The doctrine of preservation

[Winman]

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.

You see, I can understand this view coming from you. But I cannot understand this view coming from any translator.

If I was not certain I knew the exact word of God, there is no way I would DARE try to be a translor knowing the stern warnings from God.

So, I do not understand how John can be in YOUR camp. He should be in MINE.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You see, I can understand this view coming from you. But I cannot understand this view coming from any translator.

If I was not certain I knew the exact word of God, there is no way I would DARE try to be a translor knowing the stern warnings from God.

So, I do not understand how John can be in YOUR camp. He should be in MINE.

Have you read the notes from the KJV translating committee? They had the same mindset as John does. Have you checked out their philosophy of translation and preservation?

 

[John of Japan]

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?

Translation is a complicated process which you are over-simplifying. Since I am a fallible human being, there are times when I do not understand, or am mistaken in my understanding of the original. That is why a one man translation is often error filled, and why much revision is required on any translation. My son (who recently got his Ph.D. in NT Greek Linguistics) has often pointed out my errors, and I'm sure there are some we both missed, as well as the other translators and editors. There is no Scripture promising perfect understanding or translation.

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.

I certainly did answer, quickly and plainly, and you should have seen it. I am translating from the TR.

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

It's possible to get it wrong after 4 revisions, as I found out last week. Don't underestimate the tremendous difficulty of the task. The most conservative Japanese translation was proofed 8 times.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Yeah, I'm a little embarrassed. But thank you for the kind words.

 

[John of Japan]

You see, I can understand this view coming from you. But I cannot understand this view coming from any translator.

If I was not certain I knew the exact word of God, there is no way I would DARE try to be a translor knowing the stern warnings from God.

So, I do not understand how John can be in YOUR camp. He should be in MINE.

If you knew any other translators you would understand. I'd be very surprised if any translator would tell you they could produce a perfect translation.

As for knowing the "exact word of God," that is a great underestimation of the depth of God's Word. Do you understand the "exact word of God" in English? If you think you do I'd be very surprised. Then how do you expect a translator to understand perfectly in Greek or Hebrew, a second language?

 

[John of Japan]

Have you read the notes from the KJV translating committee? They had the same mindset as John does. Have you checked out their philosophy of translation and preservation?

Here are some quotes from "The Translator to the Readers" (http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm):

About the Septuagint translators:

The Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance.

The need for multiple revisions:

For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.

There will be imperfections in the translation:

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express.

But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us:

The need for revision:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I shouldn't have to explain the difference between the two, but I will. Consider. Suppose I had a flat tire on the way to the retreat I preached at last week. However, suppose that having to change my tire prevented me from being involved in a tunnel collapse. Thus God has protected me through natural means and circumstances. This is God's providence.

Providence.....of the sort you describe is "miraculous" as well. I think you are quite mixed up here. Unless you are going to assign the flat tire to "sheer dumb luck", than it is miraculous that God (having perfect Omniscience) allowed/caused your tire to go flat at precisely the time necessary for you to avoid that collapsed tunnel. If you're going to credit and thank God for it at all, you are thanking him for what is essentially a "miracle".

A miracle, on the other hand, is when God reaches down into the natural world and works against nature. When Jesus did His many wonderful miracles, He accomplished things that were impossible humanly speaking: walking on water, healing leprosy, casting out demons. Miracles are impossible to us humans.

Having or causing that flat tire in just such a way due to a perfect foreknowledge that just such an event would save your life IS ALSO impossible for humans. Perhaps you knew perfectly well that your tire needed to be changed the week before, and in lieu of doing so....God simply allowed so many distractions or important things to come up in your life that you failed to get around to it until such time as the tire "naturally" went flat on it's own? How do you know which things God might have caused or done in your circumstances and those surrounding you to guarantee that your tire would go flat at that moment? Wouldn't it have been "miraculous" for that particular carpenter to have failed to properly secure that box of nails in the back of his truck 30 mins. prior to your having run into it?

When God helped me to find the errors in my translation last week, He did not do it with a miracle.

If he indeed "helped" you...it was miraculous.

I didn't see the words magically rearrange themselves on the page. I had no vision. God did not write on the wall as He did for Daniel. He worked providentially, without miracles. Now do you understand?

Arguably...the parting of the Red Sea was a miracle...but the waters didn't "magically" just decide to part and create walls on either side. There were actually PHYSICAL causes which took an over-night to make it occur.
Exd 14:21 ¶ And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go [back]by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided. Since the waters didn't just "magically" and instantly rearrange themselves without an external (and quite natural force of nature) was it simply "providential" and not miraculous?

What caused the fountains of the deep to break open and cause the flood? Is it possible that in God's providence....the Earth simply had a certain pressure build up such that God knew perfectly and precisely when they would break open and cause the flood? Those forces could have been perfectly "natural" and only the fact that God's perfect plan was already Omnisciently set in motion makes it a "miracle".

Now do you understand?

