shouldest thou remove Jesus fr Jude?

[Forever settled in heaven]

doctor Waite's now asking for participation in his new Bible-correcting "prayerful endeavor" to fix the Word of God in Chinese (CUV) of "

OMMISSION [sic], MISTRANSLATION​

AND ADDITION"!​

according to the new KJB-affected version, Jesus no longer figures in Jude 25:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ForeignBibles/chinese_bible.htm

Chinese Scriptures Jude 25 before D.A. Waite n Company's doctoring: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=¿¬Ìå][FONT=¿¬Ìå]和合本：犹 24-25 那 能 保 守 你 们 不 失 脚 ， 叫 你 们 无 瑕 无 疵 ， 欢 欢 喜 喜 站 在 他 荣 耀 之 前 的 ， 我 们 的 救 主 独 一 的 神 。愿 荣 耀 ， 威 严 ， 能 力 ， 权 柄 ， 因 我 们 的 主 耶 稣 基 督 ， 归 与 他 ， 从 万 古 以 前 ， 并 现 在 ， 直 到 永 永 远 远 。 阿 们 。
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Post-doctoring KJB-ised Jude 25: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=¿¬Ìå][FONT=¿¬Ìå]纠正后：犹 24-25 那 能 保 守 你 们 不 失 脚 ， 叫 你 们 无 瑕 无 疵 ， 欢 欢 喜 喜 站 在 他 荣 耀 之 前。愿 荣 耀 ， 威 严 ， 能 力 ， 权 柄 ，归 与 独 一 智 慧 的 神 我 们 的 救 主，从 现 在， 直 到 永 永 远 远 。 阿 们 。
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

in the "corrected" version, Jesus is gone, n with Him also statements to His mediatorship, Lordship, n messiahship (portions underlined). also gone is the affirmation of the Father's eternality, while other statements (extraneous to the original Word of God in Chinese) have been added.

according to Waite, this is only the beginning. he's got his sights on the Portuguese, Romanian, n Spanish Bibles as well, n who knows what others: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/idx_foreign_bibles.htm
​

​

​

​

​

 

[Trotter]

Gee, if something doesn't goosestep with the KJV, then it must be wrong.

That's it, people. Burn all the Greek and Hebrew texts. We don't need 'em. The KJV corrects them anyway.

Not.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Trotter,

Although your tone made me smile, I think he was trying to say the opposite. If I'm not badly mistaken, the KJV does not include Jesus in that verse, while the older and more reliable manuscripts do include Jesus.

The KJV also omits "before the ages" before "now".

It seems to be a rare case in which the KJV omitted something instead of adding something, and it seems that he was complaining that the KJV was tainting another translation. (Although, the font did not work on my end, and it was a bit confusing.)

Then again, I may be confused about what you are saying, and misreading the cynicism presented. (Although, it's appreciated with either reading that I have.)

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

the KJV does not include Jesus in that verse, while the older and more reliable manuscripts do include Jesus.

The KJV also omits "before the ages" before "now".

It seems to be a rare case in which the KJV omitted something instead of adding something, and it seems that he was complaining that the KJV was tainting another translation. (Although, the font did not work on my end, and it was a bit confusing.)

quite so! but when modern versions "add" or "delete" things, u betcha the KJV-Onlyers will be up on their feet in a flash, screaming Conspiracy!! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Trotter]

quite so! but when modern versions "add" or "delete" things, u betcha the KJV-Onlyers will be up on their feet in a flash, screaming Conspiracy!! :smilewinkgrin:

Sorta what I was thinking.

Since I don't read Chinese, I was taking a stab at it.

The KJVO will still scream bloody murder, though.

 

[John of Japan]

Not an issue in China

This is really just a straight TR vs. UBS/Nestles argument, though I notice the R/P Byzantine follows UBS/Nestles.

The average Chinese doesn't much care about this controversy (except for those folk in Singapore). He loves his Union version, since it is all he's ever known. It's a much bigger controversy to them as to which name to use for God: "Shen" or "Shang Ti." "Shen" is often translated just as "spirit," but "Shang Ti" is the name for the original monotheistic God of China. You can get Union versions with either name.

Personally? I say the more Chinese translations the better. :thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

KJVO outside of English???

There seems to be a movement in Singapore to push the use of local-language versions translated from the KJV insteada the ancient manuscripts. I believe Dr. Jeff Khoo is behind mucha this.

OF COURSE I wouldn't remove a word from Jude or any other Scriptures without proof it didn't belong.

 

[John of Japan]

There seems to be a movement in Singapore to push the use of local-language versions translated from the KJV insteada the ancient manuscripts. I believe Dr. Jeff Khoo is behind mucha this.

Just curious--do you have a source for this or is it a rumor? Why would they translate from the KJV when Khoo's school teaches up to 24 credits of Biblical languages for the M. Div.?

