Bible Translation: Christian Liberty?

[kman]

Is what bible translation you use an area of Christian Liberty? For the sake of discussion let's consider evangelical translations (leave out translations done by heretics; the Jeh.Wit. so called bible, etc).

KJV:
Rom 14:1-4 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

NAS:
Rom 14:1-4 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

(I would of posted the other translations but don't have them in my bible study program, and don't have time to type them in..so don't be offended if you are a NIV-Only or NKJV-Only

)

-kman

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by kman:
Is what bible translation you use an area of Christian Liberty?

This is a very good question. My first impression was that this is a no brainer - i.e., we do not have a monolithic translation and all are free to use the one of their choice. But the question goes deeper than that.

Certainly, no one is free to translate in any manner they see fit. We agree that the NWT is heretical, and other translations are bad. We are not free to change the meaning of God's word in translation, so neither are we free in Liberty to use any translation simply because we like what it says.

Much of this problem is rooted in 20th C American rugged-individualism. We are so centered on individual religion and individual faith and individual salvation that we forget that the church is an organism, the Body of Christ, and that the power of Christ was given to the church, i.e., all believers functioning as the Body.

While we should disdain any man-made heirarchy foistering upon us eclesiastical mandates, we can and should be open to the general authority of the church and the God-given responsibility it has to recognize correct doctrine and practice. This is recognized concerning the acceptance of the major creeds fo the faith, as well as the historic recognition of the canon. If one is to argue that every individual can choose whatever translation they prefer, then one may argue they can choose their own canon as well (and for all intents and purposes, liberals do).

In God's Providence, the church has historically recognized good and bad versions of Scripture. The cream rises to the top, and the church has generally ignored poor versions. The universally recognized good English versions of Scripture have been the Geneva, KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and now ESV. The KJV, NKJV, NIV and NASB have been the big four. Others have come and go. To use anyone of these certainly falls into the acceptable range.

Rather than Christian Liberty in translation, we should possibly state it as Christian responsibility: responsibility to accurately handle the word of God, and responsibility to recognize mishandled versions.

[ June 07, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[Johnv]

The universally recognized good English versions of Scripture have been the Geneva, KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and now ESV.

I dunno, the KJV as well as many translations tend to fail us from time to time. For example, in 1 Corinthians 13, we use the word "love", but the original Greek uses "unconditional love" (agape). Also, when Jesus says "the Father and I are one" is probably more accurately translated "the Father and I are of one accord". And then there's Paul's famous phrase, "Wives, submit to your husbands". A more accurate translation is not submit, but seek voluntary and mutual cooperation.

Of course, some phrases are so deeply grounded into their English meaning that it's practically considered heresy to change the English meaning, even if the new meaning is more in line with the original verse and context of the phrases.

Now I for one, don't like the idea that some phrases aren't what we think they are. I'd rather they stayed as I was taught to know them. However, for us to inject additional flavor into some verses means we're changing the meaning, and when last I recall, the Holy Spirit doesn't need our help interpreting scripture, we need His.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Johnv:
And then there's Paul's famous phrase, "Wives, submit to your husbands". A more accurate translation is not submit, but seek voluntary and mutual cooperation.

Which lexical source did you get this out of? The word means to subject or under the authority of. I don't think we have the prerogative to change it.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Herein lies the problem....too many perversions. Stick to the Book God gave us and the problem goes away. There is no "Christian Liberty" We are the servants of sin or the bond srevants of Christ.. Those in Christ are not at liberty to serve self, rather bought with a price; the precious blood of Jesus.

Romans 6:1 (KJV)
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans 6:2 (KJV)
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:3 (KJV)
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 (KJV)
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:5 (KJV)
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Romans 6:6 (KJV)
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Romans 6:7 (KJV)
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:8 (KJV)
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Romans 6:9 (KJV)
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Romans 6:10 (KJV)
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Romans 6:11 (KJV)
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:12 (KJV)
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Romans 6:13 (KJV)
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Romans 6:14 (KJV)
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:15 (KJV)
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Romans 6:16 (KJV)
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Romans 6:17 (KJV)
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Romans 6:18 (KJV)
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Romans 6:19 (KJV)
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Romans 6:20 (KJV)
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Romans 6:21 (KJV)
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Romans 6:22 (KJV)
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Romans 6:23 (KJV)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Ernie

[ June 07, 2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

did Ernie miss a couple of verses on Christian liberty?

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Romans 6:1 (KJV)
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Herein lies the problem....too many perversions. Stick to the Book God gave us and the problem goes away.

If you are implying that God "gave" us the KJV in any sense that He did not give us the NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. then show your proof before asserting that this is a solution to any problem.

Those in Christ are not at liberty to serve self,

Correct. So is KJVOnlyism a "service" to Christ or does it have more to do with fleshly emotions and biases? Many MV's are not perversions any more than the KJV is but KJVOnlyism is definitely a perversion of the doctrines revealed in Scripture.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Johnv:
I dunno, the KJV as well as many translations tend to fail us from time to time.

While this is certainly true, it is in no way a cause for alarm, or a cause for retranslation. Good translations done by Spirit-filled, true believers will always be functionally accurate, and the originals can always be compared for verification. No ancient document has been more scrutinized than the Bible, and no ancient document has more original language references and tools than the Bible, so that even the layman can check the originals if he so desires.

And when "new" translations deviate from the tried and true, the responsibility is on the one with the new translational spin to validate that he is accurate and the long history of church translations is in error.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Rather than Christian Liberty in translation, we should possibly state it as Christian responsibility: responsibility to accurately handle the word of God, and responsibility to recognize mishandled versions.[/qb]

Amen. Excellent and well said.

