Translations- Inspired??

[Luke2427]

Yes. The word of God is infallible, I.E., the history is infallible history, the prophecies are infallible prophecies, and the promises are infallible promises. The word of God, in translation, even a poor translation, is still infallible in that the history, prophecy and promises will never fail.

I agree with this very famous statement, "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration?

 

[TCassidy]

Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration?

See post #59.

 

[Phillip]

I agree

I agree with you Dr. C and understand what you are saying to the best of my understanding and I will say that often you go over my head. That is the reason I do not write or translate the bible.

(Although, I do do some good at fiction under pseudonim. But, today's novels are not the highest level of grammar. They are widely targeted to different reading levels; simply because that is sadly the way English is taught in the U.S. today.)

I also think another poster took my post as trying to be "liberal" and "loose" with the translations by using words the Bible didn't mean. I used "message" as an example and maybe that is not a good example, but meaning of the words the originating author is important with the Bible and many of us who are not so highly educated do require a "more modern word meaning the same thing as the old, but better understood by the masses" so to speak? Yes, this is a question.

But, as an example: I have seen KJVO's use this to say there can only be a single translation since the Greek word for "Word" is translated this way without explaination for the uneducated in translation, that's all.

I am against footnotes. People tend to use them as scripture. If a different wording is found in multiple manuscripts, then maybe those (which are probably outside of the 99% accuracy we can be assured of, is it okay to list the manuscripts which do or do not contain a certain word or even verse to let people understand that this is part of the 1% we are just unsure of, although God will preserve each and every word of the original manuscripts? We are simply admitting that we just don't know, which word would best translate the authors meaning from the original due to manuscript variations--although I feel we have narrowed it down quite well, probably closer to the originals than in history (200 yrs. ago) due to capabilities, learning and research based on other manuscripts that may be wrong, but we learn meaning from them--for the purpose of translating and determining the REAL original manuscript ONLY? Does that even make sense?)

I'm having a little trouble getting out what I mean, I am not an expert at English by ANY means, obvious from my posts and I think we agree more than I can explain in my own words, which may be limited and misunderstood if I do not have at least 'some' informal translation.

People such as me. People that may take the meaning of "word" as not the meaning of the prophecy I am reading for example, but the individual words of the prophecy, but have a certain lack of understanding the meaning of that prophecy.

I use the NASB, KJV, NKJV and the NASB seems the closest, or at least, I have been told, to a word-for-word, but it can be misunderstanding to those like myself with less knowledge of English and more knowledge in, say electronic engineering?

These questions for you Dr. C.

Of course, I'm not saying that anybody else doesn't have a right to post here. I often get mad posts when "Moderator" comes up by my name and I'm simply writing a post as if I were not moderating at that moment. I'm following the same rules expected of other posters and not posting a "notice from moderator message". A lot of people have accused me of using my moderator status to say what I want, but I am NOT acting as a moderator, unless I say the message is to correct a rule infraction or edit a post to the rules of the board. Please understand this.

 

[TCassidy]

I used "message" as an example and maybe that is not a good example, but meaning of the words the originating author is important with the Bible and many of us who are not so highly educated do require a "more modern word meaning the same thing as the old, but better understood by the masses" so to speak? Yes, this is a question.

I agree. Not only have word meanings changed since 1611, but grammar and syntax have also changed, less significantly than word meanings, but enough to make understanding convoluted sentence structure more difficult than it has to be.

But, as an example: I have seen KJVO's use this to say there can only be a single translation since the Greek word for "Word" is translated this way without explanation for the uneducated in translation, that's all.

Bear in mind that 99% of KJVOs are speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. Most are ignorant of the fact that there is more than one word in Greek that can be translated "word" and that the most common word for "word" is translated into more than one English word in the KJV!.

I am against footnotes. People tend to use them as scripture. If a different wording is found in multiple manuscripts, then maybe those (which are probably outside of the 99% accuracy we can be assured of, is it okay to list the manuscripts which do or do not contain a certain word or even verse to let people understand that this is part of the 1% we are just unsure of, although God will preserve each and every word of the original manuscripts?