What do you mean by "local language" versions? Do you mean in other Asian languages or something?

In Chinese the dialects pronounce the characters differently and have different tonal systems, but the written language is essentially the same. This was not always true, though. I believe Morrison's translation was into "High Wenli," a scholar's dialect.:type:

 

[John of Japan]

double post

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Just curious--do you have a source for this or is it a rumor? Why would they translate from the KJV when Khoo's school teaches up to 24 credits of Biblical languages for the M. Div.?

non sequitor. even if it offers a Ph.D. in biblical languages, if it's infected w KJBOism of some shade, it'll still endeavour to make other language bibles conform to it. in the case of FEBC, they're in league w D.A. Waite n believe in "verbal plenary preservation"--i.e. only one of Scrivener's editions of the TR n the Bomberg edition of the OT are identical to the autographs. no kidding!

n the CUV isn't the first bible they've doctored. the first was the Falam-Chin Burmese KJV Bible: http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol7_2.htm

 

[John of Japan]

non sequitor. even if it offers a Ph.D. in biblical languages, if it's infected w KJBOism of some shade, it'll still endeavour to make other language bibles conform to it.

Conform to what, the KJV or the TR? Seems like even if you believe the TR is identical to the autographs, you'll still translate from the TR rather than the KJB, if you can.

in the case of FEBC, they're in league w D.A. Waite n believe in "verbal plenary preservation"--i.e. only one of Scrivener's editions of the TR n the Bomberg edition of the OT are identical to the autographs. no kidding!

Strange belief! I guess you need new revelation to decide when Scrivener was moved by the Holy Spirit!:tongue3:

n the CUV isn't the first bible they've doctored. the first was the Falam-Chin Burmese KJV Bible: http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol7_2.htm

Thanks for the link. Interesting. Double translations, of course, lose or change meaning being that far removed from the original. I notice, though, that the first Chin Burmese Bible was also a double translation, done from the TEV. So if we can't read the language, how do we know that this new double translation is not superior to the old double translation?

There are many variables on the mission fields of the world. The level of scholarship varies considerably from field to field. America is so rich in original language scholars, but this is not true on the mission fields of the world. Here in Japan, only about 0.5% of the population is evangelical Christian. Most churches are very small and struggling, and the level of scholarship at the Bible schools and seminaries is of necessity low.

Beyond that, the scholars who do make it to the mission field are often lured back to the homeland to teach somewhere, or to help run the mission board, like a Ph. D. I knew. Talk about sending coals to Newcastle!

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Conform to what, the KJV or the TR? Seems like even if you believe the TR is identical to the autographs, you'll still translate from the TR rather than the KJB, if you can.

i don't think they believe the KJB is substantially different fr the TR. if u've heard their "Dean Burgon Oath," perfection of the KJB goes right down to "every syllable" that uttereth from the something. oh, here it goes: ‘the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.’

<==at this ceremony, they've just awarded themselves 3 Th.D. degrees!!

sounds reasonable n evangelical at first whiff, but in context, the oath doesn't apply to the autographs or Bibles in general but ONLY to the KJB n its immediately underlying texts. so they're doing God a favour--in their minds--when they go around reforming the Falam-Chin, CUV, Portuguese, etc., bibles.

There are many variables on the mission fields of the world. The level of scholarship varies considerably from field to field. America is so rich in original language scholars, but this is not true on the mission fields of the world. Here in Japan, only about 0.5% of the population is evangelical Christian. Most churches are very small and struggling, and the level of scholarship at the Bible schools and seminaries is of necessity low.

which is why Jack T. Chick sells so well, n Peter Ruckman God-And Riplinger n D.A. Waite, too. then again, they also sell well in some circles in N America. :tear:

 

[John of Japan]

which is why Jack T. Chick sells so well, n Peter Ruckman God-And Riplinger n D.A. Waite, too. then again, they also sell well in some circles in N America. :tear:

There are only a couple of Chick tracts in Japanese, only on salvation, and they don't sell that well. There is nothing by any KJVO author in Japanese and never has been. There is nothing by the other side either: not a single book on textual criticism has ever been published in Japanese, to the best of my knowledge.

There have been just a couple of books ever written on Bible translation in general, and I have those--they are strictly from a Japanese viewpoint. (Nothing ever by any American author that I know of.) One translator of a Japanese NT wrote that people said he was doing DE translation, but he admitted he didn't even know what that was!

For crying out loud, virtually the only beginning Greek textbook in Japanese is the oldie but goodie Machen, and one year that wasn't even in print and I had to use a so-so textbook handwritten by a Japanese man.

America is so rich in Christianity, very few American Christians have any idea what it is like out here in Asia. And when I try to explain, they don't get it. I hope someone on the BB does. :saint: