difference between them and older English translations.

I hope this answers your concerns regarding editing of the Translation threads.

 

C4K,

I think you missed the point of my post.

I assert that there is a difference between an "attack" and a statement of criticism.

If I say that the KJV is translated from manuscripts which are less old than those of the NIV I have made a statement regarding the KJV. KJVOs often regard this as an attack but it is not. As such it should not be snipped.

If I say that the NASB is a "perversion" or a "devil's bible" then I have made an attack.

As I said, BIG DIFFERENCE !!

And I agree that the moderating has been quite fair here.

It just so happens that there are very few attacks on the KJV since even those who see it as not the best translation do not dislike it. On the other hand there are many attacks on the other versions since many strong KJVOs have a visceral aversion to them.

 

Sorry Charles and thanks for your explanation

 

This point is all to true. Unfortunately to list a fault in a modern version is seen by many as just a critique but to dare point out a mistake in the KJV is to attack it. I think this stems from the fact that the KJV is considered by many inerrant so to suggest and prove otherwise is an attack on God's Word.

 

I concur, nate. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. That is fact. There are, however, many good translations. A discussion of how good or weak translations are in any given verse or series of verses is certainly a worthy discussion, provided that it is within the scope of reasonable objectivity, respect, and propriety. Of course, I acknowlege that what makes a translation good or weak is always subjective to at least some extent.

 

Here is the only problem I see in this debate. I feel that when one side makes a claim, they usually back it up with facts, cheackable facts.

I have yet, to this day, seen an attack made by a KJVO, in which when they were asked for evidence, they gladly provided it.

take for instance the discussions over Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7-8. Numerous KJVO were there to tell us that the MVs were wrong for leaving this verse out. When asked WHY, they only evidence they offered was that "The KJV has it, and the KJV is God's word".

As long as KJVO stands on this completely subjective standard, and refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion, you will continue to be frustrated. Not because of anything the moderators are doing, but rather because you are not supporting your position with FACTS, and therefore no one believes you.

There are many of us who would LOVE to have a decent, civil discussion over various verses concerning bible translation and textual criticism, but the KJVO wont be honest enough to participate. They pretend that the translators of the KJV did not engage in textual criticism themselves, they pretend that the KJV translators (or God) ended all need for such things because of the KJV, and they pretend that its existance is all the proof that is needed. All of these assumptions are unfounded, and are in direct opposition to the facts.

I am not trying to be rude, and if any moderator disagrees with me, so be it. The main problem in this discussion is that one side (KJVO) REFUSES TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. That is why these threads break down. That is why the personal attacks begin.

If you want to clean it up, start making these people accountable to what they say. When they make a claim or an accusation, and refuse to support it, it should be deleted. I am far from perfect, but I am unaware of any claim I have made in which I refused to provide evidence for. I am also unaware of ANYONE making the claim "Well, its in the NASB, thats all the proof I need". I would personally throw waterchestnuts at such a person for such stupidity. No one on this side of the discussion does that.

The majority of those on the other side DO.

 

I have not checked with the rest of the moderating team, but I would like to leave this thread open for an honest discussion of the issues being addressed.

I would like to allow a little more latitude here than we have had over the last couple of months as a "test thread."

Lets see if we can have an intelligent discussion and treat each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, speaking the truth in love, letting our speech be with grace, seasoned with salt, and without biting and devouring one another.

Think we can do it?

 

may I ask C4K if you agree or disagree with what I said?

Im not asking you to pick sides, but do you feel it is a problem?

 

Hey DD,

I am already accused of bias on both sides - do you think I am going to make a public statement on such a controversial issue .

 

I think you may be placing C4K in a tough position, since he IS a moderator and not a referee who counts the ten seconds until a knock-out.

Let me say this; I feel that much of what you say is correct, but let us be clear that we are talking about the Extreme KJVO position where the KJV is held up as the ONLY English version of the Bible that can and should be used for the Glory of our Lord and Savior.

This has always been part of the problem. When one side bases their arguments on emotions rather than Biblical or historical fact, then we leave the realm of debate and enter into a personal fight.

C4K has the difficult job of either eliminating these unfounded arguments or closing the subject to keep the peace. When this occurs those who are arguing simply from tradition (even though their heart may be 100% behind what they say), then feelings are hurt and they feel slighted by the moderator. People arguing from this level seem to have a lot of difficulty in opening their mind enough to realize that they are arguing from a stance of tradition vs. that of trying to discover factual evidence based on Scripture or history.

.....Just a few (toned down) thoughts about the subject.

 

I wrote that before I realized C4K answered. My response is not intended to reflect C4k's beliefs in any way.

 

Posted on another thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2783.html#000011

 

Sorry, I fail to see how that post is biased one way or the other - both sides were warned not to continue in that vein.

Here is the quote -