Is It Possible For Modern Translators To Fall Under the Curse Of Re 22:18,19

[John of Japan]

Do you really think reading in Greek would be beneficial when one considers there are different manuscripts from which English Bible translations are produced? What if the prophesies in Revelation differs enough to bring the curse on one or the other?

I'm not Jon, but I hope he doesn't mind me answering this (but not instead of him).

Actually, the proper word is "texts", not "manuscripts. Texts are put together from manuscripts: the TR, Byzantine, USB, Nestle's, etc. It is the texts from which we translate, not the manuscripts directly.

I have known translators who went directly from an English version, but referred back to the original languages through software and other references. You can end up with a good translation this way, but not be going directly from the English and ignoring the original languages in which God Himself inspired the Bible. Why would someone want to ignore the Greek, in which God inspired the NT?

 

[John of Japan]

Now a little more about the passage in question.

Note that the genitive plural of the word logos (λώγων) is used. Since it is the plural, it is definitely not speaking of Christ, the "Word" in John 1:1.

As you all know, logos is a complicated word with many meanings. Here, though, all we have to consider is whether or not it refers to individual semantic content, or to messages. Mounce's short lexicon has: "a word, a thing uttered; speech, language, talk...; a saying, a speech" (I left out all of the references. I believe it refers here to the last meaning I gave. An example of this is in Luke 6:47, where the KJV (and other translations) has "sayings."

In other words, the curse applies to those who add content to the book--sayings, sentences, etc. A translator who simply goofs and gets the wrong word in his rendering is not cursed. Otherwise, every single Bible translator in the history of the world is cursed, including the translators of the KJV!

 

[JD731]

I'm not Jon, but I hope he doesn't mind me answering this (but not instead of him).

Actually, the proper word is "texts", not "manuscripts. Texts are put together from manuscripts: the TR, Byzantine, USB, Nestle's, etc. It is the texts from which we translate, not the manuscripts directly.

I have known translators who went directly from an English version, but referred back to the original languages through software and other references. You can end up with a good translation this way, but not be going directly from the English and ignoring the original languages in which God Himself inspired the Bible. Why would someone want to ignore the Greek, in which God inspired the NT?

No one seems to talk about it but the emphasis of Jesus Christ concerning his words is not on the Hebrew or the Greek language so much as it is on the spiritual nature of those words. How many people can read John 6 and miss the whole point that Jesus is using an OT established manner of God to teach the truth that Jesus Christ cannot give them eternal life if he abides in the form they can see. He must be on the inside of them and in that sense he gives life because he is the bread that God his Father sent down to earth from heaven that is eaten once and gives eternal life to those who eat (receive and believe) him. That is the purpose of the bread. Then he says this;

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It does not matter nearly as much if it is Hebrew or Greek or English that we read the word in but it does matter that those words we accept as the words of God have the spiritual content in them. These truths can only be taught by the indwelling Spirit of Christ but they must be the words he, God the Father, chooses because of the consistency of their spiritual meanings. It is inconceivable to me that God would give more than one translation in any given language and if he can give a perfect Son he can also give a perfect word.

I cannot imagine how men without the Spirit directing them can maintain the spiritual content of the words of scripture, or why God would need to give them in multiple translations that differ as much as they do.

1 Cor 2 instructs us that we need both the Spirit and the words to know the mind and thoughts of God and only those with the mind of Christ can know them.

 

[JonC]

In what way does this passage not speak of the Bible? I get that it refers directly to the book of Revelation, "this prophecy," but isn't that part of the Bible?

I guess my question would be in what way does the passage speak of the Bible?

My argument is that the Bible is a collection of books or letters. Revelation was not an addition to the Bible (written as it's final chapter), but rather the Bible is a collection of Scripture.

 

[John of Japan]

No one seems to talk about it but the emphasis of Jesus Christ concerning his words is not on the Hebrew or the Greek language so much as it is on the spiritual nature of those words. How many people can read John 6 and miss the whole point that Jesus is using an OT established manner of God to teach the truth that Jesus Christ cannot give them eternal life if he abides in the form they can see. He must be on the inside of them and in that sense he gives life because he is the bread that God his Father sent down to earth from heaven that is eaten once and gives eternal life to those who eat (receive and believe) him. That is the purpose of the bread.

This is all very well, but truth must be given in words used together to make sentences and thus reveal propositional truth. You would know nothing about the "bread of heaven" if someone had mistranslated the Greek word "bread."

Some translators into an Asian language are for making it "rice" because that is the "main food" of their culture. The "main food" of a culture is important in Asia. Japanese even has a single word for it, 主食, shushoku. They like to say that our American shushoku is bread. However, that cross-cultural view is incorrect for Bible translation. Bread has characteristics that rice does not. Individual words must be translated correctly.

Then he says this;

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

If this were mistranslated, using the wrong individual words, we would not know the truth God was giving.