I have no problem with marginal notes provided, as you point out, the reader knows they often represent the opinions of men and not the word of God. However, a good textual apparatus is acceptable to me indicating a variant in the manuscript evidence and the reasons the textform from which the English version was translated from favors one reading over the variant. I also have no problem with marginal notes that give an alternate English translation for the word in question, much like the original 1611 version did when the translators could not agree on the best rendering of the reading.

We are simply admitting that we just don't know, which word would best translate the authors meaning from the original due to manuscript variations--although I feel we have narrowed it down quite well, probably closer to the originals than in history (200 yrs. ago) due to capabilities, learning and research based on other manuscripts that may be wrong, but we learn meaning from them--for the purpose of translating and determining the REAL original manuscript ONLY? Does that even make sense?)

There are really two issues here. The first is variants between textforms and variants within textforms. The second is translational choices. The first is a matter for textual critics, and the second is a matter for linguists and grammarians. I consider myself more of the former and less of the latter.

People such as me. People that may take the meaning of "word" as not the meaning of the prophecy I am reading for example, but the individual words of the prophecy, but have a certain lack of understanding the meaning of that prophecy.

Good example. There are different words in Greek for the two ideas you mention but both are often translated by the same English word, causing some confusion to the reader and fueling the ignorance of KJVOs who eschew higher education, especially in Hebrew and Greek.

I use the NASB, KJV, NKJV and the NASB seems the closest, or at least, I have been told, to a word-for-word, but it can be misunderstanding to those like myself with less knowledge of English and more knowledge in, say electronic engineering?

As I prefer the Byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform I would consider the KJV and NKJV to be good translations of an excellent textform and the NASB to be an excellent translation of a flawed textform. But that, of course, is not going to make anybody happy!

Good discussion!

 

[Luke2427]

See post #59.

10-4.

You then believe that the words of God have been preserved in the plethora of manuscript evidence available to us today.

I suppose I thought you were saying that the events are infallible but that the words were not. Obviously not. My mistake.

In the sense that you mean (the events, promises, etc.. are all perfectly accurate) almost all translations certainly contain the Word of God. Agreed.

Also agree with formal equivalency since not only the message matters but the words that form it.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree. Not only have word meanings changed since 1611, but grammar and syntax have also changed, less significantly than word meanings, but enough to make understanding convoluted sentence structure more difficult than it has to be. Bear in mind that 99% of KJVOs are speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. Most are ignorant of the fact that there is more than one word in Greek that can be translated "word" and that the most common word for "word" is translated into more than one English word in the KJV!.
I have no problem with marginal notes provided, as you point out, the reader knows they often represent the opinions of men and not the word of God. However, a good textual apparatus is acceptable to me indicating a variant in the manuscript evidence and the reasons the textform from which the English version was translated from favors one reading over the variant. I also have no problem with marginal notes that give an alternate English translation for the word in question, much like the original 1611 version did when the translators could not agree on the best rendering of the reading.There are really two issues here. The first is variants between textforms and variants within textforms. The second is translational choices. The first is a matter for textual critics, and the second is a matter for linguists and grammarians. I consider myself more of the former and less of the latter.
Good example. There are different words in Greek for the two ideas you mention but both are often translated by the same English word, causing some confusion to the reader and fueling the ignorance of KJVOs who eschew higher education, especially in Hebrew and Greek.As I prefer the Byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform I would consider the KJV and NKJV to be good translations of an excellent textform and the NASB to be an excellent translation of a flawed textform. But that, of course, is not going to make anybody happy!

Good discussion!

Makes me happy. I prefer the Majority Text. I like the KJV, NKJV, and ESV. I like other versions too but not as well.

 

[TCassidy]

Makes me happy. I prefer the Majority Text. I like the KJV, NKJV, and ESV. I like other versions too but not as well.

My bible of preference would be the American Standard Version of 1901 but edited to include the Byzantine readings vice the Alexandrian readings from the manuscript base from which it was translated.

But until that happens I will settle for the KJV, NKJV, and many of Jay Green's offerings.

But, to avoid confusion, I preach and teach from the KJV, which is what our pew bibles are and what is carried by most of the congregation.

