The doctrine of preservation

[Winman]

You misunderstand. God certainly helped me, but the help was providential and not miraculous. Do you see the difference?

I didn't mention either providence or miracles did I? I simply asked you whether you think God helped you spot this error.

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't mention either providence or miracles did I? I simply asked you whether you think God helped you spot this error.

Here is your previous statement:

Oh no? Do you not believe it was God who caused you to discover this error?

You might be getting more help than you are giving God credit for. Shame.

You wrongly assumed that I would not give God credit for helping me. Do you think that was fair?

Now, I hope you'll get back to the actual OP and answer it.

 

[Winman]

Here is your previous statement:

You wrongly assumed that I would not give God credit for helping me. Do you think that was fair?

Now, I hope you'll get back to the actual OP and answer it.

Well, I believe it was a minor miracle that you spotted this error just before it was sent out. I guess a miracle is in the eye of the beholder.

The original OP was;

I have a question to those who hold to a preserved translation theory.

Does God's promise to preserve His word through translations apply to everyone, or just some people?

There are vast numbers of people alive today who do not have the word of God in their language. There are others who only have translations from what are commonly referred to as the 'critical texts.'

Does God promise of a preserved translation not apply to those people?

I believe God's promise applies to all people. Does this mean that every country and every language will have a perfect printed word of God? No, at least not to begin with. But I believe God would send faithful missionaries who would preach and teach from a perfect Bible.

But as you have pointed out, it is man's responsibility to keep these scriptures committed to him, and it would be the responsibility of men to translate an accurate copy of what they know to be the accurate scriptures into that language.

I still don't understand how someone with the viewpoint that an accurate translation cannot be performed would take on the task of doing what he thinks is impossible. I can understand the many people who are skeptical of translations here at BB, but not you.

I cannot count how many times I have read here that all translations contain error, that none of them can accurately represent the original autographs.

Again, I can understand that from the many skeptics here, but I cannot understand that viewpoint coming from a person who is actually translating the scriptures into another language.

Maybe you can explain that to me, it doesn't seem quite right.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well, I believe it was a minor miracle that you spotted this error just before it was sent out. I guess a miracle is in the eye of the beholder.

The original OP was;



I believe God's promise applies to all people. Does this mean that every country and every language will have a perfect printed word of God? No, at least not to begin with. But I believe God would send faithful missionaries who would preach and teach from a perfect Bible.

But as you have pointed out, it is man's responsibility to keep these scriptures committed to him, and it would be the responsibility of men to translate an accurate copy of what they know to be the accurate scriptures into that language.

I still don't understand how someone with the viewpoint that an accurate translation cannot be performed would take on the task of doing what he thinks is impossible. I can understand the many people who are skeptical of translations here at BB, but not you.

I cannot count how many times I have read here that all translations contain error, that none of them can accurately represent the original autographs.

Again, I can understand that from the many skeptics here, but I cannot understand that viewpoint coming from a person who is actually translating the scriptures into another language.

Maybe you can explain that to me, it doesn't seem quite right.

A quick question - do you see accurate and perfectly preserved as synonymous?

I have no problem with the idea of an accurate and reliable translation. My problem is with the concept of man's translational work being perfect.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I believe it was a minor miracle that you spotted this error just before it was sent out. I guess a miracle is in the eye of the beholder.

Then you define miracles differently from what the Bible does. Study your KJV as I just did with my Bible software, then get back to me when you have a Bible definition for miracles. The term occurs in 37 verses in the KJV. It is quite easy to get an accurate definition from the usage of the words in your Bible.

I believe God's promise applies to all people. Does this mean that every country and every language will have a perfect printed word of God? No, at least not to begin with. But I believe God would send faithful missionaries who would preach and teach from a perfect Bible.

But as you have pointed out, it is man's responsibility to keep these scriptures committed to him, and it would be the responsibility of men to translate an accurate copy of what they know to be the accurate scriptures into that language.

Tell me how that works. I've never had anyone able to do that. Here I've been working on our Japanese translation for 11 years, and no one has ever told me how to get a perfect translation in Japanese. I've spent literally thousands of hours on it.

I've read the Bible from cover to cover with the express purpose of determining how God preserves His Word. I've translated the entire NT from the Greek. I've read the Bible cover to cover many, many times, and frankly haven't found what you are saying. So teach me. As a missionary translator, where does the Bible say I can produce a perfect translation. Don't give me your opinion, give me the Word of God.

I still don't understand how someone with the viewpoint that an accurate translation cannot be performed would take on the task of doing what he thinks is impossible. I can understand the many people who are skeptical of translations here at BB, but not you.

