What do you think? part 2

[Harald]

(I take liberty to start a new thread because the one was closed in which I participated and there were still things I wanted to say, especially to Neal. Hope this is OK.)


Dear Neal. No need to apologize. You did not offend me in any way. I am one of those people that are very rarely offended. By "offended" I now mean like hurt in feelings. The Bible uses the word "offend" in another sense, like causing someone to stumble. Just a parenthesis.

With the risk of hurting you I must say that your being a "seminary student" is secondary to this discussion. I am one of those who do not care much for seminaries. In fact I view seminaries and the such as hotbeds of compromise and errorism. The only teaching institution which the New Testament endorses and supports is the local assembly in Christ Jesus and God the Father, 1Thess.1:1. I talk about true churches of Christ, which have the candlestick in place. Seminaries are a modern invention if I am correctly informed. The old Particular Baptists of England, and the old Regulars of USA had no use for seminaries. I do not deny that someone may learn useful things in a seminary, but I do not believe God needs them nor endorses them.
As I understand it the board rules prohibits one to question another discusser's state and/or standing with respect to God. I have not made that rule, and sometimes it is a hindrance in some situations/discussions, IMO. So I will not fall into the trap of saying this or that about your standing in God's sight. There's no need for me to do so as we discuss these things. At best it contributes nothing to the discussion, as I see it. But if I were to say this or that I would not want to do it solely on the basis of your using the NIV as for now. I would have to know more about you as a person, and about your beliefs and views as pertains to soteriology, christology etc. OK, I will move on.

Yes, Packer and Lewis are perhaps a bit off the subject. Nevertheless I do not give much for these two gentlemen. Others have shown C S Lewis to be heretical, and Packer is known to be an ecumenical compromiser. If you had wanted to bring up some esteemed Anglicans you might have mentioned James Hervey or Augustus Montague Toplady. I think both of these remained in the Anglican church or its sphere, but many Baptists of old regarded them as men of God. I have the biographies of them both but haven't read any yet. I will arrive at my own opinion when I do.

QUOTE:
"I can personally testify this is not the case. In my case, it may even be the opposite of what you see it as. I want people to understand God's Word."

I see a contradiction here. You claim to be concerned about the very inspired words of God's written word. Yet you endorse NIV, a version which is Dynamic Equivalent. As you know DE as a translation philosophy is not so much concerned about the individual inspired words and the wording made up of these individual inspired words. It claims the "thoughts" are more important. The NIV does not seek to render formally/literally, which method specifically reflects a firm belief in verbal and plenary inspiration, that every word of the original, and even the forms of the words, are inspired. Yea, even the syntax of each clause and sentence. All of it is inspired, nothing there that was not settled in eternity. And that the exact contextual meaning and nuance of each word is fixed in the mind of God. By this I mean e.g. that in ambiguous passages where a translator might, based on lexical evidence, choose this word or that word there is yet in God's mind only one fixed contextual meaning of a word. For example, Rom. 3:3 in the Greek says "tên pistin tou Theou". A translator might based on lexical data render "pistis" as either "faith" or "faithfulness". But the author meaning, here Paul's, is not both, but one of them, and fixed in his mind, and prior to this in God's mind in eternity. The God called translator seeks to arrive at the contextual meaning of the author (and the inspiring Spirit) when and where there is seeming ambiguity or many possible solutions. I believe in Rom. 3:3 the precise contextual meaning of pistin is "faithfulness", not "faith". Arriving at the exact contextual meaning and nuance of individual God-breathed words is a privilege of the Bible translator. But resorting to DE, e.g. adding subjective interpretations through eisegesis by way of unlawfully added words, without italicizing, is wickedness, and misleading the reader of the version. This the NIV does most often. Such does not reflect a firm belief in the full sufficiency of the very inspired words of God Almighty. Such deceptive measures in the NIV does not bespeak the fact that its translators considered God's inspired words inviolable and holy and wholly sufficient and profitable in and of themselves, without added words giving a ready-made interpretation to the reader. The NIV bespeaks the fact that its translators considered God's very inspired words insufficient in and of themselves without added words from the translating team.

The task of the Bible translator is not first and foremost to want or wish or make people understand God's word, but to translate God's very inspired words as faithfully, accurately, and precisely as lies in him in the providence of God. He is to translate as unto God, unto the glory of God, as a workman not needing to be ashamed when he must give an account unto God of his translation efforts. When the translation is ready, if he then has the wish that people understand God's word which he has translated he might pray to God that He give Holy Spirit illumination upon that translated word, and he can do proper exegesis on that version, and expound God's word aright to people as the Lord God may lead him. The translator is not to be a commentator, but a translator, a carrier-across into a target language. DE versions confuse the role of translator and commentator/exegete/expositor/interpreter. The translator must needs resort to interpretitive efforts in the course of translating God's words. But this must not reflect too much in the finished translation. Seeking to attain understanding of God's word and its teachings requires diligence on part of the student. Remember what Paul said to Timothy - "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman unashamed, rightly dividing the word of the truth", 2Tim. 2:15. To go DE is not the right approach herein.

QUOTE:
"The way I see it, if God preserved the originals word-for-word in every existing manuscript, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Do you think that God did not care much for the words He inspired because He allowed copy errors and variations to occur?"

The fact that God did not preserve the originals word for word in each existing copy/manuscript does not deny that He has preserved his inspired words through the centuries, in His providence. As for the NT I believe the Textus Receptus type of GNT is essentially the same as the original Greek New Testament given. I personally believe Scrivener's edition of the TR is closest of all TR's to the original NT. There is no scientifical way for me to prove this TR is exactly the same as the original NT. There is the possibility of some words differing, but if so I believe the difference is so minimal it amounts to as good as nothing. As I see it right now there is nothing in Scrivener's TR I would want to take out of it, nor anything I feel a need of adding to it. This is to me the Greek NT of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. By this I measure versions and doctrines etc. I reverence this Greek Testament almost as much as I reverence God and Christ. This guards me against bibliolatry, which I understand as reverencing the written word more than the living Word, God the Son. God did care for His inspired words, and still does. Otherwise there would not be the ongoing battle of TR versus Alexandrian editions and vs. the Majority Text. It is only reasonable to believe God has preserved His inspired words. It would be unreasonable to think God took such great care to provide the written word to His people, and to people in general as well, only to let that word get lost in the course of history due to the failures of frail humans. As for the OT I have the confidence that the Bomberg Masoretic text is the closest representation of the original Hebrew OT. Robert Dick Wilson, a great OT scholar, investigated the Masoretic text as thoroughly as a man can do during one lifetime, and his assessment was that there need be no doubt as to this text. If and when I have reason to believe the old Bomberg MT and the Scrivener TR comprise the very written word God gave initially I need not resort to the unbelieving schemery of modern day scholarship. All the editions the modern day scholars have come up with have not surpassed these two traditional texts, but have been found wanting. They have come up with inferior and error-containing editions. This discredits them as charlatans. Christendom, as they call it, has been no better off since the introducing of the Westcott-Hort text and its follow-up Alexandrian editions. The same goes for the post-Bomberg Hebrew OT editions.

