Perfect Translation

[God's_Servant]

Many KJOs say that we must have a perfect translation into English in order to have God's Word. Personally I believe that the NT itself disproves this.

1 Corinthians2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

In this passage Paul is quoting Isaiah 64:4, let's take a look at it in the OT.

Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

As you can see, these two passages are different. This is because the Apostles used what is called the LXX or Septuagint. The LXX is a Greek translation of the OT. As illustrated above, it didn't always agree with the Hebrew text. Since the LXX was not perfect did the Apostles not have God's word? And if the Apostles didn't have a perfect translation, why must we?

 

[HankD]

Many KJOs say that we must have a perfect translation into English in order to have God's Word. Personally I believe that the NT itself disproves this.

1 Corinthians2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

In this passage Paul is quoting Isaiah 64:4, let's take a look at it in the OT.

Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

As you can see, these two passages are different. This is because the Apostles used what is called the LXX or Septuagint. The LXX is a Greek translation of the OT. As illustrated above, it didn't always agree with the Hebrew text. Since the LXX was not perfect did the Apostles not have God's word? And if the Apostles didn't have a perfect translation, why must we?

Any NT quote from an OT source has been made through the inspiration of the Spirit of God, any difference in word choice is the primary decision of God and not the human author though the human author may have had a reason to use the different word. It was however a word choice because of the superintendancy of God and the added nuance or change due to the progressive nature of God's inspired written revelation.

Clear as oatmeal?

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

As you can see, these two passages are different. This is because the Apostles used what is called the LXX or Septuagint. The LXX is a Greek translation of the OT. As illustrated above, it didn't always agree with the Hebrew text. Since the LXX was not perfect did the Apostles not have God's word? And if the Apostles didn't have a perfect translation, why must we?

Actually the quoted verse does not agree with the Septuagint either. It is much more likely the quote is from the Hebrew Vorlage text. It is simply a myth that where the NT quotes the OT in other than a word for word basis it reflects the LXX reading when in fact it departs more from the LXX than from the Masoretic text.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello God's_Servant

I am one of those who believe that God has given us a “perfect” copy of His word.

But it all depends upon your definition of the word “perfect”.
--------------------------------------------------
Of course miss-spelled words, doesn’t make a copy of the Bible imperfect;
Nor does typographical errors.

But what does make a copy of the Bible imperfect, is missing words or missing verses or missing passages.
--------------------------------------------------
Now I see the KJB as being perfect, because of the documents that it was translated from.
The TR & the Masoretic Text.

I believe the reason the Masoretic Text was used instead of the LXX, is because the LXX was Greek while the Masoretic Text was the original languages.
And if your going to translate the Bible into English, it is best to start from the original languages, rather than one that had already been translated into Greek.
--------------------------------------------------
It all boils down to, what God has blessed.
God has blessed the LXX, in the same way that He blessed the TR.

The Lord Himself used the LXX, so therefore I accept it as God’s Word for the Old Testament:
(But He has yet to fully explain to me, why it differs from the Masoretic Text.)
One of these days He will.

As for the TR, the LORD demonstrated His blessing upon it, by wonderfully blessing the English speaking Church, that was almost exclusively using the Bible that was translated from it, for 2 or 3 hundred years.
Because every believer during that time, had the indwelling Holy Spirit, and they accepted it.
--------------------------------------------------
Any believer that has been convinced that “the copy” of the Bible that they trust as God’s Word, is less than perfect, has had their faith assaulted.

If we can’t trust God’s Word, where else can we go.......
John 6:66-68
V.66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
V.67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
V.68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

 

[HankD]

If we can’t trust God’s Word, where else can we go.......

To God Himself.

HankD

 

[God's_Servant]

Actually the quoted verse does not agree with the Septuagint either. It is much more likely the quote is from the Hebrew Vorlage text. It is simply a myth that where the NT quotes the OT in other than a word for word basis it reflects the LXX reading when in fact it departs more from the LXX than from the Masoretic text.

My bad, this text isn't from the LXX. But, the NT does quote the LXX in some places.

