Perfect Transation/Copy

[Winman]

But he has changed the qualification now - from 'full and exact' to 'accurate.'

Would you agree that a translation can accurately reproduce God's word?

I said full and exact in one response, accurate in another- Big Deal.

I stand by both.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I said full and exact in one response, accurate in another- Big Deal.

I stand by both.

SIGH... time to dig out the ole dictionary-
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

Main Entry: exact
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin exactus
Date: 1533
1 : exhibiting or marked by strict, particular, and complete accordance with fact or a standard
2 : marked by thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details


Main Entry: ac·cu·rate
Pronunciation: \ˈa-kyə-rət, ˈa-k(ə-)rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin accuratus, from past participle of accurare to take care of, from ad- + cura care
Date: 1596
1 : free from error especially as the result of care <an accurate diagnosis>
2 : conforming exactly to truth or to a standard : exact <providing accurate color>
3 : able to give an accurate result <an accurate gauge>


I believe that a translation can be "accurate" when it holds to the "truth or standard"- those being the underlying texts. Accuracy implies a +/- standard: for example "within 5% or within .005 in."



However, I do NOT believe that a translation can be exact- "marked by thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details". That is easily proven by the comparison of the English word 'love' (or 'charity') as used in the Bible and the underlying Greek words which are more precise in their denotations.

 

[Rippon]

If the way to Him is fraught with difficulty -- what's the problem you're having? Do you think that the NKJV denies that no one can come to the Father but by Jesus? If so, you are being dishonest.

From Tyndale's translation. (Older is better,right? That new-fangled KJV is different from the Tyndale. The former must be wrong

Snips follow:

Mark 10:23 : what a hard thing it is ...
Matthew 19:23 : it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven
Luke 18:24 : with what difficulty shall they that have riches ...

Winman had said :"The word difficult in my opinion is used to support Catholic doctrine that a man is saved through works."

But, as I noted, even Tyndale had used the words 'hard' and 'difficult' when it came to describe the manner in which one comes to the Lord.

 

[Rippon]

More From Comfort's Work

John 1:17

TR WH NU : the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ
Variant: the law was given through Moses, but the grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ (KJV,NKJ,REB,NLT,NET)

John 1:41

WH NU : this one [Andrew] first finds his brother (KJV,NKJ and all others)
Variant 1/TR : this one [Andrew] was the first to find his brother

John 5:2a

TR WH NU : in Jerusalem near the sheep [gate] a poor
Variant 1 : in Jerusalem by the sheep [gate] a pool (KJV,NKJ)

John 7:39b

Variant 1/TR : for the Holy Spirit was not yet
Variant 3: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given (KJV,NKJ)

John 8:39

NU : you would be doing the works of Abraham (KJV,NKJ and others)
Variant 2/TR : you would have done the works of Abraham

 

[Dr. Bob]

I said full and exact in one response, accurate in another- Big Deal.

I stand by both.

SIGH... time to dig out the ole dictionary

Thanks Mexdeaf, for demonstrating the truth. Words have meaning.

Don't worry about those saying "big deal" when caught in another web.

 

[Rippon]

More From Comfort's Work

Acts 8:5

WH NU: the city of Samaria ( KJV,NKJ and others)
Variant/TR : a city of Samaria (NIV,TNIV,HCSB etc.)

Acts 9:34

WH NU : Jesus Christ ( KJV,RSV,NRSV,REB,NJB etc.)
Variant 1/TR : Jesus the Christ (NKJ,NET)

Acts 11:20

TR WH NU : the Hellenists (NKJ,NRSV,ESV,HCSB)
Variant : the Greeks [or,the Gentiles] (KJV,RSV,REB,NJB,NAB and others)

Acts 17:14

Variant 1/TR : to go,as it were, to the sea (KJV)
Variant 2: to go to the sea (NKJ)
WH NU : to go as far as to the sea (13 other versions)

 

[Mexdeaf]

Thanks Mexdeaf, for demonstrating the truth. Words have meaning.

Don't worry about those saying "big deal" when caught in another web.

They 'only' have meaning in certain circumstances, if you know what I mean. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Tater77]

The translators of the KJV knew of both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and rejected them, these two texts being the foundation of all MVs. In fact, no one had used these texts for over a thousand years including the Catholic church themselves.

No the translators did NOT know about Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus wasnt discovered until the 1800's. Erasmus may have used Vaticanus some, but not the KJV translators who primarily used a combo of Erasmus, Beza and Stephanos (may be misspelled).

Vaticanus is considered 3rd rate in order of importance for complete bibles, but still falls behind many papyri also.


The Catholic church had been Latin only for over 1000 years at that point. Erasmus wanted to put together an all Greek NT for print, which did not exist at the time. Vaticanus was lost in the library, not rejected.

 

[HankD]

I would agree with Winman about a translation being both exact and accurate if he meant that in most places and even in nearly all places we can have an "exact" translation.

That of course depends upon the skill of the translator.

Also it depends upon the reader - is he/she willing to accept functional equivalence, foot notes and marginal notes?

“Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded”

HankD

 

[Mexdeaf]

I would agree with Winman about a translation being both exact and accurate if he meant that in most places and even in nearly all places we can have an "exact" translation.

That of course depends upon the skill of the translator.

Also it depends upon the reader - is he/she willing to accept functional equivalence, foot notes and marginal notes?

“Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded”

HankD

I suppose I would also if you mean "accurate as it can be in the receptor language."

I have done translation from English to Spanish, from Spanish to English, From American Sign Language (ASL) to English and from English to ASL. And I say again, due to the nature of languages (and to the perfect job that our most excellent God and Savior did at the Tower of Babel) it is an impossibility to have an EXACT ("meaning, definition, word-for-word, culturally-definite") translation. Something always gets lost or added in the process.

And as you pointed out, we must also take into consideration the reader. Not everyone has the same 'mind definition' (I prefer 'word picture') of words. Let me give an example-

TICKET

What 'word picture' just popped into your mind? Sure we all (presumably) know what a 'ticket' is. But is it a traffic ticket, plane ticket, dry-cleaner's ticket, concert ticket...?

We always "translate" (or interpret) everything that we see, hear or read in a personal manner, including the Bible.

 

[HankD]

I suppose I would also if you mean "accurate as it can be in the receptor language."

I have done translation from English to Spanish, from Spanish to English, From American Sign Language (ASL) to English and from English to ASL. And I say again, due to the nature of languages (and to the perfect job that our most excellent God and Savior did at the Tower of Babel) it is an impossibility to have an EXACT ("meaning, definition, word-for-word, culturally-definite") translation. Something always gets lost or added in the process.

And as you pointed out, we must also take into consideration the reader. Not everyone has the same 'mind definition' (I prefer 'word picture') of words. Let me give an example-

TICKET

What 'word picture' just popped into your mind? Sure we all (presumably) know what a 'ticket' is. But is it a traffic ticket, plane ticket, dry-cleaner's ticket, concert ticket...?

We always "translate" (or interpret) everything that we see, hear or read in a personal manner, including the Bible.

Yes, that's why I put quotes around "exact".

It's difficult enough in the original language text to know exactly the meaning or else we wouldn't have so many Greek and Hebrew scholars disagreeing about so many passages.

Winman IMO is correct however in that sense of the word "exact" - though he may be very careful not to accept just any notation from just anyone claiming to be teacher (as we all should).

On the other hand he has pointed to the Scripture that we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God. Which goes without saying that it means to the best of our ability with the added nuance of "dilligence" (A functional equivalence in our vernacular would be "stick-to-itive-ness").

Here is another piece of scriptural advise for all of us to overcome what you have rightfully called the "word pictures" in our fleshy minds:

James 1
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.​

This is an absolute promise, not a specialized gift to a few for the benefit of all, but a promise to all.​

It does require faith however without which it is impossible to please Him with whom we have to do.​

I believe He will guide us into all truth as He promised the Apostles and disciples and lead us to the truth often using the right human teachers as His instruments if we take hold of this promise in James.

It takes both: The word of God and the Spirit of God to know Him and be known of Hiim.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.​

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.​

It also takes the willingness to lay aside those hindrances and human traditions which we hold dear.​

IMO that is how we overcome these inaccuracies of translations.


HankD

 

[Winman]

Well, thank you Hank for giving me some credit. It you believe I am the type of person who blindly accepts what other people tell me, nothing could be further from the truth. I was known for, and used to absolutely drive my teachers crazy questioning them. I don't take anybody's word for anything. I came to my KJVO position entirely on my own, no one encouraged me in this direction. And I still hold firmly to my belief.

I do believe a translation can fully express meaning. I realize that every language has it's own proverbs and such that can be quite different from ours. But they can be explained to us so that we fully understand them.

The scriptures themselves show translations can be very accurate. When the Jews returned from Babylon, Ezra found and read the law of Moses to the people. Some scholars believe this may have been as long as 170 years after they were taken captive by the Babylonians. Many had been born and raised speaking only the Babylonian Aramaic, and so Ezra had men translate the law to these Jews who no longer knew Hebrew.

Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people; ) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Notice in verses 7-8, where it shows these men gave a very distinct translation to these people who could not speak or understand Hebrew. The scriptures themselves show they were given the distinct sense and understanding of the scriptures.

So, the scriptures themselves show they can be translated and properly understood. In fact, I am sure you know that the Jews translated the Old Testament into Aramaic, and this became the primary langauge of the Jews for centuries. I am not sure (and neither are scholars completely agreed), but the scriptures that Jesus read in the NT were very possibly Aramaic translations. If so, Jesus declared them to be without error.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[HankD]

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You realize of course that Jesus had to be referring to the Hebrew as this is the language which contains the "jot" (yod) and the "tittle" (dagash forte). No copy of the Law in English of any century contains "jots" and "tittles" but only the original language copies of the Hebrew Scriptures such as the Masora.