 

[John of Japan]

Providence.....of the sort you describe is "miraculous" as well. I think you are quite mixed up here. Unless you are going to assign the flat tire to "sheer dumb luck", than it is miraculous that God (having perfect Omniscience) allowed/caused your tire to go flat at precisely the time necessary for you to avoid that collapsed tunnel. If you're going to credit and thank God for it at all, you are thanking him for what is essentially a "miracle".

"Essentially a miracle?" No. A miracle is "an extraordinary event, inexplicable in terms of ordinary natural forces" (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, by Merrill Tenney, p. 544). On the other hand, concerning providence, Tenney writes: "The meaning is 'prearrangement.' As used historically the theological term 'providence' means nothing short of the universal sovereign rule of God" (ibid, 692).

A tire going flat is entirely explicable in terms of ordinary natural forces. (I said nothing about it being "impossible for humans," which is not what a miracle is.) What makes it providential is God working behind the scenes in non-miraculous ways.

Now, since I made that specific point in regards to God's providential preservation of Scripture, I'll not answer the rest of your post, which is irrelevant to the OP, and threatens to derail said OP.

 

[Inspector Javert]

(I said nothing about it being "impossible for humans," which is not what a miracle is.)

...........

JOJ When Jesus did His many wonderful miracles, He accomplished things that were impossible humanly speaking: walking on water, healing leprosy, casting out demons. Miracles are impossible to us humans

A tire going flat is entirely explicable in terms of ordinary natural forces

So is human cognition, learning, and memory recall thus: God deserves no credit miraculously nor providentially for helping you find your error.

 

[Inspector Javert]

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 don't know of anyone (on B.B.) who holds to a "preserved TRANSLATION Theory".......only that God's words were preserved (not in a translation per se)....and that they are knowable. Thus....IF a particular translation exists which is translated from those preserved words, and not a corruption, then you know you have a faithful translation of what is "God's Word".

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

He doesn't promise a preserved "translation"...only his words will be preserved.

 

[Winman]

If you knew any other translators you would understand. I'd be very surprised if any translator would tell you they could produce a perfect translation.

I can appreciate that it is very difficult, almost impossible sometimes. As I wrote earlier, I have read there is no word for privacy in Russian, Japanese, or Chinese. So how would a translator convey this word? I can understand this might be very difficult.

As for knowing the "exact word of God," that is a great underestimation of the depth of God's Word. Do you understand the "exact word of God" in English? If you think you do I'd be very surprised. Then how do you expect a translator to understand perfectly in Greek or Hebrew, a second language?

Well, I would have to believe I knew the correct text and be sure it is free from error before I would translate.

You say you are translating from the TR, then you must believe the TR is the preserved word of God, no?

That basically puts you in my camp, not C4Ks.

Most of the folks here believe all texts are full of errors. Now if I believed that, I would not be a translator, because I would be translating and passing on error to others. I am sure this was a consideration of yours.

Do you also believe the TR is full of errors?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I can appreciate that it is very difficult, almost impossible sometimes. As I wrote earlier, I have read there is no word for privacy in Russian, Japanese, or Chinese. So how would a translator convey this word? I can understand this might be very difficult.



Well, I would have to believe I knew the correct text and be sure it is free from error before I would translate.

You say you are translating from the TR, then you must believe the TR is the preserved word of God, no?

That basically puts you in my camp, not C4Ks.

Most of the folks here believe all texts are full of errors. Now if I believed that, I would not be a translator, because I would be translating and passing on error to others. I am sure this was a consideration of yours.

Do you also believe the TR is full of errors?

Sorry mate, you have no idea what my 'camp' is.

 

[John of Japan]

...........

So is human cognition, learning, and memory recall thus: God deserves no credit miraculously nor providentially for helping you find your error.

Okay, fine, I did say "human." I wish you had quoted me in entirety, though. Right before that I said, "A miracle, on the other hand, is when God reaches down into the natural world and works against nature."

Now, I'm not sure what you are saying in this post. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me. But I believe it was in God's providence that I found those errors by diligent proof-reading.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Okay, fine, I did say "human." I wish you had quoted me in entirety, though. Right before that I said, "A miracle, on the other hand, is when God reaches down into the natural world and works against nature."

Now, I'm not sure what you are saying in this post. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me. But I believe it was in God's providence that I found those errors by diligent proof-reading.

We are already dangerously close to complete de-railment I think...I'd love to start a thread on another forum wherein we can perhaps discuss such things...so, I'll let it go for now.

Of course...I DO think God presumably was involved in your catching of that error. And thank God for it!!!:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Sorry mate, you have no idea what my 'camp' is.

All I can go by is what you and others have said here many times, that all translations contain errors.

To begin with, I do not know how anybody knows this without the original autographs. How do you know the text behind the KJB does not agree with the original autographs perfectly? You don't, and neither does anyone else, yet most here proclaim to know for a fact the KJB contains errors. It is impossible for you to know that.

Second, I have no idea what you folks mean by a "perfect" translation. If a translation is accurate and conveys the exact meaning of the source text and does not introduce any errors, how can that not be perfect?