 

[God's_Servant]

Any NT quote from an OT source has been made through the inspiration of the Spirit of God, any difference in word choice is the primary decision of God and not the human author though the human author may have had a reason to use the different word. It was however a word choice because of the superintendancy of God and the added nuance or change due to the progressive nature of God's inspired written revelation.

Clear as oatmeal?

HankD

I am not saying that it isn't an inspired part of the NT, just that it (not this passage) proves that they used an imperfect translation.

 

[God's_Servant]

Hello God's_Servant

I am one of those who believe that God has given us a “perfect” copy of His word.

But it all depends upon your definition of the word “perfect”.
--------------------------------------------------
Of course miss-spelled words, doesn’t make a copy of the Bible imperfect;
Nor does typographical errors.

But what does make a copy of the Bible imperfect, is missing words or missing verses or missing passages.
--------------------------------------------------
Now I see the KJB as being perfect, because of the documents that it was translated from.
The TR & the Masoretic Text.

I believe the reason the Masoretic Text was used instead of the LXX, is because the LXX was Greek while the Masoretic Text was the original languages.
And if your going to translate the Bible into English, it is best to start from the original languages, rather than one that had already been translated into Greek.
--------------------------------------------------
It all boils down to, what God has blessed.
God has blessed the LXX, in the same way that He blessed the TR.

The Lord Himself used the LXX, so therefore I accept it as God’s Word for the Old Testament:
(But He has yet to fully explain to me, why it differs from the Masoretic Text.)
One of these days He will.

Maybe instead of waiting for God to conform the facts to what you believe, you should ask God if what you believe is wrong.

As for the TR, the LORD demonstrated His blessing upon it, by wonderfully blessing the English speaking Church, that was almost exclusively using the Bible that was translated from it, for 2 or 3 hundred years.
Because every believer during that time, had the indwelling Holy Spirit, and they accepted it.

Which edition of the TR?

--------------------------------------------------
Any believer that has been convinced that “the copy” of the Bible that they trust as God’s Word, is less than perfect, has had their faith assaulted.

Is the LXX perfect? Again, which edition of the TR is perfect? The two closest Byzantine Texts have 6-10 variations per chapter; are all of the variations inspired?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello God's_Servant

You said...........

“Maybe instead of waiting for God to conform the facts to what you believe, you should ask God if what you believe is wrong.”

What an interesting statement:
I had said...........
“God has yet to fully explain to me, why the LXX differs from the Masoretic Text.
One of these days He will.”

I spoke of waiting for God to explain something to me! (Not to conform anything)
And are you saying that the LXX and the Masoretic Text, don’t have subtle differences?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you ask........

“Which edition of the TR?”

This is a misleading question. The TR of yesterday is the same as the TR of today.

TR, stands for Textus Receptus, which is also called the received text or the majority texts or the Byzantine manuscripts, or the Traditional Text or Ecclesiastical Text.

Even a new version of the TR, is still the TR, because it is made up of “texts”, that say the same thing it says; (It is the Majority Texts), and will continue to be the majority texts!
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........

“Is the LXX perfect? Again, which edition of the TR is perfect? The two closest Byzantine Texts have 6-10 variations per chapter; are all of the variations inspired?”

Like I originally said, it all depends upon how you define perfect.
I have stated that the LXX perfect, because Jesus quoted from it.

And I don’t accept all the mis-information that is out there, about the Byzantine Texts,

 

[God's_Servant]

Hello God's_Servant

You said...........

What an interesting statement:
I had said...........
“God has yet to fully explain to me, why the LXX differs from the Masoretic Text.
One of these days He will.”

I spoke of waiting for God to explain something to me! (Not to conform anything)
And are you saying that the LXX and the Masoretic Text, don’t have subtle differences?
--------------------------------------------------

No, I am not saying that. But, I would go farther and say that they have more than subtle differences.

Next you ask........

This is a misleading question. The TR of yesterday is the same as the TR of today.

No, it is not. Erasmus's first edition didn't include the Comma(1 John 5:7)

TR, stands for Textus Receptus, which is also called the received text or the majority texts or the Byzantine manuscripts, or the Traditional Text or Ecclesiastical Text.

No, the TR is not the same thing as the Byzantine or Majority Text. The TR is a compilation of Byzantine type texts.

Even a new version of the TR, is still the TR, because it is made up of “texts”, that say the same thing it says; (It is the Majority Texts), and will continue to be the majority texts!

It was not the Majority until around the 8th or 9th century. Most of them come from after the 10th.

--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........

Like I originally said, it all depends upon how you define perfect.
I have stated that the LXX perfect, because Jesus quoted from it.

And I don’t accept all the mis-information that is out there, about the Byzantine Texts,

If "misinformation" is facts than I think we have a problem. A Cretan philosopher was quoted in Titus 1:12; was this philosopher perfect?

 

[TCassidy]

My bad, this text isn't from the LXX. But, the NT does quote the LXX in some places.

Please post one example of the NT quoting any extant copy of the LXX word for word.

Thank you.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The obvious problem is that the NT authors had sources we don't have anymore. Take the OT quote in Heb 1:6 for example: it is probable that Paul was neither using the Masoretic text, which is corrupt at this place in Deut 32:43, nor the mss underlying our current LXX, which has υἱοὶ θεοῦ (sons of God) instead of Paul's ἄγγελοι θεοῦ (angels of God). The original Hebrew of Deut 32:43 probably had בני–אלוהים (sons of God), which the LXX interpreters interpreted with "sons of God" and Paul interpreted with "angels of God" It's interesting, though, since the LXX elsewhere usually renders the Hebrew expression as Paul (or whatever author) does here in Hebrews.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[TomVols]

Please post one example of the NT quoting any extant copy of the LXX word for word.

Thank you.

Does it have to be word for word? NT writers rarely quoted the OT word for word. But you knew that :laugh:

How've you been, friend?

 

[TCassidy]

Does it have to be word for word? NT writers rarely quoted the OT word for word. But you knew that :laugh:

As most OT quotes found in the NT are translations from Hebrew to Greek it is understood that they would not be word for word. However, if they were quoting a Greek version in their Greek writings there is no reason for them not to be fully accurate quotes.

How've you been, friend?

As well as can be expected for a man my age whose heart only beats when it wants to.

 

[TomVols]

I hear you. I was in the hospital about a month ago with A-Fib. Turns out my heart thinks it's a union member and decided to get plenty of overtime.

 

[TCassidy]

I hear you. I was in the hospital about a month ago with A-Fib. Turns out my heart thinks it's a union member and decided to get plenty of overtime.

Yeah, me too. Mine goes in and out of a-fib 5 or 6 times a day. So far, if I relax, sit or lie down, and breathe deeply, it will auto-convert to sinus rhythm. Doctor told me I would live to 100. I asked him how I was doing and he said, "So far, so good." I asked for a second opinion and he said, "Okay, you are funny looking too!" I think I need another doctor!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Putting a language so foreign as Hebrew from Greek (or Greek from English) into the receptor language is a daunting task.

As much as one desires to be accurate/formal in equivalence, just the structure (to say noting of idiom, vocabulary) is challenging.

Last Sunday I was sharing a text (I translate all verses I preach from) and someone asked why I opted for a particular phrasing. I explained that it was 100% my preference and could be worded 5-6 ways. And when they shared the translation of their lap Bible, it was!!

BTW, I translate "a-fib" not as a lie by Doc and Tom, but as a condition needing our continued prayer for hist health

 

[TomVols]

BTW, I translate "a-fib" not as a lie by Doc and Tom, but as a condition needing our continued prayer for hist health

Thank you. Since we're preachers, I'm sure someone has thought "Aha, I knew your heart had fibs in it!" :laugh:

 

[franklinmonroe]

Now I see the KJB as being perfect, because of the documents that it was translated from.
The TR & the Masoretic Text. ...

VERY SERIOUS QUESTION: Does your definition of "perfect' allow for another translation from those sources to also be "perfect" (even if it differs in the English from the KJV text)?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello franklinmonroe

You asked........

"VERY SERIOUS QUESTION: Does your definition of "perfect' allow for another translation from those sources to also be "perfect" (even if it differs in the English from the KJV text)?"

Of course.