I'm getting tired of this. This is several times now that you've presumed to know what I believe or think without asking me. That is rude and wrong. If I did not believe that an accurate translation could be produced I'd be a fool. I do believe an accurate translation can be produced and am working very hard at that.

I cannot count how many times I have read here that all translations contain error, that none of them can accurately represent the original autographs.

Have you read the underlined statement from me?

Again, I can understand that from the many skeptics here, but I cannot understand that viewpoint coming from a person who is actually translating the scriptures into another language.

Maybe you can explain that to me, it doesn't seem quite right.

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. Tell me from the Bible where I'm wrong. Tell me where the Bible says I can produce a perfect, errorless translation in Japanese, and how to do it, because I certainly don't know how. I'm a fallible human being, not the perfect Lord Jesus.

As a Baptist, I believe in the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. I'm not interested in your opinion or what you feel to be right.

You said above that not every translation will be perfect into other languages, "at least not at first." So tell me how I'm supposed to have one "at first." If the KJV was revised to take out errors, why won't you give me the same latitude to be human and error-prone in Japanese?

 

[Winman]

A quick question - do you see accurate and perfectly preserved as synonymous?

I have no problem with the idea of an accurate and reliable translation. My problem is with the concept of man's translational work being perfect.

Well, folks get all nitty gritty don't they? Perhaps I can explain my view from questions I have been asked by you and others in the past.

I have been asked about textual changes in the KJB from 1611 until today. And there certainly have been a few.

A famous example is 1 John 5:12;

1 Jhn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

I have read that the words "of God" which I have highlighted were not in the original AV1611, but were added later.

Does this change the meaning of this verse? No, even without "of God" a person would understand that a person who does not have Jesus does not have life. So why the change?

Now, I can't answer for the scholars who determined to add these two words, but I think they did it for clarity. Now, as this verse was originally written, it contained no error, it was "perfect". Yet, by adding these two words we have a little more clarity. After all, Jesus also called himself the "Son of Man" frequently, speaking of his human nature. But now Jesus has been glorified and it is more precise to call him the Son of God. He is no longer mortal man.

But as it originally was, it was no error. It was perfect in that it contained no error.

If a person wanted to publish a King James Bible and simply replace all the archaic words with modern words, as long as they were perfectly accurate and represented the true meaning of the original words, I would not have a big problem with that. I believe that was in fact the idea behind the New King James, although that is not what they did whatsoever.

That said, I believe in the old proverb "Don't fix what ain't broken", so I would be reluctant to make any changes in the King James. The KJB can be studied and understood easily, even the old archaic words. So I think this unnecessary, and I think you take the risk of introducing misunderstanding and perhaps outright error. So I say leave it alone.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Your KJV discussion is again totally off topic. Please stay with the discussion at hand.

 

[Winman]

Then you define miracles differently from what the Bible does. Study your KJV as I just did with my Bible software, then get back to me when you have a Bible definition for miracles. The term occurs in 37 verses in the KJV. It is quite easy to get an accurate definition from the usage of the words in your Bible.

Well, maybe I do define miracle differently than you do. Childbirth is the most natural ordinary thing, yet practically everybody refers to it as "the miracle of life", and indeed it is. I consider any supernatural intervention by God a sort of miracle. When Samson fought a thousand men, he looked down and saw the jawbone of an ass. Perhaps a very ordinary thing, perhaps not.

What is important is that you discovered this error before everything was sent out. Thank God.

Tell me how that works. I've never had anyone able to do that. Here I've been working on our Japanese translation for 11 years, and no one has ever told me how to get a perfect translation in Japanese. I've spent literally thousands of hours on it.

I've read the Bible from cover to cover with the express purpose of determining how God preserves His Word. I've translated the entire NT from the Greek. I've read the Bible cover to cover many, many times, and frankly haven't found what you are saying. So teach me. As a missionary translator, where does the Bible say I can produce a perfect translation. Don't give me your opinion, give me the Word of God.

Again, you have me at an unfair advantage. I do not speak another language and I have not been trained to translate. I am not poo-poohing what you do, I just read a post by yours about translating languages that do not even have a written language, and I agree it is a tremendous undertaking. I do not have the skill, knowledge, or patience to do what you do.

That said, I would never take on something I did not believe I could do properly. This is a Bible concept.

Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

I'm getting tired of this. This is several times now that you've presumed to know what I believe or think without asking me. That is rude and wrong. If I did not believe that an accurate translation could be produced I'd be a fool. I do believe an accurate translation can be produced and am working very hard at that.

If I've made you angry it's because my questions have touched a nerve. Now you say you indeed know how to produce an accurate translation. That is what I would call perfect. If you are properly transmitting the true meaning of scripture, that is what you are supposed to do. You might have to add a few words here or there, just as those who translated into English have done.