QUOTE:
"Besides, you couldn't use any translation because all of them incorporate it to some extent. Even Mark did in Mark 5:41."

When I reject DE as a translation method and policy I mean as a general policy to follow when translating the Bible. The NIV is DE in its general policy and method. The KJV for example is FE in its general policy and method. I know the KJV has some resorting to DE here and there, e.g. "God forbid", which is DE of mê genoito - "may it never come to pass" or "let it never be". This is one instance of DE in the KJV which I consider unwise, and somewhat unwarranted. The less a version resorts to DE the better. Again you refer to inspired men who wrote canonical Scripture. Don't you understand these men were under the inspiration of God the Spirit, definitely so. What they said, or here it is Christ saying, and it seems, Mark interpreting His words, is not up to debate. Translators are to carry across (translate) words into a target language. No similar inspiration has been promised them in their translating efforts as I understand it. Therefore they are to translate as closely as possible. If they were under inspiration God perhaps would inspire them to translate in such a manner that they changed here and there according as the Spirit would lead along. Because the Spirit is God Almighty, and He has, just as Christ had, right and authority to change what words He had previously inspired, cp. OT quotations in the NT which are not word for word repetitions. The translator is not to add words which are not in the original. If he does he must be honest so that he indicates it some way, like with italics. Likewise he is not to omit words which are in the original. Many versions omit much words which are in the underlying editions on which they are based. Some omissions are generally accepted, like omitting the definite article in front of Theos, because it does not make very good English to say "the Word was with the God", John 1:1. Such omissions I can understand in versions, but some other kinds of word omissions are entirely unwarranted. Tell me for example, why do most versions omit the definite article in Eph. 2:8 in front of "pisteôs", and also in front of "grace" (Gr. chariti, from charis)? Did their translators think these divinely inspired articles were nothing but superfluous fly speck in the manuscripts? Nor is the translator to alter God's inspired words, like e.g. rendering a clear passive voice verb as an active, or vice versa.


quote:

If the NIV translators had cared for God's words they had not gone DE. The NIV evidently adds to, detracts from, and alters God's words. Do you deny this? (Harald)


QUOTE:
"Again, this is your opinion. Do you know all of the NIV translators personally? How do you know they do not care for God's Word?"

Yes, it is my opinion, but it is also objectively verifiable fact if one takes the underlying Greek text and compares NIV to it. No, I do not know the NIV translators, not any of them. I do not need to know them so as to be able to show their version does these things which I state. Your final question gets its answer from what I already stated.

QUOTE:
"Is that a valid way to determine someone's feelings and thoughts, but saying what you would do? And yes, I deny your statement. That statement could be applied to any translation if you want to get technical. Detract is subjective. You don't like it, but does it necessarily detract from God's Word?"

The feelings and thoughts of the NIV translators are now secondary. We have their finished product. It can be evaluated and assessed against an objective standard, the Greek text underlying it, Alexandrian in this case. And yes, my statement can be applied to any version, but now NIV is being discussed primarily. Detract can be both subjective and objective at the same time, or either, depending on what is measured. If the NIV refrains from translating e.g. a participle verb in the Greek underlying then it evidently detracts from God's words/word, and this is an objective and objectively verifiable deviation and detraction from God's inspired word. If NIV translates e.g. a Greek noun in a lexically permissible way but in a contextually wrong way it detracts from God's truth, but this detraction is more of a subjective nature, and perhaps more difficult to objectively prove or verify. An example, perhaps not the best, of such a thing would be the KJV rendering "foolishness of God" in ICor. 1:25. On a word count basis (objective) this is not a detraction, but meaning-wise and truth-wise (subjective, yet also objective in this example because systematic theology is against such an attribute) it is a detraction from God's truth. Because God is not possessed of such an attribute as "foolishness".


QUOTE:
"Well, I don't repent one bit for using the NIV."

When I spoke of "repenting" I did not mean you, but the translators of NIV. And if God has used the NIV you can count on it that He has not used the perverse renderings in it, but those that well and accurately reflect and translate the Greek.


QUOTE:
"I am sorry to hear this, Harald.
I normally greatly enjoy your input. Although I must ask, who is causing divisions?"

Well, I can't help that. I have stated my standpoint, and it stands. Except two agree can they walk together? it says somewhere. Yet, I am honoured to hear you have enjoyed my input. I can say the same about much of what I have seen from your pen in this forum. As for divisions when it comes to us two, if that's what you mean, I would not say one can speak about divisions, seeing our acquaintance is on such a level as it is. As for the Romans passage Paul spoke to the Roman saints. Those he referred to as causing divisions and offences did so contrary to the doctrine the Romans had learnt. And I bet the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration was part of it. And even if it weren't then by way of application it applies to me today, seeing I consider it most important. The bibliological doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration, and of infallibility and inerrancy of God's word is part of the apostolic doctrine I have learnt, and if anyone militates against it either in theory or in practice they militate against God's word, being contrary to it. Such ones I must look out for and turn away from. I am not of the such who consider bibliology to be a "non-essential" doctrine, or "secondary". It is part of the faith once entrusted to the saints of God (Jude 3), and the doctrine of Christ (2Joh. 9). Christ's doctrine is one homogeneous whole, not some smorgasbord from which one picks and chooses which is primary and which secondary, or, essential and non-essential. If I militate against His doctrine either in doctrine or in practice etc. I will not find fault with one who is faithful to it and desires to separate from me. I am the one to be blamed if I rebel against the Lord God.