It does not matter nearly as much if it is Hebrew or Greek or English that we read the word in but it does matter that those words we accept as the words of God have the spiritual content in them. These truths can only be taught by the indwelling Spirit of Christ but they must be the words he, God the Father, chooses because of the consistency of their spiritual meanings. It is inconceivable to me that God would give more than one translation in any given language and if he can give a perfect Son he can also give a perfect word.

The Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic do absolutely matter. Who are you to downplay the languages God Himself chose to communicate His word in? It is the height of fuzzy thinking to say that God's choice of languages does not matter.

I cannot imagine how men without the Spirit directing them can maintain the spiritual content of the words of scripture, or why God would need to give them in multiple translations that differ as much as they do.

Imagination does not count. Scripture does.

You have absolutely no Scriptural evidence to suggest that God Himself gives individual translations of the Bible. According to the Baptist distinctive of the priesthood of the believer, every believer has not only the right, but the responsibility to interpret Scripture himself or herself. It follows that God leaves translation up to His priest-believers.

1 Cor 2 instructs us that we need both the Spirit and the words to know the mind and thoughts of God and only those with the mind of Christ can know them.

Yes, both, but you have been downplaying the individual words.

 

[John of Japan]

I guess my question would be in what way does the passage speak of the Bible?

My argument is that the Bible is a collection of books or letters. Revelation was not an addition to the Bible (written as it's final chapter), but rather the Bible is a collection of Scripture.

I'm sorry, I'm just not following your logic here. Is the book of Revelation inspired of God? Is it then the prophecy spoken of in Rev. 22? Therefore is the curse not referring to the book of Revelation, which is a book of the Bible?

 

[Van]

If the premise of the thread is the claim any deviation from the KJV is "adding to or taking away from the words of this book" and therefore cursed according to Revelation 22:18-19, then the premise is absurd , laughable and ignorant nonsense.

JOJ made a good point, if at anytime a translator mistranslated a part of the text, they were cursed, that would prohibit "modern translators" and by default, result in reliance on the cursed KJV translators. Absurd, laughable and ignorant nonsense.

The idea the modern translators are not doing their best to present the intended message of God, and often better than the KJV translators, the idea is absurd, laughable and ignorant nonsense.

Yes, we have some deeply flawed translations, and some verses where more than one interpretation is possible, thus limiting the accuracy of all our translations. But to throw up nonsense in provincial favor of this translation as always better than all others is absurd, laughable nonsense.

 

[robycop3]

The KJV makers are in the same boat. They ADDED "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5 & changed 'passover' to 'Easter' in Acts 12:4.

 

[JD731]

This is all very well, but truth must be given in words used together to make sentences and thus reveal propositional truth. You would know nothing about the "bread of heaven" if someone had mistranslated the word "bread" into an Asian language, making it "rice" because that was the "main food" (主食, shushoku, in Japanese, an Asian language) of that culture. Words must be translated correctly.


If this were mistranslated, using the wrong individual words, we would not know the truth God was giving.

The Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic do absolutely matter. Who are you to downplay the languages God Himself chose to communicate His word in? It is the height of fuzzy thinking to say that God's choice of languages does not matter.


Imagination does not count. Scripture does.

You have absolutely no Scriptural evidence to suggest that God Himself gives individual translations of the Bible. According to the Baptist distinctive of the priesthood of the believer, every believer has not only the right, but the responsibility to interpret Scripture himself or herself. It follows that God leaves translation up to His priest-believers.

Yes, both, but you have been downplaying the individual words.

You seem to have a self esteem problem. Have you considered anger management?

I am responding to the underlined portion of your comments above.

I gave scriptural evidence that whatever is actually the words of God has a spiritual content that is developed through the scriptures and is hidden from the natural mind. I don't think I disagreed with anything you said that should have garnered such a mean spirited response from you but simply used your comments as a springboard to speak of the spiritual content of the words of scripture.

I will be more careful next time as to who I quote.

 

[37818]

An observation.

The title of the book of Revelation as give in it's openning verse, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: . . ."

Revelation 19:10, ". . . And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. . . ."

Jesus as cited in Luke 24:44, ". . . These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. . . ."

With the understanding that the whole given written word of God is a revelation of Jesus Christ, the warnings for the book of Revelation in 22:18-19 can be understood to apply to the whole Bible.

 

[37818]

<snip> . . . seem to have a self esteem problem. Have you considered anger management?

<snip>
.

Romans 2:1, ". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ."

 

[JD731]

If the premise of the thread is the claim any deviation from the KJV is "adding to or taking away from the words of this book" and therefore cursed according to Revelation 22:18-19, then the premise is absurd , laughable and ignorant nonsense.

JOJ made a good point, if at anytime a translator mistranslated a part of the text, they were cursed, that would prohibit "modern translators" and by default, result in reliance on the cursed KJV translators. Absurd, laughable and ignorant nonsense.