Have you read the underlined statement from me?

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. Tell me from the Bible where I'm wrong. Tell me where the Bible says I can produce a perfect, errorless translation in Japanese, and how to do it, because I certainly don't know how. I'm a fallible human being, not the perfect Lord Jesus.

But I think you do. You have said you can produce an accurate translation. That is perfect. If you transmit the correct meaning of scripture and do not introduce error, that is as perfect as you can get.

As a Baptist, I believe in the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. I'm not interested in your opinion or what you feel to be right.

Then why is everybody here asking my opinions? I haven't asked yours.

You said above that not every translation will be perfect into other languages, "at least not at first." So tell me how I'm supposed to have one "at first." If the KJV was revised to take out errors, why won't you give me the same latitude to be human and error-prone in Japanese?

You mentioned a translation in Japanese that you said was "lousy". Did it have to be lousy? I think not, although I am in no position to criticize something I know nothing about, which is translating from one language to another. I do know that the scriptures say "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might", so there is no excuse for a "lousy" translation.

It is the defeatist attitude I do not get. Perhaps that is because my Dad was a very successful coach who won many championships. I was taught to always believe I could win even though in reality you will lose many times.

You talk like the skeptics. You ask me how to make a perfect translation. Then when I question your defeatist attitude you claim you are fully capable of translating an accurate translation. Good man, that's what I want to hear.

I don't understand why you are arguing for the skeptics, you are the last person who should be a skeptic.

But again, I was trained to win.

If that makes you angry, well, what do you want me to say?

 

[John of Japan]

Well, maybe I do define miracle differently than you do. Childbirth is the most natural ordinary thing, yet practically everybody refers to it as "the miracle of life", and indeed it is. I consider any supernatural intervention by God a sort of miracle. When Samson fought a thousand men, he looked down and saw the jawbone of an ass. Perhaps a very ordinary thing, perhaps not.

Then, you didn't get your definition of "miracle" from the Bible.

What is important is that you discovered this error before everything was sent out. Thank God.

Amen!

Again, you have me at an unfair advantage. I do not speak another language and I have not been trained to translate. I am not poo-poohing what you do, I just read a post by yours about translating languages that do not even have a written language, and I agree it is a tremendous undertaking. I do not have the skill, knowledge, or patience to do what you do.

That said, I would never take on something I did not believe I could do properly. This is a Bible concept.

Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

What makes you think I don't believe I can properly produce a translation? I believe I am approaching the task properly and doing the very best I can at it.

If I've made you angry it's because my questions have touched a nerve.

I'm not angry, just disappointed. I thought better of you than to have you give false witness about me.

Now you say you indeed know how to produce an accurate translation. That is what I would call perfect. If you are properly transmitting the true meaning of scripture, that is what you are supposed to do. You might have to add a few words here or there, just as those who translated into English have done.

But I think you do. You have said you can produce an accurate translation. That is perfect. If you transmit the correct meaning of scripture and do not introduce error, that is as perfect as you can get.

"Accurate" and "perfect" are certainly not synonyms. You are playing fast and loose with your terminology. Words are not little chameleons that change when you want them to. They have meaning.

Now, let's look at it from a different direction. For me to produce a perfect translation I would have to be perfect myself. Am I perfect? Absolutely not. Do I do the absolute best I can? I certainly do. In spite of that I still make mistakes like the terrible one I found last week.

You mentioned a translation in Japanese that you said was "lousy". Did it have to be lousy? I think not, although I am in no position to criticize something I know nothing about, which is translating from one language to another. I do know that the scriptures say "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might", so there is no excuse for a "lousy" translation.

I absolutely agree. And I am doing this translation "with my might." Since beginning I have built up a large library on Greek, Japanese, translation theory, linguistics, etc. And even read almost all of them. I work very hard at this translation--"with my might," with my God-given talent and skills.

But once again, I ask you, how is a perfect (not just accurate) translation produced? No one is able to tell me that, including you so far. What should I do that I am not doing? Give me a plan.

And don't give me the excuse that you don't know another language. The principles for a Japanese perfect translation and an English one should be the same.

It is the defeatist attitude I do not get. Perhaps that is because my Dad was a very successful coach who won many championships. I was taught to always believe I could win even though in reality you will lose many times.

I don't have a defeatist attitude. I have an expert one, honed by thousands of hours prayerfully studying and translating. And why do you compare translation to sports? They are completely and totally different activities.

You talk like the skeptics. You ask me how to make a perfect translation. Then when I question your defeatist attitude you claim you are fully capable of translating an accurate translation. Good man, that's what I want to hear.

I don't understand why you are arguing for the skeptics, you are the last person who should be a skeptic.