QUOTE:
"And please note, DE translations vary much. In my opinion, the NIV is no where near close to the NLT. I would not personally recommend the NLT. But I see a difference"

I grant that DE versions vary much. More than FE versions vary among themselves. The NIV, as I see it, is the closest to the Greek of DE versions, along with perhaps NET-Bible. Many DE versions are much worse, true.

OK, it has been pleasant discussing with you, and at least I feel it has been somewhat edifying as well.

Harald

 

[Harald]

BrianT. I was serious when I stated it, and still am. As for the KJV translators I fear they were unconverted men. I would be glad if I were wrong here, but don't believe I am. But the version they produced has evidently been used and blessed of God. No use denying that. A man of God who I highly esteem, J C Philpot, a Strict and Particular Baptist, evidently was of the contrary opinion, i.e. that the KJV translators were spiritual and godly men. This I gleaned from one of his writings, which pertained to the KJV and revising it.

Harald

 

[Pastor Larry]

FTR, most who believe in verbal plenary inspiration do not see this great problem that Harald seems to see. A dynamic equivalency method of translation is not in the least a compromise of verbal inerrancy.

Harald, I know we have talked about this before, but let me say again, you are really barking up the wrong tree here. You have drawn some very questionable conclusions. A translation by its very nature is a compromise of verbal inspiration using the mindset that you have, because it changes the words. Any time you change the words from one language to another, you have the very problem that you have brought up here. It is not a compromise of verbal inspiration.

 

[neal4christ]

To start of, Harald, I chuckled when I saw a part 2 of "What Do You Think?"

I am one of those who do not care much for seminaries.

You are completely entitled to your view.

As you know DE as a translation philosophy is not so much concerned about the individual inspired words and the wording made up of these individual inspired words.

Yes, the originals were inspired. But we now have thousands of variants. So either we can blindly choose one compiled text and say that is the original, without any real warrant, or we can understand that in all these manuscripts we still have God's Word. We can strive to get back to the original, but in the end we must realize that this is the way that God has preserved His Word. So was He concerned more with every little nuance or with the message therein?

The NIV bespeaks the fact that its translators considered God's very inspired words insufficient in and of themselves without added words from the translating team.

Every translation adds words in translation. You have to in order for it to make sense.

but to translate God's very inspired words as faithfully, accurately, and precisely as lies in him in the providence of God. He is to translate as unto God, unto the glory of God, as a workman not needing to be ashamed when he must give an account unto God of his translation efforts.

I agree.

There is no scientifical way for me to prove this TR is exactly the same as the original NT.

Thank-you for acknowleding that.

There is the possibility of some words differing, but if so I believe the difference is so minimal it amounts to as good as nothing.

But if there are differnces, it is no longer exactly like the original. So the translator does not have everything originally inspired. You can't just say it is good for nothing. That would be a big concern if you claim to have a copy of the original.

As I see it right now there is nothing in Scrivener's TR I would want to take out of it, nor anything I feel a need of adding to it. This is to me the Greek NT of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. By this I measure versions and doctrines etc.

I have no problem that this is your personal feelings and opinion. But then you admit that you measure others by your opinion. What if your opinion is wrong, or not totally accurate?

God did care for His inspired words, and still does. Otherwise there would not be the ongoing battle of TR versus Alexandrian editions and vs. the Majority Text.

Yes, He does care for them. But I don't think text-type arguments are not necessarily a sign of God's caring. I think that is an example of men trying to grasp something God has done.

It is only reasonable to believe God has preserved His inspired words. It would be unreasonable to think God took such great care to provide the written word to His people, and to people in general as well, only to let that word get lost in the course of history due to the failures of frail humans.

I agree that it is reasonable. And He has not lost His Word. Even with all the variations there is not that much difference between manuscripts. Every doctrine and message is there. There has been absolutely nothing lost.

All the editions the modern day scholars have come up with have not surpassed these two traditional texts, but have been found wanting. They have come up with inferior and error-containing editions. This discredits them as charlatans.

But according to who? There are probably many that feel that modern editions far surpass the TR. So I don't see how they are objectively discredited, when in fact the evidence seems to be to the contrary.

When I reject DE as a translation method and policy I mean as a general policy to follow when translating the Bible.

So it is okay sometimes but not others? Who is to say when it is okay and not?

The translator is not to add words which are not in the original. If he does he must be honest so that he indicates it some way, like with italics.

You seem to condemn something here but then try to make a loophole for it. Is it okay or not? Yes, I like the italics. But like it or not, italic or not, it is still adding words. I don't see how it becomes okay in your position. You either are against adding words or you are okay with it, because italics are added words.

Likewise he is not to omit words which are in the original. Many versions omit much words which are in the underlying editions on which they are based. Some omissions are generally accepted

I am having a hard time understanding. They are not to omit words but then some ommissions are acceptable? So how can you say they are not to omit words? After all, that is your whole argument. If God saw fit to inspire the article why is it okay not to translate it sometimes? I don't see how you can say every word has to be translated but then say that sometimes it is okay to omit.

Tell me for example, why do most versions omit the definite article in Eph. 2:8 in front of "pisteôs", and also in front of "grace" (Gr. chariti, from charis)? Did their translators think these divinely inspired articles were nothing but superfluous fly speck in the manuscripts?

I can't tell you why because I did not translate them.

My friend, you are harsh in this example but then you consider it acceptable to leave out the article in other cases. You seem to think that it becomes superfluous at times.

but it is also objectively verifiable fact if one takes the underlying Greek text and compares NIV to it.

As do most translations not match up exactly to their underlying text 100% of the time.

I can say the same about much of what I have seen from your pen in this forum.

Thank-you as well for your kind words.

As for divisions when it comes to us two, if that's what you mean, I would not say one can speak about divisions, seeing our acquaintance is on such a level as it is.

I wasn't clear in my statement. I was talking of the bigger picture, not us.

OK, it has been pleasant discussing with you, and at least I feel it has been somewhat edifying as well.

And with you as well. I greatly appreciate your kind tone. I also appreciate that much of this is your personal view. I have no problem with that. It does concern me, though, when your view becomes the measuring stick for statement of absolute facts. That is all.

