Human thought/human language

[billwald]

In another thread, Dr. Walter wrote:

"The Septuigent is not a "copy" of the Old Testament but a "translation" of the Old Testament."

Why does this make a difference? Every human thought can be expressed in every human language. If this is not true then Islam is correct in claiming that the Q'ran can only be understood in Arabic and Wycliffe Bible Translators are committing fraud.

Further, most of the KJB was copied from Tyndale and Tyndale was translated from Latin.

from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

"His literary activity during that interval was extraordinary. When he left England, his knowledge of Hebrew, if he had any, was of the most rudimentary nature; and yet he mastered that difficult tongue so as to produce from the original an admirable translation of the entire Pentateuch, the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First Chronicles, contained in Matthew's Bible of 1537, and of the Book of Jonah, so excellent, indeed, that his work is not only the basis of those portions of the Authorized King James Version of 1611, but constitutes nine-tenths of that translation, and very largely that of the English Revised Version of 1885."

If the Holy Spirit could protect the double translation of the KJB then she could also protect the writing of the Sept. In other words, the old translations that most of you favor have gone through a two step translation process and the new translations that most of you shun are more authentic according to Dr. Walter's analysis.

My favorite translation is from French and is no less authentic than the KJB. I probably have read six different translations cover to cover. Every one of them is "sufficient for faith and practice."

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are an excellent candidate for Mormonism. Mormons beleive that the Old and New Testament scriptures should be interpreted in light of the New Revelation rather than the new by the old (Isa. 8:20).

You are also an excellent candidate for those who beleive the KJV translators were inspired by God. The KJV is merely a translation of previous Hebrew and Greek copies. The copies are not subject to the translation but the translation is subject to the copies. Tyndale's translation is subject to the copies he used to translate it not vice versa.

Likewise, the Septuigent is NEWER than the Hebrew copies it attempted to translate. The Septuigent is an attempted TRANSLATION and the previous Hebrew copies are not subject to a later translation but the translation is subject to the earlier Hebrew copies (Isa. 8:20).

You cannot use a NEWER translation to correct OLDER Hebrew copies. You cannot argue that UNINSPIRED translators are more correct than copies of INSPIRED originals.

The dead sea scrolls provided HEBREW copies that confirm the high accuracy of Hebrew copies 1000 years later. You have no historical, Biblical or logical criteria to correct Daniel 8:11-14 based upon a LATER translation when that portion of the translation directly conflicts with the EARLIER Hebrew copies any more than I have historical, Biblical or logical criteria to take a verse or word in the KJV to correct or change the wording in the Hebrew or Greek copies from which the KJV was translated - THAT IS JUST BACKWARD THINKING. You just as well be a Mormon or an advocate of inspired KJV translators as to attempt to correct the Hebrew Text by a NEWER and LATER uninspired translator(s) and their translation.

For example, take the New World Translation of the Watchtower. Would you take their translation of John 1:1 over the Greek copies they translated it from???????? Case closed!

In another thread, Dr. Walter wrote:

"The Septuigent is not a "copy" of the Old Testament but a "translation" of the Old Testament."

Why does this make a difference? Every human thought can be expressed in every human language. If this is not true then Islam is correct in claiming that the Q'ran can only be understood in Arabic and Wycliffe Bible Translators are committing fraud.

Further, most of the KJB was copied from Tyndale and Tyndale was translated from Latin.

from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

"His literary activity during that interval was extraordinary. When he left England, his knowledge of Hebrew, if he had any, was of the most rudimentary nature; and yet he mastered that difficult tongue so as to produce from the original an admirable translation of the entire Pentateuch, the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First Chronicles, contained in Matthew's Bible of 1537, and of the Book of Jonah, so excellent, indeed, that his work is not only the basis of those portions of the Authorized King James Version of 1611, but constitutes nine-tenths of that translation, and very largely that of the English Revised Version of 1885."

If the Holy Spirit could protect the double translation of the KJB then she could also protect the writing of the Sept. In other words, the old translations that most of you favor have gone through a two step translation process and the new translations that most of you shun are more authentic according to Dr. Walter's analysis.

My favorite translation is from French and is no less authentic than the KJB. I probably have read six different translations cover to cover. Every one of them is "sufficient for faith and practice."

 

[billwald]

Obviously the text that the Sept translated was older than the Sept but WE don't have them. If we have them, where are they?

>You cannot use a NEWER translation to correct OLDER Hebrew copies. You cannot argue that UNINSPIRED translators are more correct than copies of INSPIRED originals.

YOU don't know if the older Hebrews are 100% accurate to the autographs. YOU don't know that the translators of the Sept were not inspired. YOU don't know that didn't use the translators to correct textual errors. Neither of us know that.

MY point, which you ignored, was that we have no basis for claiming that ANY translation is the inerrant word of God. The best we can claim is that a translation is sufficient for faith and practice. Instead, appeal to obvious heretics to put me down. Where did you get your Ph.D and what was your PhD in? Or are you some sort of MD?

 

[annsni]

If the Holy Spirit could protect the double translation of the KJB then she could also protect the writing of the Sept.

You call the Holy Spirit a "she"? Is this a typist error?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Obviously the text that the Sept translated was older than the Sept but WE don't have them. If we have them, where are they?

>You cannot use a NEWER translation to correct OLDER Hebrew copies. You cannot argue that UNINSPIRED translators are more correct than copies of INSPIRED originals.

YOU don't know if the older Hebrews are 100% accurate to the autographs. YOU don't know that the translators of the Sept were not inspired. YOU don't know that didn't use the translators to correct textual errors. Neither of us know that.

MY point, which you ignored, was that we have no basis for claiming that ANY translation is the inerrant word of God. The best we can claim is that a translation is sufficient for faith and practice. Instead, appeal to obvious heretics to put me down. Where did you get your Ph.D and what was your PhD in? Or are you some sort of MD?

Where do you get the idea that there are or ever has been variant readings in Aramic copies of Daniel 8:11-14? We have more than one line of Old Testament copies and where is there any evidence of variations with this text? You cannot ASSUME variants due to a translation? You cannot ASSUME the LXX is superior in every place it varies from the Hebrew and Aramaic copies. There is no basis for your ASSUMPTION except for theological PRESUMPTION.

Finally, the LXX reading in Daniel 8:14 DOES NOT MATCH the reading of the LXX in Genesis chapter one! So much for your argument based on the LXX. The LXX in Daniel 8 simply uses the Greek plural "hemerai" (days) whereas the LXX reading in Genesis actually uses distinct terms for evening and morning. So much for your LXX argument!!!!

Furthermore, since the LXX does not use the same phrasology in Daniel 8:14 as it does in Genesis 1 there is absolutely no basis to argue the thousand year day theory in Daniel 8:14 as the LXX rendering does not demand anything more than 2300 "daily" sacrifices - Period! End of story!