if the actual words of God have not been preserved, what has?

Pastor Larry,

You said: [Often in this debate, too much dichotomy is made between "words" and "message." The reality is that the point of using words is to communicate a message. The words have no meaning in and of themselves. They only have meaning in teh context and if they are understood. For most, the words "vayomer adonai" means nothing because you don't understand the words. Thus translation is necessary. But translation of necessity changes the words and shows us that the words (of themselves) are not as important as the message.]

When you said “the words have no meaning in and of themselves” and “they only have meaning in the context”, you sorely missed a couple of salient points. Words are the vehicles for conveying meaning. Some vehicles carry more content than others, but this statement is sound none the less. For example, you would not use Honda Civics as your primary vehicles in an interstate transportation company. You would also not use a Yugo to transport royalty. The choice of words is extraordinarily important, as I am sure you know, to the proper transmission of meaning. A lot is said about the archaic words in the KJB, but it must be pointed out that the KJB was translated using a form of English that makes the stories of Shakespeare masterpieces. Without this form of writing his stories are unexceptional to say the least. The value of the powerful conveyance of God’s words should not be underestimated. The timing associated with the creation of the KJB in a period when timeless literary masterpieces were being created is miraculous to say the least.

 

A compelling argument but that means that God has changed His mind because it was not so from the beginning, The NT was originally written in "koine" (common) not "classical" (literary masterpiece) Greek.

HankD

 

I am open to God changing his mind, are you?

 

Does God change His mind?

Not when it comes to His Word

KJV Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Not one jot or tittle has changed since it was originally given.

Yes, the above Scripture is a translation, if the Word that is established NEVER changes from the time it was given, then neither does the meaning, syntax and grammar when it is translated into a receptor language, therefore according to the dynamics of living languages underlying words of the receptor language may need to change to carry forth the thought of the original. So in that respect a TRANSLATION can and does change.

God originally gave His word in the style and usage of the common man.

It is one thing to want to win a debate.
It is another matter if we promote ideas that clearly oppose His plan just so that we can seem to win an argument. I include myself under that umbrella, to watch for the 2X4 in my own eye when I try to remove a splinter from my brother's eye.

So, I cautiously cede that a TRANSLATION of that eternal and heavenly Word can change according to the dynamics of a living language but not the Words themselves (of the original) or the style, intent and the underlying thought of the Greek or Hebrew.

HankD

 

Hank,

I appreciate what you said and it seems we agree on much. I am hoping you missed my point though. Your comment on His Word being given in common Greek, and that was an ineloquent language form, should indicate that He would not preserve it in an eloquent form such as Shakespearian English, I believe is not valid (assuming I understood you correctly). From this viewpoint I would be unwilling to speak for God in this matter. If He decided to introduce the NT in common Greek, and preserve in Shakespearean English, that would be fine with me. That's all I am saying. I believe God determines preservation, not man.

 

Pastor Larry,

You said: [It would be inaccurate to call that a translation since it includes many things that text does not say. Translation is saying what the text says. That, of necessity, includes meaning and therefore makes clear that DE, to some extent, is not only valid but absolutely necessary. If the words were all that was important, then we just need to learn a new set of words (i.e., Greek or Hebrew); translation would be wrong. Because the words can be, to some extent, dispensed with for teh clear communication of the message, we can translate.

Often in this debate, too much dichotomy is made between "words" and "message." The reality is that the point of using words is to communicate a message. The words have no meaning in and of themselves. They only have meaning in teh context and if they are understood. For most, the words "vayomer adonai" means nothing because you don't understand the words. Thus translation is necessary. But translation of necessity changes the words and shows us that the words (of themselves) are not as important as the message.]

No man in either testament ever spoke like you just did. I find that very interesting. You said [The words have no meaning in and of themselves.], but God says “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Proverbs 30:50). Now you would have us believe the literal words are not important as long as the meaning is conveyed. I contend that the meaning cannot be conveyed without the literal words, and the Holy Spirit acting as the interpreter. I believe those literal words can be conveyed in English also. Jesus said: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).

 

Dear FFF,

Yes, it appears that we have a lot in common concerning the preservation of God's Word.

My feeling is that we should ever keep in mind that God originally gave His Word to us in the simplicity of a common form of the people (with a few rare exceptions, The Book of Hebrews does contain some classical Greek words).

On the other hand, I accept your point that God does whatever He pleases and doesn't ask for our approval either beforehand or afterwards.

I retain the belief however that simplicity and readability is still (as with the original) His criteria for TRANSLATION and that the original language of inspiration is still His will for PRESERVATION.