[ June 07, 2002, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Herein lies the problem....too many perversions. Stick to the Book God gave us and the problem goes away. There is no "Christian Liberty" We are the servants of sin or the bond srevants of Christ.. Those in Christ are not at liberty to serve self, rather bought with a price; the precious blood of Jesus.
Ernie

Hi Ernie:

It is true that Christian Liberty doesn't extend to sin. I'm sure you'd agree that God defines what sin is, not man. Thus, God has given us his moral law in His Word so we know what is sin, and what is righteous and pleasing to Him.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be asserting that using any other translation other than the KJV is sin.

I'm sorry but I don't see any biblical evidence to make such an assertion. Perhaps you could provide some?

peace,
kman

[ June 07, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Originally posted by kman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Herein lies the problem....too many perversions. Stick to the Book God gave us and the problem goes away. There is no "Christian Liberty" We are the servants of sin or the bond srevants of Christ.. Those in Christ are not at liberty to serve self, rather bought with a price; the precious blood of Jesus.
Ernie

Hi Ernie:

It is true that Christian Liberty doesn't extend to sin. I'm sure you'd agree that God defines what sin is, not man. Thus, God has given us his moral law in His Word so we know what is sin, and what is righteous and pleasing to Him.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be asserting that using any other translation other than the KJV is sin.

I'm sorry but I don't see any biblical evidence to make such an assertion. Perhaps you could provide some?

Herein lies the problem....too many perversions. Stick to the Book God gave us and the problem goes away. There is no "Christian Liberty" We are the servants of sin or the bond srevants of Christ.. Those in Christ are not at liberty to serve self, rather bought with a price; the precious blood of Jesus.

Now, kman read the above post again and tell me where I mentioned MVs being sin??????????????

The Bible plainly teaches that we are the servants of sin or the servants of Christ, can't have it both ways. {Attack deleted}
Ernie

BTW: if you are offended by this I was also offended by being misquoted, or doesn't that matter?

I have been labeled "legalist" and not complained, I have been suspended for being concerned for men's souls and not complained, but now I am very upset that some is trying to add to what I have said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My turn to complain!!!!

Ernie
peace,
kman</font>[/QUOTE]1) Please refrain from pugnacious attacks. You just got off a suspension for this, so know you're on thin ice. Also, leave the blatently false statements out. They're not becoming a servant of Christ.
2) Let me steal Thomas's thunder and ask you to please adequately use the quote feature. Can't tell where your post begins and other posts left off

[ June 07, 2002, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
The Bible plainly teaches that we are the servants of sin or the servants of Christ, can't have it both ways. Seems as though the ones who cling to the MVs are the ones who have a problem with whom to serve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ernie

BTW: if you are offended by this I was also offended by being misquoted, or doesn't that matter?

I have been labeled "legalist" and not complained, I have been suspended for being concerned for men's souls and not complained, but now I am very upset that some is trying to add to what I have said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My turn to complain!!!!

Ernie

I'm sorry. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. I did ask you to "forgive me" if I was wrong. Please accept my apologies.

peace,
kman

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:

{Insult deleted}

How so? Please explain explicitly what you mean for us simple folk.

Brian

[ June 07, 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[tyndale1946]

In relating to the KJV... Why change it when it didn't need to be changed... Who made the determination that it was broke? Since it wasn't broke it didn't need to be fixed either... Brother Glen

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
In relating to the KJV... Why change it when it didn't need to be changed... Who made the determination that it was broke? Since it wasn't broke it didn't need to be fixed either... Brother Glen

Fair question. But which KJV was the one that didn't need fixing?

 

[tyndale1946]

Ok you got me... Open mouth insert foot!... Let me clarify the quotation... The second one wasn't a fixed update but an enhanced one... Brother Glen

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
In relating to the KJV... Why change it when it didn't need to be changed... Who made the determination that it was broke? Since it wasn't broke it didn't need to be fixed either... Brother Glen

It is a wrong assumption to believe that MVs are "fixing a broken" KJV. There is nothing wrong or broken with the KJV, and it is a fine version - for the 17th century.

But just as I move from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, 98 and 2000, or from a '72 Chevy to an '80, '90 or 2000 model, I can move from an earlier Bible version to a modern one which works "better" for this age. Its not a matter of fixing something broken, but rather of using what is best for the age we're in.

 

[DocCas]

I go alone with Glen! If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry (in regards to "wives, submit to your husbands":
Which lexical source did you get this out of? The word means to subject or under the authority of. I don't think we have the prerogative to change it.

In the Greek, the word for submission is hupotasso. In the active voice, it refers to a military term as one would submit to a commanding officer or as a conquered enemy would submit to a victor.

The only problem with your definition is that where the word hupotasso is used in Scripture pertaining to wives submitting to their own husbands it is spoken in the middle or passive voice and it has a different connotation: To join in mutual unified cooperation. It signifies a choice. This view by Paul is further expressed when he later tells us to submit (hupotasso) to one another. Again, not under authority, but a unified togetherness.

By us using the word "submit" in the context you provided, the Word of God becomes modified from its original meaning and intent. By using the word "submit" in my context, it not only rings true to the original meaning, but can be supported with other scriptural references.

[ June 07, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[DocCas]

Johnv, I can't help but think you may have missed something here. The two most commonly cited verses in question

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Both say the same thing. Both read υποτασσεσθε. There is absolutely no indication of "mutual submission" in either of these verses. Both verbs are present tense, middle voice, imparatives. It is a command for the wife to submit herself. It is not the husband's job to force her to submit, or even to help her submit based on his supposed "mutual submission." The common, ordinary, every day understanding of a middle voice verb is

Middle voice (Gram.), that form of the verb by which its subject is represented as both the agent, or doer, and the object of the action, that is, as performing some act to or upon himself, or for his own advantage. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)