The "Originals"

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Where was that statement made? It wasn't. You are attacking a straw man. The statement was made that one language cannot perfectly translate into another.

I think you tend read the posts about as carefully as you read 2 Timothy. Go back and read my post and Daniel David's post (the very one you responded to).</font>[/QUOTE] I have and was very careful in the way I responded. He didn't say that one language couldn't represent another one.

While you are at it Go back and read 2 Timothy too, but take off the extra-Biblical-inspired-in-the-original colored glasses.

I see perfectly well without glasses and have no need to change the meaning of words in order to sustain my preconceived notions. If this text said what you demand that it say, I could accept that just as readily as I now accept what it says.

It doesn't say the original autographs were given. It says "Scripture" and the previous verse defines the term. (As does EVERY other Biblical occurrence of the word "scripture.")

Then you should easily be able to answer my objection. If your interpretation is correct and mine incorrect then how is it that God-breathed over 5000 hand written copies of the Greek NT that were all flawed?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Scripture's authority is always derived from the original Author. God gave one exemplar. All copies and translations derive their authority from there.

There is the reason I will always be KJV-only. You have no extant authority.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I do. We have the evidence for the originals. It is you that lacks and extant authority in a couple of ways. First, you don't have the original KJV. Second, since you are unable to re-construct a thread of perfect Bibles that ended with the KJV, you have no foundation for claiming that it is perfect... you derive that claim totally from the authority of your own mind.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
It doesn't say the original autographs were given. It says "Scripture" and the previous verse defines the term. (As does EVERY other Biblical occurrence of the word "scripture.")

To be accurate, it's important to understand that when 2 Timothy referrs to "scripture" the author was referring to the OT. The NT had at that time, not yet existed, and many of the books we now have in the NT had not yet even been penned.

Of course, it is good and right as Christians to refer to the NT as being inspired in the same manner as the OT.

 

[Lacy Evans]

He didn't say that one language couldn't represent another one.

Originally posted by Daniel David:
It is impossible for one language to perfectly represent another.

This is getting old. I hope that the other posters will forgive me for dragging this "nuh-uh, uh-huh, nuh-uh, uh-huh, thing out. Frankly I am stupified.

Lacy

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I was just answering the statement that one language can't possibly represent another.
Lacy

He didn't say "possibly", he said "perfectly".

 

[HankD]

I was just answering the statement that one language can't possibly represent another.

He didn't say "possibly", he said "perfectly".

Or even between the different dialects/periods of one language like English where the same words evolve into different meanings:

Leviticus 2:1 (KJV Elizabethan-Jacobean English)
And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon.

Leviticus 2:1 (NKJV standard English)
'When anyone offers a grain offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. And he shall pour oil on it, and put frankincense on it.

OR

I Thessalonians 4:15 (KJV)
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

I Thessalonians 4:15 (NKJV)
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

HankD

 

[LarryN]

HankD's post reminds me of the story of some KJVOnlyist's who "translated" the KJV into a new Spanish Bible.

In the KJV, where the word "corn" is used, it's an Elizabethan term meaning "grain", generically. Of course, "ear-corn" as Americans understand the term was unknown to the Middle East during the writing of the Scriptures. The original Autographs contain word(s) signifying "grain", but not "corn" as we know it.

When these KJVO translators converted the KJV's "corn" into Spanish however, they made the unfortunate choice of "maize" to convey the meaning- thereby telling their Spanish-speaking audience that the Isrealites farmed & consumed corn-on-the-cob!

 

[robycop3]

Wonder what they did with "reins", Larry? Or "turtle"? Or the third-from-last word of Isaiah 36:12? Since I know but very little Spanish, could you please tell us if you can?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Wonder what they did with "reins", Larry?

Riñón.

Or "turtle"?

Paloma de la tortuga.

 

[Johnv]

Or, "God save the King", which is an Elizabethan figure of speech, not found in the source texts (the source texts contain the phrase "Life to the King", or, more literally translated, "Let the King live").

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Wonder what they did with "reins", Larry?

Riñón.

Or "turtle"?

Paloma de la tortuga. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm... Seems as if they used MODERN Spanish, according to a Spanish-speaking friend I phoned.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by LarryN:
HankD's post reminds me of the story of some KJVOnlyist's who "translated" the KJV into a new Spanish Bible.

In the KJV, where the word "corn" is used, it's an Elizabethan term meaning "grain", generically. Of course, "ear-corn" as Americans understand the term was unknown to the Middle East during the writing of the Scriptures. The original Autographs contain word(s) signifying "grain", but not "corn" as we know it.

When these KJVO translators converted the KJV's "corn" into Spanish however, they made the unfortunate choice of "maize" to convey the meaning- thereby telling their Spanish-speaking audience that the Isrealites farmed & consumed corn-on-the-cob!

One of our missionaries to Puerto Rico said the "KJV Spanish Bible" in effect translated "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Phantom"

 

[skanwmatos]

Why wouldn't they (actually "he")? It was a modern translation of the KJV into Spanish. Bernard McVey, a missionary to Central America, was trying to correct what he perceived to be problems with the commonly used Reina-Valera Spanish Bible.

Unfortunately his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was insufficient for him to accurately translate the original languages into Spanish so he decided to translate the KJV into Spanish.