 

[Luke2427]

My bible of preference would be the American Standard Version of 1901 but edited to include the Byzantine readings vice the Alexandrian readings from the manuscript base from which it was translated.

But until that happens I will settle for the KJV, NKJV, and many of Jay Green's offerings.

But, to avoid confusion, I preach and teach from the KJV, which is what our pew bibles are and what is carried by most of the congregation.

You and I are two peas in a pod I think Rev. Cassidy!:thumbsup:

 

[robycop3]

My personal KJBs do not have any notes whatsoever. In the back of one there is a concordance and some maps.

I used to own a Scofield, I got rid of it because of the notes.

Wouldja get ridda a copy of the AV1611? It has many, MANY notes.

 

[Phillip]

I agree. Not only have word meanings changed since 1611, but grammar and syntax have also changed, less significantly than word meanings, but enough to make understanding convoluted sentence structure more difficult than it has to be. Bear in mind that 99% of KJVOs are speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. Most are ignorant of the fact that there is more than one word in Greek that can be translated "word" and that the most common word for "word" is translated into more than one English word in the KJV!.
I have no problem with marginal notes provided, as you point out, the reader knows they often represent the opinions of men and not the word of God. However, a good textual apparatus is acceptable to me indicating a variant in the manuscript evidence and the reasons the textform from which the English version was translated from favors one reading over the variant. I also have no problem with marginal notes that give an alternate English translation for the word in question, much like the original 1611 version did when the translators could not agree on the best rendering of the reading.There are really two issues here. The first is variants between textforms and variants within textforms. The second is translational choices. The first is a matter for textual critics, and the second is a matter for linguists and grammarians. I consider myself more of the former and less of the latter.
Good example. There are different words in Greek for the two ideas you mention but both are often translated by the same English word, causing some confusion to the reader and fueling the ignorance of KJVOs who eschew higher education, especially in Hebrew and Greek.As I prefer the Byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform I would consider the KJV and NKJV to be good translations of an excellent textform and the NASB to be an excellent translation of a flawed textform. But that, of course, is not going to make anybody happy!

Good discussion!

This was what I was looking for. I can agree with you on all points, even the Byzantine textform. I do use the NASB, but I am very aware of the differences, because I have a habit of parallel KJV, NKJV and NASB on my computer, and maybe another like the ESV just to see what they are doing.

Thanks for the info. I believe that even with my limited knowledge you have made me understand what I was trying to say I believed but, unable to explain to an educated man as yourself due to my lack of grammatical theory, etc. You are a great teacher because you helped bring it to my level.

Thanks again, Doc, I DO appreciate it. VERY INFORMING :thumbsup:

 

[Phillip]

My bible of preference would be the American Standard Version of 1901 but edited to include the Byzantine readings vice the Alexandrian readings from the manuscript base from which it was translated.

But until that happens I will settle for the KJV, NKJV, and many of Jay Green's offerings.

But, to avoid confusion, I preach and teach from the KJV, which is what our pew bibles are and what is carried by most of the congregation.

I didn't know that. Since the ASV that is open sourced online, then would it be the 1901 version? I am referring to the one e-sword and all the other Bible study programs give out usually free with the program?

If so, I already have a good comparison translation that I can understand. Am I correct?

(I usually have to stick to the free ones, not a lot of spare change especially for new versions that I feel are overpriced in electronic versions.)

 

[TCassidy]

I didn't know that. Since the ASV that is open sourced online, then would it be the 1901 version? I am referring to the one e-sword and all the other Bible study programs give out usually free with the program?

If so, I already have a good comparison translation that I can understand. Am I correct?

(I usually have to stick to the free ones, not a lot of spare change especially for new versions that I feel are overpriced in electronic versions.)

Yes. Bible software that uses the ASV is the 1901 American Standard Version. It is the Americanized edition of the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881. I have it on e-sword and find it very useful.

But, bear in mind, there will be significant differences due to the different Greek text base. The ASV is based on the Alexandrian Textform and will differ with bibles based on the Byzantine Textform (KJV, NKJV, etc.).

 

[Phillip]

Gotcha! Thanks so much! I appreciate the lesson---well worth it.

Again, thanks for the time you took to respond.