May the Lord Pour Out His Blessings Upon You,
Neal

 

[Istherenotacause]

I have an idea! (light bulb indicator lit!)

Why don't neal, harald, and MV-neverist get married and invent their own version of the Bible, I'm sure it won't have any contradictions by my observing their consistant going back and forth as if they already were!

This is just my analogy and no offense is intended!

As anyone can see, I am having trouble grasping my emoticons as the graemlins will show.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Harald:
"God forbid", which is DE of mê genoito - "may it never come to pass" or "let it never be". This is one instance of DE in the KJV which I consider unwise, and somewhat unwarranted. The less a version resorts to DE the better.

the FE examples in the KJB r more numerous than KJBOs care to admit. others include:

"God save the King"
"Eve"
"Egypt"
"And it came to pass" (which u cite for MH
"" (bunch of enclitics/particles)
GENOITO above -- where there's no "it," "came," "to," or "pass" in either the Gk or the Heb Wayehiy!)

the difference, of course, is that i see it as something praiseworthy, that the KJB actually tries to get God's inspired words fr the Original Gk/Heb into the 1611 lingo without some DE-enslaved "uniformitie" of wording. they were completely free to change the order of words n syntax, pick various vocab words/phrases for a particular Gk/Heb expression, interpret the meaning according to their God-given abilities, etc.--so that the English-speaking world wld not be reading Heb or Gk or Latin but English. to use their OT expression, they "gave the sense" (meaning-based, dynamic, functional equivalence) rather than "gave the syntax n vocab n form" (form equivalence).

n for that i rejoice n congratulate them!

 

[neal4christ]

Why don't neal, harald, and MV-neverist get married and invent their own version of the Bible,

Bro. Ricky,

Do you know what would be scarier than our version of the Bible? The kids!

God Bless You,
Neal

 

[TomVols]

(I take liberty to start a new thread because the one was closed in which I participated and there were still things I wanted to say, especially to Neal. Hope this is OK.)

Sure, but the posters must stay on topic. All pertinent rules apply.

Carry on. Keep the gloves up. Behave like humans.

 

[Harald]

QUOTE:

"Every translation adds words in translation. You have to in order for it to make sense."

That is true. But to specify, a translator ought not to add words into his translation which have no basis in the Greek (speaking of NT) wording. But sometimes he does (for sense & readability), and when he so does he ought to indicate it somehow, and a good method is italicizing, or bracketing. Example of italicizing would be KJV, yet in honesty's name the KJV does not always italicize when it adds words with no counterpart in the Greek text. Example of bracketing would be the ALT. I hope you now understand me.

QUOTE:
"Even with all the variations there is not that much difference between manuscripts. Every doctrine and message is there. There has been absolutely nothing lost."

I believe that in e.g. Scrivener's TR, Stephanus' 1550 TR, and Elzevier's 1624 "every doctrine and message is there", when it comes to the NT. I do not believe any message or doctrine is left out. As for the Majority Text I am not so certain. And still more uncertain regarding Alexandrian editions. And if I consider all existing copies (over 5000) I can be certain that within that body of Greek words is the entire NT as originally given. But nobody on earth owns all of them I believe. And I do not believe God has purposed it to be thus difficult to come over His very Greek NT. I believe He has given it in these last days in the TR. It was accepted of both orthodox and less orthodox men over 350 years, and still today many accept it as the handed-down/preserved Greek NT of the Lord Jesus Christ.

QUOTE:
"There are probably many that feel that modern editions far surpass the TR. So I don't see how they are objectively discredited, when in fact the evidence seems to be to the contrary."

Yes, no doubt many "feel" (subjectively?) that modern editions surpass the TR. But the objective evidence point to the fact that the TR surpasses the modern Greek editions. If we should count errors in the TR and in modern editions I think the moderns would be shown to contain errors of various nature. I cannot think of any in the TR as for now. I know some would come up with textual matters like saying the Johannine Comma lacks manuscript evidence, and similar. But the Comma, if considered in its context, and against the whole counsel of God's word, is brilliant and glorious. And I know modern versionists bring up Rev. 22 and "book of life" vs. "tree of life". The only thing which seems to weigh to their favour is that "book of life" has so little manuscript support from existing Greek copies. Otherwise, considered in its context it brings no error into the word of God, as I understand it. But Alexandrian editions have discernible errors in them which make God look like a fool if one should claim such an edition is "inerrant" and "infallible". And their errant readings even have manuscript support from existing Greek copies (corrupt ones). The GNT edition which has least amount of errors in comparison to other GNT editions logically is the superior one. I believe the most superior one of all existing GNT editions available today is one of the TR editions. I believe it is Scrivener's, although I must admit I have not compared it to e.g. Elzevier's 1624. These lack no doctrines as far as I am aware, nor am I aware of any doctrinal or theological or scientific etc. errors in them. The only one right now I come to think of which one man considered an error in Scrivener's TR was in Rev. 17:4, the word akathartêtos. He said it is no real Greek word, or to be more specific he said this word occurs nowhere else in any human writings. I am not enough qualified to say if this is so. Yet, as the word is translated in the KJV and other versions based on the TR it makes up no error at all in the versions. It says "...cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" (KJV). Some non-TR version has the other reading "...of abominations, namely the unclean things of her fornication". Both readings as they stand in the versions make good sense, and constitute no error. In conclusion, it is the modern editionists and modern versionists who have abandoned the old and tried paths as pertains to the text of the Greek NT of Christ the Lord, and have adopted the unbelieving position of Westcott-Hortism.

QUOTE:
"So it is okay sometimes but not others? Who is to say when it is okay and not?"

The question is not bad. I know that FE versions sometimes resort to DE. My personal opinion is that in some cases it is unnecessary and unwarranted, that is, when a literal rendering makes sense and does not sound like utter gibberish, if you know what I mean. Some persons are so hyper-dogmatic that they condemn each and every instance of DE even in the most FE/literal of versions. Not me, however. A good example when DE is no doubt OK is Rom. 1:15, which in the TR goes like this..

houtôs to kat eme prothumon kai humin ...

literally "thus the according to me readiness also.."