HankD

 

[Winman]

You realize of course that Jesus had to be referring to the Hebrew as this is the language which contains the "jot" (yod) and the "tittle" (dagash forte). No copy of the Law in English of any century contains "jots" and "tittles" but only the original language copies of the Hebrew Scriptures such as the Masora.

HankD

Yes, I understand that, but I also understand the greater meaning here. I believe this to be a promise of preservation, that the inerrant word of God will be preserved, even after heaven and earth have passed away. And I know that hasn't happened yet.

The scriptures speak of God's word as being pure. Pure means without any corruption.

Now, I know these verses are rejected by many, but I firmly believe Psalms 12:6-7 is speaking of God's word, not the poor.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I won't argue these verses with anyone. I believe it is overwhelmingly obvious God is speaking of his word here, others are entitled to their opinion.

 

[HankD]

Yes, I understand that, but I also understand the greater meaning here. I believe this to be a promise of preservation, that the inerrant word of God will be preserved, even after heaven and earth have passed away. And I know that hasn't happened yet.

The scriptures speak of God's word as being pure. Pure means without any corruption.

Now, I know these verses are rejected by many, but I firmly believe Psalms 12:6-7 is speaking of God's word, not the poor.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I won't argue these verses with anyone. I believe it is overwhelmingly obvious God is speaking of his word here, others are entitled to their opinion.

I agree with your view of this passage.

Many think that gender disagreement in Hebrew clinches the case here but gender is a moving target in Hebrew and can change midstream as it has more to do with submission/dominance than masculine/feminine although obviously masculine/feminine is an integral pat of the overall venue of gender in semitic languages.

The Hebrew word for the Spirit is Ruach and in most cases it is feminine but has occurrences in the masculine.

In verse 6 "the words" is plural feminine, in vs 7 the second "them" is singular masculine which may very well be a collective "them" of "the words" from verse 6 which could legitimately explain the change of gender.

I would disagree that the KJV 17th century English are those "pure" words.

The "pure" words IMO are those words of the original language Traditional Texts accepted by the church(es) at large since the 2-3rd centuries.
Those churches which came forth from the primitive churches founded (humanly speaking) by the Apostles in Asia Minor and Europe.

I don't believe the jury is in yet when it comes to manuscripts originating in non-apostolic churches such as northern Africa although Athanasius was a champion of Trinitarian doctrine.

Neither would I deny others the right of alternate translation where the text "is not so clear".

As a matter of fact the KJV First Edition has the following marginal note for Psalm 12:7: him

Which would make Psalm 12:7 read

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve him from this generation for ever.

But, I prefer "them" as you do, meaning the collection of His words.
Which is logical as many saints (both OT/NT) have been martyred over the ages.

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree with your view of this passage.

Many think that gender disagreement in Hebrew clinches the case here but gender is a moving target in Hebrew and can change midstream as it has more to do with submission/dominance than masculine/feminine although obviously masculine/feminine is an integral pat of the overall venue of gender in semitic languages.

The Hebrew word for the Spirit is Ruach and in most cases it is feminine but has occurrences in the masculine.

In verse 6 "the words" is plural feminine, in vs 7 the second "them" is singular masculine which may very well be a collective "them" of "the words" from verse 6 which could legitimately explain the change of gender.

I would disagree that the KJV 17th century English are those "pure" words.

The "pure" words IMO are those words of the original language Traditional Texts accepted by the church(es) at large since the 2-3rd centuries.
Those churches which came forth from the primitive churches founded (humanly speaking) by the Apostles in Asia Minor and Europe.

I don't believe the jury is in yet when it comes to manuscripts originating in non-apostolic churches such as northern Africa although Athanasius was a champion of Trinitarian doctrine.

Neither would I deny others the right of alternate translation where the text "is not so clear".

As a matter of fact the KJV First Edition has the following marginal note for Psalm 12:7: him

Which would make Psalm 12:7 read

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve him from this generation for ever.

But, I prefer "them" as you do, meaning the collection of His words.
Which is logical as many saints (both OT/NT) have been martyred over the ages.

HankD

Wow Hank, I was trying to pick out which part to leave in the quotes and type 'I agree' but 'I agree' with your entire post .

 

[robycop3]

The Geneva Bible, translated by an at-least as-astute group as the AV was, has "him" in Plalm 12:7. And the AV has the marginal note "Heb. him, I. euery one of them.".

But it doesn't really matter. The KJV is not mentioned, nor hinted at by the slightest quark of ANY verse in Psalm 12, nor in the entire KJV, period, so the KJVOs' usa the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" to tryta Scripturally justify their man-made doctrine falls flat on its snoot.

 

[HankD]

Wow Hank, I was trying to pick out which part to leave in the quotes and type 'I agree' but 'I agree' with your entire post .

That must be a first.

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If you truly apply that idea to translations would not 'jot and tittle' perfection include spellings and punctuation? Would it also not protect God's word from printing errors? Jots and tittles were the tiniest of markings, after all.

If so which edition of the KJV has jot and tittle perfection? This takes us back the the question posed in the OP.

 

[go2church]

The Bible never claims to be inerrant.