Question for KJVOs"like me" can we translate from.....

Azguitarist, why would you use the Anglican version when our forefathers died to defend the Geneva Bible and condemnded the KJV?

The Geneva BIBLE (and NOT the King James VERSION) is the word for word, letter for letter, settled in heaven, Word of God. All foreign translations should be based on the Geneva Bible.

 

Azguitarist,

You obviously confuse the translation of Scripture with the transmission of Scripture. Scripture was inspired once, though by some of your comments you seem to think otherwise.

Translation of Scripture is an ongoing process, and not an easy one at that. God inspired His Word in Greek and Hebrew, not English. Why in the world would you want to make a translation from a translation?

Another quesiton for you. Why use the KJV to make another translation from? Why not use a French version, or a Russian translation, are not they the Word of God as well?

This reminds me of church I was in once. I am on deputation and I put a Reina Valera, a Spanish translation, on my display table. This lady asked me once "Is this the KJ in Spanish?" I almost had a heart attack, but I regained my composure and explained, noooo this is a translation of God's Word in the Spanish language. She didn't like that answer so she asked again, "But it is the KJ in Spanish right?" Noooo I said, it is actually a more accurate translation than the KJ since Greek translates into Spanish better than English. Boy that was the worng thing to say.

This incident had a lot to do with me rejecting the KJVO fallacy.

 

Spanish - Como estas?
English - How are you?

Spanish - Como esta?
English - How are you?

There is a huge difference in the meanings of como estas and como esta. The difference can be as much as respect and being rude. However both sentences translate the same in English. If one were to translate the English words into Spanish more investigation (such as context) would have to be done.

One would have to notice there are two words in Spanish and three in English.

 

It is interesting to me to note that you fellas did not even address Sue Wei's comments. Since SHE is native to the lands we are discussing and SHE has first hand knowledge, perhaps you all ought to put a bit more weight in her testimony of the accuracy and efficacy of translating from the KJV?

Seems prudent to me, but then again, what do I know?
LOL
In HIS service;
Jim

 

As far as I know Su Wei is an English speaker who attends a KJV only church in Singapore.

Is that correct?

On the other hand, even if a Mandarin, Chinese, Russian, Polish, French, or German speaker thought it was acceptable to translate from the KJV it would not change my opinion.

 

I think Sue is asleep this time of day! She is "over-there" after all. Anyhow, I will give you what I know.
She is multi-lingual. In another thread she and others were conversing in some oriental languages. It could have been two or three different forms for all I can tell!?

I believe her native tongue is NOT English.
Therefore I would put more credence in her views than I would in a person whose native is English but has learned others. For this reason. She KNOWS what her language requires for successful translation from ANY language into her OWN. We, not being raised in her language and culture, would have a very difficult time of it, at best.
But WE on the other hand would know what the English requires. Therefore a proper team of both people would produce a VERY accurate translation for use on the field.
That's the way I see it. Of course that is tainted by the fact that I believe the KJV as we have it is perfect. Which means that I believe that EVERY people/language group on this planet can have God's words perfectly.
To ask for the perfect letter-for-letter words of God in EVERY language is IMO disingenuos. (sp) Because we know that Spanish for house is casa. One has FOUR letters, and the other has FIVE! But we know that casa is a letter-for-letter representation of house in Spanish.
Our trouble in English is the simple fact that fellers throughout the last several hundred years have been "updating" the Bible so often that it is now very difficult to pin it down.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

Boy! That last paragraph was clunky wasn't it?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Organizations such as Wycliffe do much the same thing in their initial work but then it is checked but someone else who is much more knowledgeable in the biblical languages. It is done this way because the people on the field using English resources. But the final product is evaluated on the basis of it being true to the Greek and Hebrew text.

These organizations have many more missionaries who are willing to go than they do those who are trained in the biblical languages. So the person who is trained checks the work of several others in the field. The person in the field has resources in the field written in English that they use to help them understand the meanings of the words in Greek and Hebrew.

It would be much better if the field workers knew Greek and Hebrew but the fact is that often they do not.

For example the United Bible Society helps translators by publishing handbooks listed as the United Bible Societies Translation Resource Handbook Series.

You click on a link at http://www.bibles.com/main_category.asp?CatalogName=ABS%5FNEW&CategoryName=ScholarlyResources

The final translation is not a translation from the English but rather it is in the initial stages but then checked against the Hebrewe and Greek.

The Hebrew and Greek still remain the standard not the English text.

Earlier I gave an example of the poor qality of a translation that could arise from the English with como estas and como esta.

 

Disagree on the whole principle here Jim. If Su Wei is KJVo then it would tend to affect her view of translational issues, as any of our backgrounds always affects our views.

I still have to ask, what makes us so special that we get a translation from the original tongues, but its good enough for others to get a translation from English?

 

FWIW; We have THE EXACT SAME ISSUE in the KJV.

Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine, Ye, You

vs

You

Kinda poor quality these days, according to your example! LOL

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The KJV translators didn't believe it was perfect. They believed it was their best effort but left room for someone else to come along later and improve upon their work. So which KJV translation do you believe is perfect?

The KJV translation was done in English. It is meaningless to those who do not know English.

 

The Bible is not updated. The English translation is because English words change meaning over time.

For example in James 2:3, "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool"

In the Greek text it is "shiny" clothes. Shiny clothes meant the person had better clothes and washed them more often to keep them from dirt which kept them shiny.

Can you imagine someone wearing happy clothing or homosexual clothing?

 

The KJV translators were asked this same question, here is their answer:

Because they were the languages "wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles".

HankD

 

C4K;
You have a valid point. One that is difficult to fully refute. I think we need to ask the people who are there don't we? For example; the web site Sue posted demonstrated that the man who had been there for 27 years had a very difficult time using the "standard" translation. Since he has been translating into the dialect he is working with it has been "received with gladness".
So, before we go imposing our ways on them, perhaps we ought to see what it is they need?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

C4K: I guess I have to wait till guitarist wakes up to find out which pefectly perfect edition of the KJV must be used for translational work

Ya might hafta take a long nap. The KJVO will simply NOT give a straight answer to a straight question.

 

AV1611Jim: So, before we go imposing our ways on them, perhaps we ought to see what it is they need?

They need God's word in THEIR languages. They do NOT need the KJVO myth.

 

I fear Jim that this is pragmatism vs principle. It is obvious that what is best is the closest to the language in which God gave His Word.

I cannot fathom how we can take one edition of one translation of one language and declare it a fit standard for the translation of all other languages.

 

__________________________________________________

I have many times.
When asked "which edition" blah, blah, blah...
I have replied. The one on my desk, the one in my truck, the one on my desktop, the one in the bathroom , the one on my nightstand, the one on the coffee table. One is Cambridge, one is Oxford, one is World Publishing 1913, two are Nelson, etc...


In HIS service;
jim

 

All of those editions are different Jim. How do we know which one is "perfectly perfect?"

 

In the matter of translation....I think that insofar as it is possible, we must use the best Manuscripts available. Now I understand that in the past, godly men have endeavoured to translate the Word of God into indigent languages using the translation that they had available; due primarily to the fact that until the age of the internet and "information superhighway", very few people had access to the various manuscripts (Textus Receptus, Vulgate, etc.); and I think they should be commended for their efforts.

However having said that, with the type of information and ease of access we have today.....Should we not endeavour to use the "originals"?

Also,I have seen reference to Spanish here and I would like to add a comment....

Although certain words can be directly translated (as given in earlier examples), there are others that must be used in context:
Manana may mean "tomorrow" or "morning", Tiempo may mean "time" or "weather" depending on usage.....

Also there are archaic words that are not commonly used: "Unigenito" (Eng. Begotten) is no longer common, and in fact I have spoken to people in Spanish who had never heard the word.

Therefore IMHO if we are attempting to translate into another language (the same applies to German BTW) from the KJV simply because we want too, due only to preference; I fear we can do a disservice to the people we are trying to reach; as we are "locked" into trying to translate word-for-word irregardless of the dynamics of the "receiving" language or dialect, from an archaic form of English.