This, if left as above in a version, is close to gibberish, as compared to good and normal English. No doubt a man of average intelligence would understand what Paul says, but here a resorting to DE is in order, IMO. The KJV does not do a bad job with its "So, as much as in me is, I am ready". So, who is to say when OK and when not? In the process of translating it is of course the one who translates who must decide. Yet, some would probably say that the above example is not DE. Whichever way, those Greek words if translated word for word into English do not make good English. An English version must not contain grammatical errors, because as it (a faithful version, that is) is the inspired word of God derivatively it is a representative of the original which is inerrant and infallible. Just like God the Son is the express image of His Father's person or substance, Hebrews 1:3. Translating God's word is verily a sacred science.

QUOTE:
"You seem to condemn something here but then try to make a loophole for it. Is it okay or not? Yes, I like the italics. But like it or not, italic or not, it is still adding words. I don't see how it becomes okay in your position. You either are against adding words or you are okay with it, because italics are added words."

I do condemn adding words in the translation which have no counterpart or basis in the Greek text underlying, if and when the translator does not indicate in any special way that he has so added. If he so adds words which have no basis whatsoever in the Greek wording he might italicize them. And if/when he adds he should do so for no other reason than making the sentence flow in better English (readability) or with the aim of supplying a word so as to complete the sense when the translated sentence in English seems to lack some word due to the distinct difference of the two languages (Greek vs. English). Hope this is clear. I will nevertheless give example from my own translation and you will see what I mean.

2Tim. 3:16

16. All Scripture God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for educative discipline which in righteousness,

The above is as literal as I can get it in English word order, without adding words without counterpart in the Greek text. But the average Bible reader when he sees this sentence senses that something is wanting. Now, next I will give you how the official version of the same verse reads.

16. All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for educative discipline which is in righteousness,

The italicized words as you understand are added "for readability and sense", to complete what the English lacks due to the difference in nature as compared to Greek. As you know they have no basis whatsoever in the Greek text underlying. If you still take me to court I do not know what to say to you.

QUOTE:
"They are not to omit words but then some ommissions are acceptable?"

You make it harder than it is. I did not say I myself accept them per se. I said "Some omissions are generally accepted", by which I mean scholars, laymen, and professing believers in general see no problem with such omissions as mentioned, not taking issue with the such. If they did not accept omitting the article in front of e.g. "Theos" they would no doubt object to omitting it in versions, and would protest against it. Myself I am not as tolerant of omitting e.g. articles as professing believers in general. This is a reason why in my own version, still in progress, I supply a sign in places where the Greek has a determiner which I do not render into English. I contrived this all of my own, but was positively surprised the other day when I saw the Concordant Literal NT had done exactly the same, long before my even learning to read or write. And that is supplying an asterisk where the article is not rendered into English. I will show you...

17. In order that the man of *God may be proficient, having been thoroughly fitted unto every good work.

Now, in the Greek the wording is - ...ê ho tou Theou anthrôpos.. - lit. "...may be the of THE God man...", or with English word order if you would - "...that the man of the God may be proficient etc."
Yet as for now there are a few places where I do not insert asterisk for an unrendered determiner, e.g. Jude 25 - "both now and for evermore. Amen." The word I rendered "evermore" is pantas tous aiônas - lit. "all the ages". The "tous" is as you know a definite article. Of course I could insert asterisk, but it is more likely to puzzle the reader. If I put it in front of "evermore" he would conclude the Greek says "THE evermore", which it really does not. So, here I follow the rendering of the classic versions. Theologically I believe "pantas tous aiônas" must be granted to mean "evermore" (eternally), because God is considered here, and He is the Eternal One (Jehovah). With God is no time limitations, eternity is His sphere of subsistence, and eternality is part of His being. Glory unto Him.

QUOTE:
"My friend, you are harsh in this example but then you consider it acceptable to leave out the article in other cases. You seem to think that it becomes superfluous at times."

Neal. By now you know I consider no words in God's inspired Holy Scripture as being superfluous. Each particular word is important to God, else He had not inspired a certain word. The exact original wording is fixed and settled eternally in heaven. If I would produce an interlinear Greek-English NT I believe there would not be any words not translated, and this would be discernible to the eye of the reader. In a normal version this is not always likewise clear if one is unfamiliar with the underlying Greek.

All right, my answer became outdrawn as usual. But I enjoy discussing such meaningful things as these, and could go on for days I guess.

Harald

 

[Pastor Larry]

Two comments:

1. The uses of the article are many and varied. The fact that an article appears in teh Greek but we see no "the" in English means nothing at all. That is a straw man argument.

2. To supply a verb in a verbless clause is not adding to Scripture. In 2 Tim 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed," "is" is not an addition. A verbless clause makes no sense in English but was a regular routine feature of ancient (and some modern I believe) languages.

You admit the use of DE is necessary in some cases, which to me is an admission of the fallacy of your position. Who gets to decide when it is necessary and acceptable and when it is not? If it is a violation and compromise of verbal inspiration, then it always is. If it is acceptable sometimes, then it is not a compromise of verbal inspiration (notice I did not say it was acceptable all the time). But the point is that you undermine your own position by admitting it is not always a compromise of verbal inspiration.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Harald:
And I know modern versionists bring up Rev. 22 and "book of life" vs. "tree of life". The only thing which seems to weigh to their favour is that "book of life" has so little manuscript support from existing Greek copies.

Hi Harald:

Do you know which Greek Manuscripts have
"book of life"? I'm curious because I *thought*
I read somewhere that it doesn't exist in
any known Greek manuscript. I'd be interested
in the manuscript numbers myself..or a reference
where I could find them.

thanks,
-kman

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Harald:
QUOTE:
That is true. But to specify, a translator ought not to add words into his translation which have no basis in the Greek (speaking of NT) wording. But sometimes he does (for sense & readability), and when he so does he ought to indicate it somehow, and a good method is italicizing, or bracketing.

what makes ur canons of translation somehow more spiritual than others'?

r they borne out by:

1. the translated quotations of the OT in the NT?

2. the example of ancient translations, fr Jerome to the KJB to the NIV?

e.g. who authorized ur changes as "necessary"? what is the standard--urself?--to judge other methods as somehow illegitimate?

if verbal inspiration really impacts the process of translation, who authorizes the FE practitioners to choose what words to insert n omit or change? who gives them the right to determine what's necessary?

frankly, i have nothing against FE translations--they have their place. i'm just a little bored listening to their tirades against other ways of translating.