Unfortunately his knowledge of Spanish was also insufficient as the end product, the McVey Spanish Bible, clearly demonstrates. One of his more egregious errors was trying to translate "Holy Ghost" differently than "Holy Spirit." He correctly translated "Holy Spirit" as "Espiritu Santo" but when faced with "Holy Ghost" he translated the phrase as "Fantasma Santo." The problem being, of course, that in Spanish "fantasma" indicates an evil spirit, or phantom.

He also butchered John 3:16 by being insufficiently familiar with the reflexive nature of Spanish. In Greek "monogenh" is one word which is translated into two words in English, "only begotten." But Spanish, like Greek, is a reflexive language and one word, "unigenito" would have sufficed. Unfortunately he wanted to make the translation "word for word" so he used two words, "unico engendrado" which means the "only created." He introduced a terrible theological error into the bible he was trying to "improve."

And then there is the fact that, in Mexico, the people openly laughed at the public reading of the McVey Bible. When McVey translated the English word "righteous" he used "rectos" (meaning "straight" or "upright"). That was fine in Central America were he lived, or even in Spain, but in Mexico "recto" means rectum! When that was read the congregation laughed at the reading. And that is quite sad. That is what happens when you make the error of thinking there is one "standard" and "common" Spanish language. Similar to the error being made by some on this board regarding English.

 

[HankD]

And that is quite sad. That is what happens when you make the error of thinking there is one "standard" and "common" Spanish language. Similar to the error being made by some on this board regarding English.

And there are some who do not seem to understand it was for this very reason standard English was developed. Standard Spanish? I don't know. Standard English, well, many universities, scholars, grammarians, dictionaries and encyclopedias say that it is a reality, that I know and have documented.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

So, once again I ask you, "whose English is 'standard'?"

American? East or west?

British? Scots, Irish, Welsh or Cockney?

Australian? Mainland or Tasmanian?

New Zealand? North or South Island?

You can no more answer that question than a KJVO can answer the question "Where was the preserved word of God in 1610?" And the reason you can't is exactly the same. The answer would invalidate your thesis.

 

[HankD]

So, once again I ask you, "whose English is 'standard'?"

American? East or west?

British? Scots, Irish, Welsh or Cockney?

Australian? Mainland or Tasmanian?

New Zealand? North or South Island?

"standard English" is * NOT * regional apart from coincidence.
As I have said repeatedly, proven and documented it is a development of a "standardized" English necessitated by the various English dialects such as "Singlish" (Singapore English) for example as dealt with in the following URL.

Standard English is taken to mean English that is internationally acceptable in formal contexts. In other words, someone speaking Standard English should be understood easily by educated English speakers all over the world.

http://www.nus.edu.sg/prose/singlish.htm
http://www.nus.edu.sg/prose/singlish.htm#Singlish

Here are some more samples of regional varieties of English transposed into "standard English"

http://beaugrande.bizland.com/Sampling%20Regional%20Varieties%20of%20English.htm

Ad hominem coming up Skan?

HankD

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
I myself don't consider any TEXT to be infallible or inerrant. I do, however, consider the MESSAGE contained in the text to be all those things. There's a difference between the Word of God, and written text. Too many people confuse the two. A translation from source texts must endeavor to keep the MESSAGE of the source texts intact as perfectly as possible. Due to linguistic variations between Greek/Hebrew and English, there are many translations that do it well, but none that do it perfectly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If this be true, how then do you, or can you account for the many verses in the scriptures where Jesus Christ himself, and the apostles themselves indicated "It is written"? Your reasoning in this is not based upon biblical facts.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

If this be true, how then do you, or can you account for the many verses in the scriptures where Jesus Christ himself, and the apostles themselves indicated "It is written"? Your reasoning in this is not based upon biblical facts.

And those quotations themselves on many occassions simply don't align themselves with the original wording in the OT.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
"standard English" is * NOT * regional apart from coincidence.

So then, as everybody speaks his own regional dialect of English, and none of them is standard, you are finally admitting there is no such thing as standard English? All I can say is IT'S ABOUT TIME!

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Hank quoted:

And those quotations themselves on many occassions simply don't align themselves with the original wording in the OT.
--------------------------------------------------

Hank,

I wonder what all the christians believed prior to the revelations of the modern textual critics, and whether they understood the reasons for some of the slight differences in the reading. I highly doubt that they thought their Bible was in error, but understood why they seemed so. The fact remains, they believed every single word of the Bible was God's perfect word to them. They would be horrified to realize that many of those verses that they loved, believed, taught, lived, and preached, were just a bunch of additions, to which the modern man is now aware of.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

"They would be horrified to realize that many of those verses that they loved, believed, taught, lived, and preached, were just a bunch of additions, to which the modern man is now aware of."

True. But, unless they were part of the KJVOnly camp (which means only within the past thirty-five years or so...yeah, it was around before, but no one really cared), they would listen to the evidence and accept it. No one likes to find out that what they think they know is wrong, but (for the majority) finding out the truth causes them to grow.

Most kids really look up to their fathers. To a child, his dad is the smartest, strongest guy in the world. Then, one day, he realizes that his dad is just a man, just like every other man. It is a time of disappointment, a time of sadness, but it is also a time of breaking down walls. So long as a child idolizes his father, he cannot grow close to him. But once that facade is taken out of the way, the son can approach his father, and the two of them can get to know and appreciate each other for who they really are.

In Christ,
Trotter