Dear Alex,
Do you think that is alright to translate John 3:16 this way: ...
That really side-steps the issue Alex.
The OT Scripture of Isaiah 61 that Jesus quoted in the KJV does not match the translation of Masoretic text for Isaiah 61 in the KJV but matches the the Septuagint (or what is called the Septuagint).
Personally and for what it's worth, I have grown weary of folk who apparently are willing to send up an obvious smoke-screen (not that you have) to avoid an uncomfortable but obvious "problem".
My resolution is this :
The doctrine of preservation directly applies to the COPIES of the original manuscripts.
God is interested in preserving every jot and tittle of the words of the original message in the copies and the thought behind the words in a translation.
Have we done a good job, perfectly no, virtually, yes.
The KJV (which some say had an "inspired" translation) has gone through several revisions proving that it was NOT inspired unless somehow "inspiration" no longer applies to the "jots" and "tittles", the very spelling of the words.
A translation in its execution (imo) is by its very nature DIFFERENT than the original, inspired giving of the Word(s). Whether we like it or not, whether it rains on our parade or no, the translation is indeed, to one degree or another, subjective to the translator and his/her culture, background, education, etc and prone to
human error.
Jesus (not prone to human error) apparently quoted from or instantly "inspired" a new rendition of Isaiah 61, others doing the same in the OT-NT translations and almost always it is the Septuagint quote word-for-word differing from the Hebrew text even to the very content of the words.
Which is the cause and which is the effect is not the issue.
The issue is that in the codified Word they are DIFFERENT when compared.
When this undeniable fact is brought to our attention the result is strife, name-calling, accusations and assignments to hell (in one form or another).
This kind of behavior is a clear Scriptural indication as to the source of such solutions, the flesh.
In conclusion (mine):
In my view Alex, God approves of the use of translations and in the words of the "inspired" translators of the KJV "even the meanest translation contains the Word of God, NAY IS THE WORD OF GOD".
As a 21st Century believer, I would add, "which are faithful to the originals (or copies thereof) using equivelancy only where necessary".
This would have a bearing on your "translation".
One added thought. The essential Modern Versions issue is the choice of the underlying Greek and Hebrew text not the choice of cross-over words, grammar and syntax.
Personally I stand with the Burgon school of thought, the Received Text is the proper text.
On the other hand I am also convicted that no TRANSLATION is perfect. Therefore, I use the MV's where they are faithful to the TR, especially the NKJV.
HankD