What am I a skeptic of? That man can be perfect? Yes. Do you believe that a Christian can become perfect on earth? Or are you also a skeptic of that?

But again, I was trained to win.

What does winning have to do with translating? Do I win a prize of some kind when I finish? A medal? A blue ribbon? There could not be two more dissimilar fields than sports and translation.

I'm not in a race with some other translation. Quite the contrary, I am taking all the time I can to produce what I want to be the best Japanese NT in history.

Now, it sure would be nice if you would give me some Scripture as I have asked you to about how to produce a perfect Japanese Bible.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It stands to reason that IF a man can produce a perfect translation of God's word, then the man himself must be perfect- i.e. sinless.

An impossibility.

 

[Winman]

Then, you didn't get your definition of "miracle" from the Bible.

I understand what you mean by miracle, such as God parting the Red Sea. That does not mean God does not intervene in "ordinary" ways that might not get much notice. I think you understand what I am saying.

Amen!

Yes, I am sure that could have been a big problem, thank God that you discovered this error before anything was sent out.

What makes you think I don't believe I can properly produce a translation? I believe I am approaching the task properly and doing the very best I can at it.

A translation? You mean a "lousy" translation? Or do you believe you can produce an accurate translation?

I'm not angry, just disappointed. I thought better of you than to have you give false witness about me.

What false witness? You are the one who has said you don't know how to do a perfect translation. I simply do not like your defeatist attitude.

"Accurate" and "perfect" are certainly not synonyms. You are playing fast and loose with your terminology. Words are not little chameleons that change when you want them to. They have meaning.

Well, I think they are. If your translation conveys the correct meaning of scripture and also does not introduce error, that is both accurate and perfect I believe.

How would anybody even know what "perfect" is? When people say perfect, they mean without error.

Now, let's look at it from a different direction. For me to produce a perfect translation I would have to be perfect myself. Am I perfect? Absolutely not. Do I do the absolute best I can? I certainly do. In spite of that I still make mistakes like the terrible one I found last week.
I absolutely agree. And I am doing this translation "with my might." Since beginning I have built up a large library on Greek, Japanese, translation theory, linguistics, etc. And even read almost all of them. I work very hard at this translation--"with my might," with my God-given talent and skills.

But once again, I ask you, how is a perfect (not just accurate) translation produced? No one is able to tell me that, including you so far. What should I do that I am not doing? Give me a plan.

I do not know what you personally mean by "perfect". To me it is enough that your translation is accurate, that it conveys the exact meaning the originals meant to convey without introducing error. That is the best any man can do, and all I would ever expect of you or any other translator.

And don't give me the excuse that you don't know another language. The principles for a Japanese perfect translation and an English one should be the same.

I cannot possibly understand what it is like to translate from one language to another. I do not understand how translators translated from Greek and Hebrew to English.

I don't have a defeatist attitude. I have an expert one, honed by thousands of hours prayerfully studying and translating. And why do you compare translation to sports? They are completely and totally different activities.

You repeatedly say you do not know how to make a "perfect" translation, whatever that means. Who would recognize a perfect translation if you came up with one? So, this is a meaningless argument.

You know what the scriptures say in the original languages and English, now you need to accurately transmit that meaning to Japanese.

And sports relates to everything, even Paul used sports analogies, he compared himself to marathon runners.

Do you believe a Christian become perfect on earth? Or are you also a skeptic of that?

Go back and read my posts. When have I insisted on a "perfect" translation? It is you and C4K that keep talking about perfection, not me. I simply believe you must accurately represent the original scriptures, which you have said you are able to do.

What does winning have to do with translating? Do I win a prize of some kind when I finish? A medal? A blue ribbon? There could not be two more dissimilar fields than sports and translation.

I'm not in a race with some other translation. Quite the contrary, I am taking all the time I can to produce what I want to be the best Japanese NT in history.

Now, it sure would be nice if you would give me some Scripture as I have asked you to about how to produce a perfect Japanese Bible.

It is not about winning, it is about attitude. Telling us over and over you cannot do a perfect translation is not exactly comforting, although I perfectly understand what you mean. It is you and C4K that keeps talking about perfection, not me. I simply believe your translation should be accurate, that is the best anybody can do.

No one even knows what perfection is. But quit blaming me for introducing the topic of perfection, I am not the one doing that, YOU ARE.

And how am I to give you scripture about translating? I do not know of any such scripture, although there may be some scripture that pertains to the subject I am not aware of.

There is no scripture that tells you how to drive a car, does that mean you are not able to drive properly? What kind of argument is this?