 

[Harald]

QUOTE:

"The uses of the article are many and varied."

Agreed.

QUOTE:
"The fact that an article appears in teh Greek but we see no "the" in English means nothing at all."

I do not agree. In some cases where the Greek has an article and the English omits to render it it may affect one's doing exegesis. If one only has an English version at hand, which has left a crucial article unrendered, that may affect the interpretation differently than if one had the Greek text at hand wherein the article is, or a version which renders the article in English. Example would be passages where the Greek has pistis with the article, and the version omits to render it. The meaning changes. If you refer to Theos with the article and without it in the English I would yet say in some instances it would be good if a version indicated that the Greek noun is definite. Example would be John 1:1, where Theos appears both as anarthrous as well as with the article. In this verse Theos with article refers to God the Father, and the anarthrous Theos has the Word (God the Son) in mind. Surely you will not deny this. If two persons do exegesis on this verse and one has the Greek before him and the other has a version the one with the Greek is in position of advantage and is more likely to arrive at the proper interpretation, assuming both are of like intelligence and theological convictions.
So, it was not a "straw man argument" on my part.

QUOTE:
"To supply a verb in a verbless clause is not adding to Scripture. In 2 Tim 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed," "is" is not an addition."

Strictly speaking it is an addition. God had not inspired the word eimi here. If the "is" is left unitalicized the reader may be led to conclude the Greek has an eimi, which is not true of this verse. But although it is an addition technically speaking it is perhaps proper to say it adds nothing to the meaning or significance of these words of Paul. In this sense an adding of "is" does not fall under the anathema of Rev. 22:18-19 and similar passages. I group such an adding as this "is" in the same class as the adding of the article where the Greek says "God Father", i.e. it becomes "God the Father" in versions.

QUOTE:
"You admit the use of DE is necessary in some cases, which to me is an admission of the fallacy of your position."

My position allows for the fact that resorting to non-word-for-word rendering is warranted in passages like e.g. Rom. 1:15 (see previous post), without this contradicting my belief in verbal and plenary inspiration. If what I now state makes me a denier of verbal and plenary inspiration then my position is heretical in your eyes. If I am forced to choose between a strictly literal rendering in Rom. 1:15, which does not smoothly convey the meaning of the words Paul spoke, and a non-word-for-word rendering which smoothly conveys his authorial meaning I would choose the latter. A strictly literal rendering of the Greek which in the English tongue makes for poor or defective English does not do much justice to what Paul willed to convey to his audience by way of information. In that case a non-literal rendering which does not surrender any meaning is to prefer. If a strictly literal rendering looses some or much of the author meaning of the Greek wording, and a not-so-literal rendering fully conveys the same I opt for the latter. But in most cases a word-for-word rendering beatifully harmonizes with the author meaning, so that very rarely indeed is the translator really forced to render non-literally so as not to lose the meaning and signification of the author.

I do not think any plain version is able to 100% consistently reflect the verbal and plenary inspiration quality of the Greek. For it to do so the finished translation would have to be able to 100% reproduce all the information which the morphology of each inspired word conveys, as well as 100%-ly convey all the information inherent in the divinely inspired wording of the Greek (morphological, lexical, syntactical, semantical, and if there be any more then that also). Therefore I am one of those who will not impute 100% perfection (in every sense imaginable) to any version, but only to the inspired and preserved wording of the Greek (as to the NT). The old Particular Baptists were of the same mind, saying the ultimate court of appeal is the Scriptures in the original tongues. See Baptist confession of faith of 1689.
But along with others and with wiser men I reject DE as THE policy to adopt when entering into the bussiness of translating/producing a Bible version. DE is not concerned with the very words/wording of the original, therefore it takes unlawful liberties with the text. If you know not this then you are surely uninformed.

My position is harmless and therein is no occasion of stumbling, even if "fallacious" in your view. But DE-ism is not harmless and it is offensive as well. Eugene Nida, called the father of DE by some, was a heretic, and his infidel brainchild, DE, is the wrong general method/policy to adopt when translating God's infallibly inspired words. Amen.

Harald

 

[Harald]

kman. A scholar by the name of Thomas Holland in his quite new book Crowned With Glory says the following MSS contain "book of life"...

2049, 296, and the margin of 2067

For 2049 Holland referred to Herman Hoskier, who supplied this information in his book "Concerning The Text Of the Apocalypse", vol 2. Also according to Holland "book of life" is the main reading among the Latin witnesses. It is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version.

Harald

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Harald:
kman. A scholar by the name of Thomas Holland in his quite new book Crowned With Glory says the following MSS contain "book of life"...

2049, 296, and the margin of 2067

Thanks Harald!

 

[Harald]

QUOTE:

"what makes ur canons of translation somehow more spiritual than others'?"

If my canons of translation are "more spiritual" than others' the only legitimate reason would be if they be more consistent with scriptural principles which apply to translating the Bible, and if they bring more glory to God and Christ, and elevate God's holy word to its proper place.

QUOTE:

"e.g. who authorized ur changes as "necessary"? what is the standard--urself?--to judge other methods as somehow illegitimate?"

What "changes" do you refer to? As to methods of translation, each method which militates against what the Bible says of itself, and against prohibitions of adding, subtracting, and changing/perverting are more or less illegitimate as I understand it.

QUOTE:
"if verbal inspiration really impacts the process of translation, who authorizes the FE practitioners to choose what words to insert n omit or change? who gives them the right to determine what's necessary?"

Verbal inspiration pertains to the original penmen, not to translators of the Bible. Ruckmanites may believe it possible for translators to be verbally inspired, but not me. FE "practitioners" have no authority to insert and omit and change. Their job is to translate from the original tongue text into a target language, and that accurately, faithfully, and precisely, as unto God and not as pleasers of men, i.e. not like as DE perverters.

Harald

 

[Harald]

kman. You can access the information of Holland which I referred to via this link. He touches upon Revelation 22:19 et.al. towards the end of it.


http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter8.html

Harald

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Harald:
In some cases where the Greek has an article and the English omits to render it it may affect one's doing exegesis.

This is true in some places. That is why knowledge of hte original languages is necessary. However, there are places where the article cannot be rendered as "the." To do so would be to contradict the meaning of it. The good translations have usually properly rendered the article in most cases.

