Is This A Reasonable Request?

This thread may interest you:

http://pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleversiondiscussionboardbibleversions.showMessage?topicID=473.topic

 

Just get a copy of the New King James Version.

Cheers,

Jim

PS,,Anyone who truly knows Greek and Hebrew knows very well that translation is not as easy as so many think it is.

 

This has been done already. As Jim pointed out, the most notable one is the NKJV which, despite claims to the contrary, is based on the TR. There are also other versions, less popular, based on the TR.

I would answer it this way: First, it is not reasonable. Translation work takes a tremendous amount of time if you are going to do it right. It is not as simple as "home translations" or "class translations." To make a viable translation, it requires numerous man hours of work and the finances to keep it up.

Second, it should not be done from the TR in any case. If a new translation is to be made, make it from the Majority text. There is currently no popular translation from the MajT. The best option would be to use the eclectic text, but the recent translations really cover that bill very well.

Third, it is not necessary. There are quite enough translations done by solid scholars of the evangelical world. We really don't need another. We don't need all the ones we have now, but someone has been willing to foot the bill and someone has been willing to do the work of translation. That being the case, we have them. Personally, I would not support another translation effort. We simply will not need one for another decade or two at least, until the current translations are passed by by language changes.

 

"There is not a person on the BB who would agree with each other on the translation of ONE VERSE!"

Do you see the implications in this statement? If we do not have a translation bearing the stamp of God, if we are left to the *unaided* minds of men, this is what we are left with...an admixture, a mingling of God's words with men's. The end result of "no two people would agree on one verse" is the word of men, not God.

This is further evidence that translation, like the inspiration of the original autographs, *must* be aided by God.

 

Inspiration is an act of God, not just a result of God's aid.

Translations may be providentially guided. I believe many are. However, to evaluate and compare which groups were more sensitive to the Spirit than others, calls into question the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of translators and their religions.

Erasmus was a lifelong RCC who debated and disagreed with Luther over salvation being by grace alone. The KJV translators belonged to a state church that elevated the king to the position of earthly head of the church. They also baptized infants and held to the "39 Articles" of religion that affirm baptismal regeneration.

On the other hand, the NASB translators were all required to affirm the Lockman statement of faith which can be found on their website. It differs very little if any from a statement of faith that one might find in any good, fundamental Baptist church... to include a statement affirming salvation by grace through faith alone.

As for character, the KJV translators belonged to a church that persecuted Baptists and other dissenters even to the point of making Edward Wightman (a Baptist) the last English martyr in 1611. If they were the "courageous, godly men" that KJVO's claim then where was the universal opposition to the religious oppression of Baptists and Separatists? I don't want to be too harsh. They were simply men of their times and acted accordingly. However, they were not fundamental Baptist champions. They were the best scholars of the Church of England in that day.

 

Dr Bob,

I don't mean to take this thread in a different direction, but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about the Bible versions/texts used at Central & at Fourth.

Doc C. was always on record as believing that the 1901 ASV was the best English translation.

George Dollar, I believe, was a staunch KJV man. (Not an only-ist though.)

Dr. Pickering was known to quote from the NIV on occasion.

When I was at Fourth, the KJV was used exclusively from the pulpit by Doc C.

At that same time however, Central made use of the NASV in many classes.

Today, Central uses the UBS 4th in Greek, and the church uses the NKJV. Douglas McLachlan himself tells me that the church uses the NKJV.

Is there any inherent conflict in favoring the UBS 4th in the Seminary, but using the NKJV in the church? Does that send a mixed message?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

From my understanding of the KJV Translation, more than the TR was used. I thought the Latin Vulgate was also used?

 

In his outstanding "The Bible, our God-breathed Book," John R. Rice put it this way (paraphrased!)
Were the autographs verbally inspired? Yes.
Do we have them? No. Then do we have the words of God in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Yes. Where? In the comparison of the best manuscripts.

Do we have the words of God in English? Yes. Where? In the comparison of the best translations.

This is a quick summary of the last chapter of that work, which probably dates from the 1950's.
It is also my conviction. R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

Dr. Bob - As a Southern Baptist, I agree that Dr. Rice would have been "just another duck in the pond" had he stayed in the convention, but felt called to more leadership; also agree that, unfortunately, many must be "more catholic than the Pope" and (like James and John at one point!) try to call down fire on anyone using the name of Jesus but not part of OUR movement!

Thanks for your good moderating. Maybe there is some good in being "moderate" - what about Phil. 4:5? (Amplified reads, "your unselfishness -- your considerateness, your forbearing spirit." Not bad! Best- Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Copyright