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Baptist scholar John Gill (1697-1771) wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.” Gill added:


To the Bible, in its original languages, is every
translation to be brought, and by it to be examined,
tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended;
and if this was not the case, we should have no certain
and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all
the translations together, or some one of them; not
all of them, because they agree not in all things: not
one; for then the contest would be between one nation
and another which it should be, whether English,
Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it
could not be read and understood by all: so the papists,
they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has
been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though
it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes;
nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even
assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to
submit to, and be corrected by their version; which
is absurd and ridiculous (Body of Divinity, p. 18)

He is just insisting that any translation into another language be compared to and agree with the scriptures written in the original languages.

That is one of the main points that I have also been making. The accuracy of all translations has to be determined by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The correction of errors in translations is based on the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

It is undeniably true that God's preserved Word in the original languages must govern the translation since the translation cannot govern what it was translated from. The very word "translation" by definition when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language indicates its need of a source or sources from which to be translated. By reason of this definition concerning what constitutes it, it is unequivocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from another language source. What is more essential to the being or constitution of a translation than the source or sources from which it was translated? A correct analytic statement is true by virtue of the meanings of its terms alone. It is logically and Scripturally impossible for a translation by men that were not directly inspired by God to be the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. A translation cannot be an exact duplicate of the originals; otherwise, by definition it is not a translation. By definition, a translation cannot be the translation of nothing. A translation without any underlying texts or sources from which to be translated would not by definition be a translation. A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. The source of a translation would be one of its causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources and causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed? The original language texts cannot be and not be the authority, cause, and foundation for a translation at the same time.

John Gill did not suggest that inspiration or preservation could be transferred to translations. I am presenting the same view of Bible translations as that held by John Gill.

 

[John of Japan]

I understand what you mean by miracle, such as God parting the Red Sea. That does not mean God does not intervene in "ordinary" ways that might not get much notice. I think you understand what I am saying.

This is what I've been saying. It's called the providence of God when it is not miraculous.

A translation? You mean a "lousy" translation? Or do you believe you can produce an accurate translation?

What false witness? You are the one who has said you don't know how to do a perfect translation. I simply do not like your defeatist attitude.

I have told you very plainly that I am doing my best and believe the result will be an accurate translation, and even that it will be the best Japanese NT. Now you are beginning to harass me. And I don't like your attitude in doubting my plain statements. I am upbeat and positive about my work, and God is helping me. You don't even know me, so how can you know I have a "defeatist attitude"? I do not.

Well, I think they are. If your translation conveys the correct meaning of scripture and also does not introduce error, that is both accurate and perfect I believe.

How would anybody even know what "perfect" is? When people say perfect, they mean without error.

I do not know what you personally mean by "perfect". To me it is enough that your translation is accurate, that it conveys the exact meaning the originals meant to convey without introducing error. That is the best any man can do, and all I would ever expect of you or any other translator.

I mean what the dictionary means: "Without defect, blemish or any imperfection" (The Funk and Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, p. 1001). A perfect translation would be one with no translational errors, typographical errors, any kind of errors. Because the translator is imperfect, this is a physical impossibility.

I cannot possibly understand what it is like to translate from one language to another. I do not understand how translators translated from Greek and Hebrew to English.

If you can't understand it, why are you even discussing it?

You repeatedly say you do not know how to make a "perfect" translation, whatever that means. Who would recognize a perfect translation if you came up with one? So, this is a meaningless argument.

See above. It is quite obvious what a perfect translation would be: one without translational errors, typographical errors or any other kind of errors.

You know what the scriptures say in the original languages and English, now you need to accurately transmit that meaning to Japanese.

That's exactly what I am doing.

And sports relates to everything, even Paul used sports analogies, he compared himself to marathon runners.

Baloney. I've played on six different sports teams in my time and I assure you that sports and translation are nothing at all alike. You on the other hand have done no translation work, so you are not qualified at all to discuss it. What you are trying to say is that sports are analogous to life. That being true, the only lessons from sports for a translator are very general ones: to do his best and not quit, things that one does not need sports to know. "Winning" as you are saying is not a consideration in the slightest in Bible translation work. The work I am doing is not in the slightest about competition.

Go back and read my posts. When have I insisted on a "perfect" translation? It is you and C4K that keep talking about perfection, not me. I simply believe you must accurately represent the original scriptures, which you have said you are able to do.

It is not about winning, it is about attitude. Telling us over and over you cannot do a perfect translation is not exactly comforting, although I perfectly understand what you mean. It is you and C4K that keeps talking about perfection, not me. I simply believe your translation should be accurate, that is the best anybody can do.

No one even knows what perfection is. But quit blaming me for introducing the topic of perfection, I am not the one doing that, YOU ARE.

You have said that "accuracy" and "perfection" are synonyms. In this very post you said, "If your translation conveys the correct meaning of scripture and also does not introduce error, that is both accurate and perfect I believe." So every time you talk about accuracy you mean perfection, do you not? And you have talked about accuracy over and over.

And how am I to give you scripture about translating? I do not know of any such scripture, although there may be some scripture that pertains to the subject I am not aware of.

There is no scripture that tells you how to drive a car, does that mean you are not able to drive properly? What kind of argument is this?

It's the argument of one who has studied preservation and translation extensively in the Word of God. There is much in the Bible about both. For example, Matthew and Luke translated Talitha cumi differently under inspiration. This is very instructive to the translator.

 

[Winman]

This is what I've been saying. It's called the providence of God when it is not miraculous.

Well, if you go back, I never said anything about miracles. YOU brought that up, not me.

I have told you very plainly that I am doing my best and believe the result will be an accurate translation, and even that it will be the best Japanese NT. Now you are beginning to harass me. And I don't like your attitude in doubting my plain statements. I am upbeat and positive about my work, and God is helping me. You don't even know me, so how can you know I have a "defeatist attitude"? I do not.

I am not trying to harass you at all. You are the one who said repeatedly you cannot do a perfect translation. You are the one saying "I can't do this, I can't do that". That is what I consider a defeatist attitude.

I mean what the dictionary means: "Without defect, blemish or any imperfection" (The Funk and Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, p. 1001). A perfect translation would be one with no translational errors, typographical errors, any kind of errors. Because the translator is imperfect, this is a physical impossibility.

Well, it might not be perfect at first, but you can spot errors and correct them can't you?

If you can't understand it, why are you even discussing it?

Hey, I didn't start this thread, C4K did, but it is addressed to those who believe God has preserved his word like me. You jumped in right away, also wanting to know our opinions. Then when I gave my opinion, you complain.

If you don't like my opinions, then don't ask for them.

See above. It is quite obvious what a perfect translation would be: one without translational errors, typographical errors or any other kind of errors.

OK.

That's exactly what I am doing.

Then you DO believe you can make a perfect translation? Good.

Baloney. I've played on six different sports teams in my time and I assure you that sports and translation are nothing at all alike. You on the other hand have done no translation work, so you are not qualified at all to discuss it. What you are trying to say is that sports are analogous to life. That being true, the only lessons from sports for a translator are very general ones: to do his best and not quit, things that one does not need sports to know. "Winning" as you are saying is not a consideration in the slightest in Bible translation work. The work I am doing is not in the slightest about competition.

If you've played on six different sports teams, then you know how important it is to have a positive attitude. You don't want some crybaby on your team that says "We can't win, we don't have a chance..."

You have said that "accuracy" and "perfection" are synonyms. In this very post you said, "If your translation conveys the correct meaning of scripture and also does not introduce error, that is both accurate and perfect I believe." So every time you talk about accuracy you mean perfection, do you not? And you have talked about accuracy over and over.

Yes, it was YOU that kept bringing up perfection, not me. I never said I expected absolute perfection from you. I know you will make some mistakes, we all do, but those can be corrected in time. All translations have errors at first, that is to be expected in such a monumental work.

It's the argument of one who has studied preservation and translation extensively in the Word of God. There is much in the Bible about both. For example, Matthew and Luke translated Talitha cumi differently under inspiration. This is very instructive to the translator.

I do not doubt for one second it is a tremendously difficult work. I commend you for taking the word of God to the Japanese. That is all excellent.

What I did not understand is this attitude that you cannot do a "perfect" translation, whatever that means. If your translation accurately conveys the meaning of scripture and does not introduce error, that is enough. Errors and typos can be ironed out in time when they are discovered.

This is the very thing people criticize the KJB for, there were many typos and errors. That does not mean it was not a fully accurate translation, it was, it just had some human errors that had to be spotted and corrected. It must be remembered that typesetting was very primitive back then. They didn't have "spell-check".

 

[John of Japan]

Well, if you go back, I never said anything about miracles. YOU brought that up, not me.

True. So??

I am not trying to harass you at all. You are the one who said repeatedly you cannot do a perfect translation. You are the one saying "I can't do this, I can't do that". That is what I consider a defeatist attitude.

Yes, you've said that several times now. One time is an opinion. Several times is harassment. And I categorically deny a defeatist attitude.

Well, it might not be perfect at first, but you can spot errors and correct them can't you?

At last I get your view of how a perfect translation can be done: by revision. And if this is true, then you admit again that a perfect translation is not possible the first time, right? It takes revision and review, assuming it to be possible.

Hey, I didn't start this thread, C4K did, but it is addressed to those who believe God has preserved his word like me. You jumped in right away, also wanting to know our opinions. Then when I gave my opinion, you complain.

If you don't like my opinions, then don't ask for them.