Does that mean a text cannot need a little tidying up here or there? No, as the example I gave of 1 John 5:12. It was not error when it did not contain the words "of God", but it was improved and made more clear or precise when these words were added. Obviously, the men who made this addition felt that is the sense the original text showed.

All I can say is, that if I did not believe I had the exact word of God, I sure would not translate it into another language. But that is me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

All I can go by is what you and others have said here many times, that all translations contain errors.

To begin with, I do not know how anybody knows this without the original autographs. How do you know the text behind the KJB does not agree with the original autographs perfectly? You don't, and neither does anyone else, yet most here proclaim to know for a fact the KJB contains errors. It is impossible for you to know that.

Second, I have no idea what you folks mean by a "perfect" translation. If a translation is accurate and conveys the exact meaning of the source text and does not introduce any errors, how can that not be perfect?

Does that mean a text cannot need a little tidying up here or there? No, as the example I gave of 1 John 5:12. It was not error when it did not contain the words "of God", but it was improved and made more clear or precise when these words were added. Obviously, the men who made this addition felt that is the sense the original text showed.

All I can say is, that if I did not believe I had the exact word of God, I sure would not translate it into another language. But that is me.

So I ask again, does God preserve actual words, or only the sense of His word in translation?

 

[Winman]

So I ask again, does God preserve actual words, or only the sense of His word in translation?

I believe God preserved his actual words in the original Greek and Hebrew. It might be possible that more than one word in English (or another language) can convey the correct sense of these original words. I know in the KJB that the same Greek word is often translated with many different words. I think though in most cases one word would have to be deemed the most accurate, and I am sure that translators have great debates over the proper word to use at any given time. I do not think this easy work.

Now, everybody knows there were variants in the many copies that are still extant. Does that mean that we cannot determine with a great deal of certainty what words are supposed to be there, and which words (or omissions) are errors? No. And I think the KJB translators were the greatest team ever assembled to do this very thing.

And this is the point I am trying to make, it would seem that any translator must lean toward the "only" camp, whether he believes the CT is the only preserved text, or the RT. This is what I mean by him being in my camp and not in yours. You are one who constantly criticizes me and others for being KJB only.

But I do not understand how any translator cannot be an ONLY.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I believe God preserved his actual words in the original Greek and Hebrew. It might be possible that more than one word in English (or another language) can convey the correct sense of these original words. I know in the KJB that the same Greek word is often translated with many different words. I think though in most cases one word would have to be deemed the most accurate, and I am sure that translators have great debates over the proper word to use at any given time. I do not think this easy work.

Now, everybody knows there were variants in the many copies that are still extant. Does that mean that we cannot determine with a great deal of certainty what words are supposed to be there, and which words (or omissions) are errors? No. And I think the KJB translators were the greatest team ever assembled to do this very thing.

And this is the point I am trying to make, it would seem that any translator must lean toward the "only" camp, whether he believes the CT is the only preserved text, or the RT. This is what I mean by him being in my camp and not in yours. You are one who constantly criticizes me and others for being KJB only.

But I do not understand how any translator cannot be an ONLY.

Every translation has errors. Every text body other than the original manuscripts has errors. That does not mean that I cannot trust my Bible with, to use your words, a great degree of certainty.

To be honest, that doesn't send that different from what you believe. You just define perfect as generally accurate.

And though it is off topic, please start a thread with proof that I have ever criticised anyone for choosing to be KJVO.

 

[Winman]

Every translation has errors. Every text body other than the original manuscripts has errors. That does not mean that I cannot trust my Bible with, to use your words, a great degree of certainty.

And though it is off topic, please start a thread with proof that I have ever criticised anyone for choosing to be KJVO.

I do not agree with you, and in my opinion you contradict yourself. How can you trust something you believe is full of errors?

And no, I am not going to start another thread. That is the thing that kills me, KJB only folks like me are constantly accused of starting trouble. I don't start threads condemning folks who use the MVs, but many people constantly start threads condemning folks that are KJB only like me. Who are the trouble-makers?

So tell me once and for all, are you CT only? or TR only? or KJB only? or any particular version only?

I doubt you will respond.

But once again I'll say this, I do not see how any translator cannot be in the "only" camp, whether he believes it the CT only, or the TR only, or some other text ONLY. But I certainly would not translate a text unless I believed it was perfectly correct. I take the warnings of God seriously.

 

[Winman]

And though it is off topic, please start a thread with proof that I have ever criticised anyone for choosing to be KJVO.

OK, here you go, you said this just yesterday;

For decades KJVOism was unknown amongst fundamentalists. It was a non-issue. Almost 20 years ago a noted fundamentalist sat at my kitchen table and wept over the division he saw coming over this issue.

I too am a fundamental independent Baptist and am not KJVO.

I call this a criticism of folks like me who are KJBO. You imply that we cause great division in the church, your friend WEPT because of the division KJVO was going to cause.

I absolutely call this a criticism of KJVO.

What about the MV folks, don't they cause division too? It takes two to tango.