HankD

 

Hank, I agree completely. We have no idea how the English language will develop over time, an it's entirely possible that the use of "heart" to denote affection will someday become archaic. This should tell us two things: (1) there will always be a need for new and fresh translations into common language of the day; and (2) there will always be a need for the Greek text to act as a solid foundation and control on our translations.

 

Yes, this seems the safest approach.

HankD

 

I think right now the discussion is about interesting and important matters. As for "bowels" being the literal meaning of the Greek word touched upon I would yet opt for "affections" as for now. Kardia is the proper word for "heart" unless I am mistaken, and if possible these should not be confused, if possible. If this is dynamic equivalency then so be it. Yet I still maintain that DE as a general and guiding philosophy of a Bible translation project is satanic. Only when a literal rendering of some original word or expression utterly fails to give justice to the authorial meaning should one resort to DE. I agree with FFF as against Larry with respect to words and meaning. When he mentioned Shakespeare I thought he was quite in line with Leland Ryken in his recent book on Bible translation, which defends formal equivalency or "essentially literal translation" as Ryken prefers to use, against DE. While I am not a fan of the ESV which he was involved with I must acknowledge he has written a thought-provoking and good book on these issues. I kind of wish it were online for it has so many golden nuggets I would like to quote. Ryken refers to Shakespeare in his book, and asks what the reaction would be if someone translated Shakespeare's classical works using dynamic equivalency. And then asks why some think it legitimate to do such to God's words when in relation to Shakespeare it is unthinkable. Interesting.

Harald

 

FFF,

I think you missed my point. It goes to the broader issue of language and hermeneutics. A "word" is a sign symbol that represents something. The word it itself has no meaning apart from what it represents. Again I illustrate like this: "Vayomer adonai" probably has little meaning. They are words but they are, for the most part, useless in our discussion because very few understand them. However, these very words are the inspired words of God. Yet in our translation, for the sake of communication, we have felt the liberty to change those words into other words (different words) in order to communicate.

The old saying "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" is the basic premise here. The four letters ROSE have no meaning apart from the flower and thorny bush that they represent, or the color that they represent, or the lady that they represent. That word is invested with meaning in a context. Apart from that context, it means nothing.

If I say "medium," you have no idea what I am talking about. There is no context for it. It can mean anyone of several different things. Now if I say "I am a medium" you have a little more clue. However, even then it is not entirely clear. I might be a medium size, I might be a psychic. If I say I am a medium size, that is more helpful but not entirely. I might be a medium size for a 6 year old which would be different than a medium size for a 16 year old or a 60 year old. I might be a medium size in height or weight. In other words, apart from context the word is useless to communicate.

In Bible translation, it is no different. Those words that God inspired mean something because of their context. I am not downplaying the value of words; I am rather emphasizing their value by pointing to the relation to other words, the grammatical structures, the idioms, etc.

If I say in America, "I need a new diaper," that means something entirely different than if I say the same words in South Africa. If I say "It's raining cats and dogs" and then translate that word for word to a foreign language, it loses its meaning. That is why the meaning cannot be compromised for the sake of the words. Words mean things; but they need their context to have that meaning.

 

Larry,

There is nothing here I disagree with. We both recognize the need for using the appropriate words arrayed properly within the textual structure when translating from one language to another. I am merely cautioning that we must be very careful when doing this with God’s words (as I’m sure you know). The language of the Bible is such that literal, individual words of God are given enormous value. I certainly agree that the words chosen must encapsulate the same meaning as the words they are translated from. I personally find archaic words in places in the KJB acceptable given the eloquent rendering of countless thousands of passages that convey the depth and authority of the words of God almighty. I will stop here since we have found something we agree on for now.

 

I am no expert,But I have read that in the foot nots of some ,not all of A.S.V Jn.9:35-38,sm. foot note refers Jesus Christ as some kind of creature.THetranslaters of theN.A.S.V. caint even be found?Renouncement of this version I here can be gotten 900 park Ave.collingswood NJ 08108.satan cast dought on the Words of GOD Gen 3 2nd Cor.2:17 Deut.4:2 Rev.22:18-19.2nd Pet.1:19-21 never sees the origenal manuscripts,But calls its words sure.God make sure His Word stays PureProv.30:5 He protects His WordPsa.19:7-11 Jn5:46-47 THe only writtings they had of Moses was coppies,But Jesus Himself does not hint of arors.Psa.119:89-119"160 GOD perserves HIS WORD!!!Jesus said not onejot shall pass away from the Law.I dont think that they had originals for 1500 years has past at this time.P>S LOok up all foot notes in theThomson chain studdy bible next to the 1st vs mentiond in this not!St.Jn9:35-41 check all foot notes!!!