I much prefer informed opinions. Yours are not, self-admittedly. Ignorance is embarrassing, and we see so much of it on the BB, especially in this Bible Translations forum.

Then you DO believe you can make a perfect translation? Good.

Once again, it is humanly impossible for a first printing of a book, ANY BOOK, to be perfect. I've worked as a proof reader, I know this to be a fact.

You like sports analogies. Okay. What would you say to a high jumper who said, "I'm going to jump 20 feet" when the world record is only 8'1/2", meaning a 20 foot jump is physically impossible? Would you say, "Great man, that's a winning attitude. I'm sure you can make 20 ft.!!"

If you've played on six different sports teams, then you know how important it is to have a positive attitude. You don't want some crybaby on your team that says "We can't win, we don't have a chance..."

Again, the "winning" thing. and again I say, "winning" has absolutely nothing to do with Bible translation. If you think it does, prove it.

Yes, it was YOU that kept bringing up perfection, not me. I never said I expected absolute perfection from you. I know you will make some mistakes, we all do, but those can be corrected in time. All translations have errors at first, that is to be expected in such a monumental work.

So then, are you denying that to you "accurate" and "perfect" are synonyms? Come on. You said they were.

What I did not understand is this attitude that you cannot do a "perfect" translation, whatever that means. If your translation accurately conveys the meaning of scripture and does not introduce error, that is enough. Errors and typos can be ironed out in time when they are discovered.

This is the very thing people criticize the KJB for, there were many typos and errors. That does not mean it was not a fully accurate translation, it was, it just had some human errors that had to be spotted and corrected. It must be remembered that typesetting was very primitive back then. They didn't have "spell-check".

I've answered all of this, including defining perfection. The repetition gets boring. Please don't bore me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes, it was YOU that kept bringing up perfection, not me. I never said I expected absolute perfection from you. I know you will make some mistakes, we all do, but those can be corrected in time. All translations have errors at first, that is to be expected in such a monumental work.
...
This is the very thing people criticize the KJB for, there were many typos and errors. That does not mean it was not a fully accurate translation, it was, it just had some human errors that had to be spotted and corrected. It must be remembered that typesetting was very primitive back then. They didn't have "spell-check".

If God is indeed preserving why does it need man's revision? So that means there is no perfect Bible until man gets done revising every translation?

I have to admit that I am surprised to find a strong KJVO advocate who says that the words are not really all that important as long as the 'sense' is 'accurate.' Than sounds more like dynamic equivalence, no?

 

[Winman]

True. So??

You were the one who brought up the difference between providence and a miracle, I brought up neither.

Yes, you've said that several times now. One time is an opinion. Several times is harassment. And I categorically deny a defeatist attitude.

Actually, this started over this comment you made;

It's Sunday morning, there have been a lot of posts, but I'm still waiting to find out how I determine which Japanese version is God's preserved Word.

Even if one does not know Japanese (or as C4K says in his OP, a language without a Bible), if one believes in a perfectly preserved translation, there must be principles by which such a thing may be determined.

To which I responded;

If you do not know what is God's word and what is not, you are in the wrong line of business don't you think?

Should someone who is not sure what the word of God is be translating it to another language?

I am not trying to be a smart aleck here, I sincerely do not understand how a person could go about to translate the scriptures into another language when they are not sure what the scriptures are.

And I would still ask this question to you or any other translator, how can you possibly translate the word of God into another language unless you first know for a certainty what the word of God is in the original languages?

This is why I brought up the CT versus the RT debate, there are two main texts out there, which one would you pick? Or perhaps you would pick your own Hebrew and Greek text?

But how in the world can you do a translation unless you are settled on the correct text? That is my question to you. And when I asked which text you chose, you did not answer.

And this is absolutely relevant to the preservation of scripture, I believe the text behind the KJB is the preserved text, I do not believe the text behind the MVs is the preserved text.

At last I get your view of how a perfect translation can be done: by revision. And if this is true, then you admit again that a perfect translation is not possible the first time, right? It takes revision and review, assuming it to be possible.

Oh, it's possible to get it right the first time, but highly unlikely. It is an enormous work, I appreciate that.

I much prefer informed opinions. Yours are not, self-admittedly. Ignorance is embarrassing, and we see so much of it on the BB, especially in this Bible Translations forum.

Again, I didn't start this thread, and nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to participate in it. If you do not care for other folks opinions here at BB, then do not ask for them.

Once again, it is humanly impossible for a first printing of a book, ANY BOOK, to be perfect. I've worked as a proof reader, I know this to be a fact.

I understand, I have worked in Quality/Inspection most of my life, I completely understand that people make errors, lots of them.