The idea the modern translators are not doing their best to present the intended message of God, and often better than the KJV translators, the idea is absurd, laughable and ignorant nonsense.

Yes, we have some deeply flawed translations, and some verses where more than one interpretation is possible, thus limiting the accuracy of all our translations. But to throw up nonsense in provincial favor of this translation as always better than all others is absurd, laughable nonsense.

I have learned one thing about you, Van, you know a lot about ignorance and nonsense. But, if Jesus Christ did not speak in his own words, but spoke the words the Father gave to him to speak, as he said in more than one passage, why are you so privileged to have the honor of choosing your own words and calling it the word of God?

And I did not say anything about the KJV. All the English translations, including the KJV, claim they are the word of God. Are they all the word of God?

 

[JD731]

Romans 2:1, ". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ."

Do you want to make this thread about judging?

 

[JD731]

The KJV makers are in the same boat. They ADDED "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5 & changed 'passover' to 'Easter' in Acts 12:4.

The exact words I quoted says this:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This prophesy is clearly stated to be given to John in this book. It is not about Acts and easter. That is not in this book.

Revelation 1:11
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Did John send the book of Acts and Genesis and Joel and 1 Peter 1, and on and on to the seven churches in Asia?

There must be some logic and reason as well as inspired words for the scriptures to make sense.

 

[John of Japan]

You seem to have a self esteem problem. Have you considered anger management?

Are you kidding me? I got a good laugh out of this! Thanks for the blessing.

I was not the slightest bit angry when I wrote that. I gave emphasis to "God's" because it seemed necessary since you were slighting the verbal (every single word) inspiration of the Bible in the original languages.

Oh, and yes, I do have a self esteem problem just like you do. It's called the sin nature.

I am responding to the underlined portion of your comments above.

Great, but you know you could have done that with a good attitude.

But then you did not actually respond to what I wrote that you underlined. I asked for Scripture that says God gives translations. You gave none.

I gave scriptural evidence that whatever is actually the words of God has a spiritual content that is developed through the scriptures and is hidden from the natural mind. I don't think I disagreed with anything you said that should have garnered such a mean spirited response from you but simply used your comments as a springboard to speak of the spiritual content of the words of scripture.

What??? Mean spirited? How in the world was I mean spirited? Did I insult you? No. Did I say anything mean? No. So what was mean spirited in what I wrote? I stuck strictly to what you said, not who you are or are not.

I will be more careful next time as to who I quote.

How about if you are more careful about your false accusations?

P. S. It's called debate. Debate can get a little heated, right? So remember that thing about the heat and the kitchen?

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry, I'm just not following your logic here. Is the book of Revelation inspired of God? Is it then the prophecy spoken of in Rev. 22? Therefore is the curse not referring to the book of Revelation, which is a book of the Bible?

I believe that the verse specifically is in regard to the "book of this prophecy" rather than the collection that would come later.

That does not mean that I believe that the rest of Scripture is up for grabs. I just do not see that verse as referencing the collection that Scripture that existed and that would be collected together as one book at a later date.

Why do you believe that the specific curse against adding to the words of the book of that prophecy extends to other books of the Bible?


(I'm not saying you are wrong, just asking for the reasoning)

 

[JD731]

How about if you are more careful about your false accusations?

You don't give up. I do not wish my thread on such an important subject become a shouting match because I think it is an important subject. I did not intend to offend you in my original response to your post but apparently I did. I apologize for that.

 

[John of Japan]

I believe that the verse specifically is in regard to the "book of this prophecy" rather than the collection that would come later.

Okay, we seem to be on the same page. I was just having trouble following your logic, but you've explained it.

That does not mean that I believe that the rest of Scripture is up for grabs. I just do not see that verse as referencing the collection that Scripture that existed and that would be collected together as one book at a later date.

Why do you believe that the specific curse against adding to the words of the book of that prophecy extends to other books of the Bible?

(I'm not saying you are wrong, just asking for the reasoning)

Actually, I never said that the specific curse extended to the rest of the Bible.

A strict exegesis says that the curse in Rev. 22 is about John's prophetic document called the book of Revelation. I think, though, that it can be applied to the rest of Scripture, though not as a curse, because of passages like Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6.

 

[John of Japan]

You don't give up.

Of course not. Missionary Bible translation is an extremely important subject to me. It's an every day task and a subject to teach and advise on all the time, not just an incidental event to only talk about on an Internet forum.

I do not wish my thread on such an important subject become a shouting match because I think it is an important subject. I did not intend to offend you in my original response to your post but apparently I did. I apologize for that.

Thank you for the gracious apology. I'll try to reign back my combativeness about this subject that I care very deeply about, and is such a huge part of my daily life.

 

[37818]

take away his part out of the book of life,

The book or tree? One is the word of God and the other is both a take away and an add. Just by guessing, so one has a 50% chance of being wrong on two counts without trying to know the true word of God.