 

I have been serching for a church closer to my home for I had to move my famalie among other things withinthe church I could not understand.I thought that the church must sapport thier own ministries,and not the otherway.something like a daycare which is big buisness.IT allmost seemsd that it did not matter ware the parents mostly unsaved parents money was comeing from as long as the day care got thers,which in returne the church got thers.Still dont understand the preacher staits as long as souls are being saved then its all good! SOrry got off track,the one thing that kept me come back to this little church was the preaching strieght out of one Bible the King James.WE could not go left nor right out of thi text.Nothing but the Blood,Which I have herd that out of over 200 differant translations is the sorce of thier attack is the Blood of Christ!I have yet to find a church that does not compromize the Word of GOd,WE are truelly liveing in the last days.God does not need any compromizing preachers,I do not need my ears tickeld .

 

My only response is that the language that conveys depth and authority is a cultural issue and as culture changes, the language should as well, IMO. I see no reason to convey authority to contemporary people in non-contemporary language, no matter how much we might be attached to it.

Generally, I have found your persuasion among those who grew up with the KJV. Among those who did not, they do not share this view.

However, I am glad that we found some agreement.

 

I'll give this a try at an answer Harald.
Probably because God never intended His Word to be a "classic" in the sense of a Shakespearean play or a Broadway production but a message to the common man in his own language.
Presumably so that the message would not be lost behind the "majestic" language.
To be respected but not worshipped.
To be obeyed but not turned into a "Nehushtan" (2 Kings 18:4).

HankD

 

The analogy between translating Shakespeare into another language using dynamic equivalency and translating the Greek text of the Scriptures into another language using dynamic equivalency breaks down for me at one key point: Shakespeare is an English literary "period piece," while the Scriptures are God's word to us for all times and places. In other words, the Scriptures are intended to be read and understood by the common person in the common language of the day (Ac. 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15-16). Not so with Shakespeare.

 

Hank, your post came up just moments before mine. GMTA!

 

HankD & Archangel7. I grant there lies something in what you said. Yet if you have thoroughly acquainted yourself with dynamic equivalency, its philosophy and the versions it produces, you ought to see it is an utterly wrong method when it comes to God's words. I do not mean translating formally and literally must entail super difficult words, like some in the KJV probably are to modern people, especially as meanings on some words have changed significantly. Just check out some good example of DE perversions like the CEV or the TEV or such like and you should see this is unacceptable when it comes to Divinely inspired words. The NIV was one of the first DE versions that became big, and it is not of the worst DE versions.

Why must modern people be more stupid than people of the 1600's, 1700's, 1800's, when formal equivalency versions were good enough for them and no one screamed for DE versions to tickle their ears? Are modern men and women less intelligent so as to need some especially designed DE versions just for them? I submit some examples of DE. Compare them to the Greek wording and and why not to some formal versions as well, and let me know if you think such rendering is acceptable.

(CEV) Only God's Spirit gives new life. The Spirit is like the wind that blows wherever it wants to. You can hear the wind, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going.

(GNB) everyone has sinned and is far away from God's saving presence. (Rom. 3:23)

(CEV) What is left for us to brag about? Not a thing! Is it because we obeyed some law? No! It is because of faith. (Rom. 3:27)

(GNB) What, then, can we boast about? Nothing! And what is the reason for this? Is it that we obey the Law? No, but that we believe.

(CEV) Adam sinned, and that sin brought death into the world. Now everyone has sinned, and so everyone must die. (Rom. 5:12)

(CEV) Adam disobeyed God and caused many others to be sinners. But Jesus obeyed him and will make many people acceptable to God. (Rom. 5:19)

(CEV) what makes people acceptable to him. So they refuse to trust God, and they try to be acceptable by obeying the Law. (Rom. 10:3)

(GW) They don't understand how to receive God's approval. So they try to set up their own way to get it, and they have not accepted God's way for receiving his approval.


Harald

 

Dear Harald,

Yes, I agree that most (if not all) of what you showed goes beyond the acceptable.

I think we have had a disconnect as to the definition of "eqivalence". To me is not one or the other (dynamic or formal).
Is there anyone who can make the distinction between the two?
IMO, If there is not a one to one word correspondence then it has to be a case of equivalence.
I agree, to translate with the objective being to willing promote what the text does not mean is of the evil one or at best of the flesh.

I believe the correct phrase for most of what you presented as examples should be called "taking liberties with the Word of God" rather than equivalence.

HankD