You like sports analogies. Okay. What would you say to a high jumper who said, "I'm going to jump 20 feet" when the world record is only 8'1/2", meaning a 20 foot jump is physically impossible? Would you say, "Great man, that's a winning attitude. I'm sure you can make 20 ft.!!"

Well, the human body has limitations. But you can get a text perfect.

Now, that said, I do not know what you mean by "perfect". You say you are only human, you cannot do anything perfect, so you seem to consider perfect as belonging to the realm of the supernatural. I have no idea what a "perfect" text would be like if this is the criteria that is used. I have seen folks who said the Lord's prayer in the garden was perfect, the number of words in his prayer could be divided by 7, the number of vowels, consonants, nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives.... ALL can be divided by the perfect number 7. I do not know if this is true, but I don't think anybody is expecting this kind of supernatural perfection from you.

Again, the "winning" thing. and again I say, "winning" has absolutely nothing to do with Bible translation. If you think it does, prove it.
So then, are you denying that to you "accurate" and "perfect" are synonyms? Come on. You said they were.

I've answered all of this, including defining perfection. The repetition gets boring. Please don't bore me.

I think you know better, I am not talking about winning, but I am talking about a "can do" attitude. I do not understand how anybody can translate the scriptures from one language to another unless they believe they "can" determine the exact word of God in the source language they are using to translate from.

I don't expect you to believe you can high jump 20', but I do expect you to believe you can beat the other high jumpers there. If you don't believe that, you probably should be doing something else.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't expect you to believe you can high jump 20', but I do expect you to believe you can beat the other high jumpers there. If you don't believe that, you probably should be doing something else.

That's quite a statement to make to a man who has spent a huge chunk of his life to providing an accurate translation of God word, from the body of texts that I prefer, to the people he loves.

I don't wan't to embarrass my dear friend. but I am honoured to know and count as a friend a man who has such dedication God's work. There is no one to whom John needs to compare himself. He doesn't have to beat anyone in the high jump. He has already out jumped most of us.

I am stunned that a Christian would challenge his call or his service or his dedication to provided a much needed translation. KJVO folks should see him as a 'hero of the faith' for translating the texts that underpin the KJV into a language which does not have it.

The Holy Spirit assists John every step of the way - but at the end of the day, because John is a man - he will not produce a perfectly preserved translation because no one every has and no one every will.

 

[Winman]

That's quite a statement to make to a man who has spent a huge chunk of his life to providing an accurate translation of God word, from the body of texts that I prefer, to the people he loves.

I don't wan't to embarrass my dear friend. but I am honoured to know and count as a friend a man who has such dedication God's work. There is no one to whom John needs to compare himself. He doesn't have to beat anyone in the high jump. He has already out jumped most of us.

I am stunned that a Christian would challenge his call or his service or his dedication to provided a much needed translation. KJVO folks should see him as a 'hero of the faith' for translating the texts that underpin the KJV into a language which does not have it.

The Holy Spirit assists John every step of the way - but at the end of the day, because John is a man - he will not produce a perfectly preserved translation because no one every has and no one every will.

I think it is absolutely wonderful that John is translating the scriptures into Japanese.

What I do not understand is that he seems to be in the camp that believes the scriptures have been corrupted, and that it is not possible to determine the exact word of God.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the impression I get.

I find it very difficult to understand how anybody who is not sure what the exact word of God is could be a translator, especially if they take the warnings of God seriously.

This is why I keep returning to the CT versus RT debate. It is absolutely relevant to the question of preservation. The only way a person can be certain that they are translating the proper text is if they believe in preservation.

Of course, you get the ridiculous argument that both the CT and RT are the preserved texts. This is impossible, you cannot have a text that includes the last 12 verses of Mark 16 and a text that omits the last 12 verses of Mark 16 BOTH be the preserved word of God. That is an absolute impossibility.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think it is absolutely wonderful that John is translating the scriptures into Japanese.

What I do not understand is that he seems to be in the camp that believes the scriptures have been corrupted, and that it is not possible to determine the exact word of God.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the impression I get.

I find it very difficult to understand how anybody who is not sure what the exact word of God is could be a translator, especially if they take the warnings of God seriously.

This is why I keep returning to the CT versus RT debate. It is absolutely relevant to the question of preservation. The only way a person can be certain that they are translating the proper text is if they believe in preservation.

Of course, you get the ridiculous argument that both the CT and RT are the preserved texts. This is impossible, you cannot have a text that includes the last 12 verses of Mark 16 and a text that omits the last 12 verses of Mark 16 BOTH be the preserved word of God. That is an absolute impossibility.

Question: I am not sure how you define words. Do you consider accurate, perfect, and exact all as synonyms?

And please stop going back to your end of Mark topic. It has nothing to do with this discussion. It is off topic. Start a thread if you like.