Strictly speaking it is an addition. God had not inspired the word eimi here. If the "is" is left unitalicized the reader may be led to conclude the Greek has an eimi, which is not true of this verse.

Strictly speaking, the Greek has an understood verb. That is the nature of verbless clauses. One is not adding anything. It is understood to be there.

My position allows for the fact that resorting to non-word-for-word rendering is warranted in passages like e.g. Rom. 1:15 (see previous post), without this contradicting my belief in verbal and plenary inspiration. If what I now state makes me a denier of verbal and plenary inspiration then my position is heretical in your eyes.

My point is not about whether you are a heretic or not. It is about the fact that your statement doesn't stand. When you assert that DE denies verbal plenary inspiration, your own position contradicts that. You have an inconsistent position.

[qbMy position is harmless and therein is no occasion of stumbling, even if "fallacious" in your view.

[/qb]You do not even hold the position you claim, as your above words admit.

[qutoe]But DE-ism is not harmless and it is offensive as well. Eugene Nida, called the father of DE by some, was a heretic, and his infidel brainchild, DE, is the wrong general method/policy to adopt when translating God's infallibly inspired words. Amen.[/QUOTE]I completely disagree. There is no reasonable basis on which you can make this claim. DE-ism, properly used, is absolutely necessary to translation. If you want to argue that we must be careful with it, that is another point. We must also be careful with FE because at times it renders the word of God confusing and not understandable. There is nothing wrong with DE properly used.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Harald:
If my canons of translation are "more spiritual" than others' the only legitimate reason would be if they be more consistent with scriptural principles which apply to translating the Bible, and if they bring more glory to God and Christ, and elevate God's holy word to its proper place.

cld u name the principles? BCV pls.

what was ur authority for this: "The italicized words as you understand are added "for readability and sense", to complete what the English lacks due to the difference in nature as compared to Greek. As you know they have no basis whatsoever in the Greek text underlying. If you still take me to court I do not know what to say to you."

can u illustrate that "consistency" w NT translated quotes of the OT?

making GOd sound wooden isn't elevating His Word. a translation eliciting any other response than what was originally intended is unfaithful--if God didn't intend to come across as either archaic or groovey, but does in a version, that version has misrepresented Him.

Harald:
What "changes" do you refer to? As to methods of translation, each method which militates against what the Bible says of itself, and against prohibitions of adding, subtracting, and changing/perverting are more or less illegitimate as I understand it.

o really, n u'd suppose that those prohibitions on adding, subtracting, n changing apply to translation--is that what u believe, i'd like to confirm?

in that case, not only the KJB but dozens other translations r "illegitimate" in ur words, esp the NUMEROUS instances where the changes r NOT flagged (either w italics or square brackets or whatever). does this bother u?

Harald:
Verbal inspiration pertains to the original penmen, not to translators of the Bible. Ruckmanites may believe it possible for translators to be verbally inspired, but not me.

good, i'm glad u don't. i'm sorry if i thot u did--many do, as u've hinted re the Ruckmanites. but i'd really be interested in ur response on whether verses against changing the "words" of Scripture applied to translation, as u seem to have intimated.

Harald:
FE "practitioners" have no authority to insert and omit and change. Their job is to translate from the original tongue text into a target language, and that accurately, faithfully, and precisely, as unto God and not as pleasers of men, i.e. not like as DE perverters.

who r "DE perverters" that r "pleasers of men"? did u intend to use a pejorative term in response to "practitioners"?

 

[Harald]

QUOTE:
"cld u name the principles? BCV pls."

I am sorry but I do not know what is meant by "BCV". "pls." appears to be your way of saying "please", right? OK. As a matter of fact I have published a brief article in connection with my homepage, wherein I state some principles I deem important in translating the Bible. I will quote from it. Hopefully it will be evident that some of them reflect biblical principles that I judge as applying even to translation. But first I will give some Scripture passages I believe can be applied to the science of translating God's words (emphases added).

Revelation 22:18 And I witnesse to ech man herynge the wordis of prophesie of this book, if ony man schal putte to these thingis, God schal putte on hym the veniauncis writun in this book.
22:19 And if ony man do awei of the wordis of the book of this prophesie, God schal take awei the part of hym fro the book of lijf, and fro the hooli citee, and fro these thingis that ben writun in this book. (Wycliffe's NT)

Deut. 4:2 Ye schulen not adde to the word which Y speke to you, nether ye schulen take awei `fro it; kepe ye the comaundementis of youre Lord God, which Y comaunde to you.(Wycliffe OT)

2Cor. 2:17. For we are not as the many adulterating the word of *God for gain, but to the contrary as out of purity, but as of God, in the sight of *God, in Christ we are speaking. (own transl.)

Acts 20:30 And from amongst your own selves will arise up men speaking things having been perverted, for *to be drawing away the disciples after them.

2Tim. 2:15 Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe. (Wycliffe NT)

Deut. 12:32 Do thou to the Lord this thing oneli which Y comaunde to thee, nethir adde thou ony thing, nether abate (Wycliffe OT)

.Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (KJV)

Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word: (KJV)

(LITV) Isa. 8:20 To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no dawn to them!

Exod. 20:15 Thou schalt `do no theft. (Wycliffe)

Deut. 5:19 And thou schalt not do thefte. (Wycliffe)

Lev 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
Lev 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. (KJV)

(Darby) Jer. 23:30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

Jer 23:36 And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. (KJV)

Mark 10:19 Thou knowest the comaundementes: breake not matrimony: kyll not: steale not: bere not falce wytnes: defraude no man: honoure thy father and mother. (Tyndale's NT)

(Geneva) Luk. 18:20 Thou knowest the comandements, Thou shalt not commit adulterie: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steale: Thou shalt not beare false witnes: Honour thy father and thy mother.

(KJV) Deut. 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Acts 13:10 and sayde: O full of all sutteltie and disseytfulnes the chylde of the devyll and ye enemye of all righteousnes thou ceasest not to pervert the strayght wayes of the Lorde. (Tyndale's NT)

2Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for educative discipline which is in righteousness,
17. In order that the man of *God may be proficient, having been thoroughly fitted unto every good work. (own transl.)

1Tim. 6:3. If anyone is teaching differently, and is not drawing near to words being sound, even to those of our *Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine according to godliness,
4. He hath been besotted with pride, understanding nothing, but rather being sick about questionings and disputes over words, from which things is coming envying, strife, slanderings, malignant conjectures,
5. Vain disputings of men of whom the mind hath been thoroughly corrupted, and of ones having been deprived of the truth, of ones supposing the godliness to be a means of acquisition. Be thou withdrawing thyself from the ones who are such! (own transl.)

All right. I have given Scriptures. Now I shall quote from the said article of mine...

QUOTE:

It is not enough that the translator(s) of God's sacred Scripture possesses the right original language text editions from which to translate. If the translator(s) does not believe what the Bible states about itself, or more specifically what God states about it, the result won't be good. The translator should love the words of God as himself, if not more. He should respect them and tremble before them, knowing and firmly believing that the Bible is the holy and authoritative and divine and perfect and powerful and true word of the Lord God Almighty. And better still if in addition to these he has within himself felt the power of the word of God as wielded by God the Holy Spirit. And he ought to be more or less familiar with the original tongue of the New Testament, and with the original tongue(s) of the OT. In addition he should be able to interpret and explain the word of God aright. There are many other abilities or qualities which it is good to possess when one enters upon a work so full of responsibility and so difficult as the translating of God's sacred word. Many have entered upon this thing without sufficient skills and without a particular call from God and the enablement attending it. Therefore there are in the world today so many different Bible translations and many different versions, of which most are comparatively worthless. The English tongue is perhaps the worst example herein.

Some good books and articles have been written during the years about Bible translating, and I could say a lot more. There are two methods as respects Bible translating that I am aware of. The first and the acceptable method is literal translation, also referred to as formal equivalency (FE). The other and wrong method of translating the Bible has been called by the term dynamic equivalency (DE) or "free translation".

In the following I will give a few guidelines which I feel ought to be observed when translating the inspired words of God. And chiefly I wrote them down thinking of the translating of the New Testament from Greek into some other language, i.e. a receptor language. But often they apply also to translating the Old Testament from Hebrew (& Aramaic) into some receptor language. Now applying to the English tongue I would like to give, among others, the following guidelines:

1. Grammatically one ought to attempt at translating as accurately as possible, and faithful to the original tongue - formal equivalency. I.e. one should observe the morphology of the words.
2. One ought not to abandon or remove from the vocabulary old familiar biblical words and terms (e.g. redemption, reconciliation, propitiation etc.).
3. One English word to one word in the original tongue when this is possible without the quality of the translation suffering. But this guideline not to be followed dogmatically, considering the difference between the original tongue and English.
4. One ought not to depart unwarrantedly from classical and esteemed translations except where they render imprecisely, inaccurately or wrongly.
5. One ought to avoid being too interpretitive or explanative, cp. dynamic equivalency translations, which are often more like commentaries on the Bible.
6. One should observe that the end result is linguistically beautiful wherever and whenever possible without the quality (accuracy, precision, faithfulness) suffering (loss).
7. One ought to use italics when adding to the translation a word or words without any correspondence in the original tongue. Italicizing is sometimes needful for the text to be more readable and to make sense.
8. I would generally recommend capitalizing when a Divine person is in view. Yet, whereas I formerly thought that pronouns referring to a Divine person ought to be capitalized I am now not so dogmatic about it, this due to having read some wise things by another. One reason I presently believe it is better to leave pronouns uncapitalized is that it is difficult to consistently and accurately do it.
9. One should follow the word order of the Greek as far as possible without the readability and sense suffering from it.
10. It would be recommendable to in some manner indicate or mark (in the translation) when the original has a definite article but which for some reason is left untranslated. An example would be the word Theos (God). Sometimes it has a definite article and sometimes it lacks the article (anarthrous). In English (and Finnish as well) translations this distinction is not made manifest. This can sometimes be quite crucial, and therefore I have in my own translation attempts used an asterisk to indicate that in the original there is a definite article in front of a certain word.
11. One should observe that the translation is readable and not obstructive or intricate, kind of "woodenly literal". This may, perhaps, not always be achieved, without the meaning of the original author being altered, and in such case it is better left "woodenly literal" or intricate.
12. One should observe carefully where one inserts commas and periods etc. so as not to twist or pervert the message of the original author.
13. One should take care that each (original) word gets precisely the right contextual meaning in the receptor language. An example of this would be the Greek word pistis. It may be both "faith" and "faithfulness" as to its so called semantic range. Yet, it is wrong to always render it as "faith". The context determines which is the right and proper rendering.
14. Verses and parts of verses ought to be translated in such manner that it is possible to "interpret Scripture with Scripture", i.e. one must not twist the words of God in such manner that one cannot refer to some parallell passage or verse which speaks about the same thing. The harmoniousness and organic analogousness which characterizes God's holy word must be preserved.
15. One should observe that the translation must be authoritative, and from looking at it one should be able to see that a sacred text is in view, the Holy Bible, so the end result must not be such that it oozes worldliness, according as certain English free translations.
16. One should translate in such manner that it is possible to apply the Scripture to our day and age. If one translates amiss one may limit its applicability to the present day. This does not mean one should translate so as to make compromises respecting accuracy, precision, and faithfulness.
17. One should take care the expressions are clear and precise whenever and wherever possible. Likewise in some instances the Bible may be difficult ("hard to understand"), and such places ought to be left difficult without resorting to explaining them with a multitude of words of (in) the receptor language, like as many free translations wrongly do.
18. One ought to compare the finished translation with good and esteemed literal translations, and all the better if one also has the possibilty of comparing with good literal translations in other languages, as e.g. the Spanish Reina Valera, the Dutch Statenvertaling, Beza's Latin NT etc.

Many more guidelines exist, and no doubt I forgot some important ones. If someone is translating the New Testament let him translate from the Textus Receptus, and let him translate so as not to pervert or twist, so as not to add nor diminish, cp. Rev. 22:18-19. Likewise if someone is translating the Old Testament let him translate from the Bomberg Masoretic text, and as unto God, for a translation is derivatively inspired as far as it accurately and faithfully follows the inspired words and forms of words of the original tongue, and thus also authoritative. Maybe more about translating another time.

END OF QUOTE

Now, most of the above I wrote almost 6 months ago, and I still am of the same convictions and opinions as respects these things.

Harald