What Do You Think?

Interesting questions. First, I don't think the theological views of a translator and/or committee is of *no* consequence, but a good translator will consciously strive to minimize his biases, translating first and interpreting second. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some translation projects result in the translator *changing* his theology on a specific doctrine, due to something he gleaned from trying to translate as accurately as he could.

As to an *unsaved* man translating scripture, I would think it doesn't *necessarily* mean the translation will be biased or miss important truths, but the risk is greater. Translation of any work, including scripture, is still largely a technical task and if I was forced to choose, I would rather have a Bible translated by a professional translator with no spiritual experience then a super-spiritual Christian man with no translation experience. The text being translated from would be the word of God, and I don't think it will "return void" if an unsaved man translated it, but it would likely be less valueable than if a saved man of equal translation skill translated it.

 

I think 1 Corinthians 2:14 makes it crystal clear.This would explain much on the bible version issue.

 

I actually agree 1 Cor 2:14 sheds some light on Pastor Bob's question. In fact, I even think it would be one of the reasons a Bible translated by an unsaved man would be likely of less value than a Bible translated by a saved man of equal translational skill. But still it's possible to accurately do the technical aspect of translation (and translation is mostly technical!) and have the meaning conveyed even if the one doing the actual work doesn't himself understand the meaning. I can get my 5-year-old to copy a page from a computer programming manual, and the message would be conveyed to me even if he himself did not understand the message.

But I don't see how it "would explain much on the Bible version issue", because I know of no mainstream, church-accepted Bible versions that were *not* translated by saved men. In other words, if they are saved, that verse would seem to imply that they *are* able to spiritually discern, and thus ensure the translation is that much better. The "spiritual things" are the *meanings and concepts* supplied by scripture, not the ink on paper.

 

MV-neverist: "I think 1 Corinthians 2:14 makes it crystal clear."

Amen, Brother MV-neverist -- Preach it!

I.Corinthians II:14 (KJV1611):

But the naturall man receiueth
not the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are foolisnesse vnto him: neither
can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned.

Or for those who are into the KJV-MV

1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV1769):

But the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.

And for those who are into just plain MV:

1 Corinthians 2:14 (NCV = New Century Version)

A person who does not
have the Spirit does not accept the truths that
come from the Spirit of God. That person
things they are foolish and cannot understand
them, because they can only be judged to
be true by the Spirit.

May God's blessings rich and full be unto
each of the persons who read this topic
and have the Spirit, and unto their families,
and their ministries from now through the
coming Lord's Day. Amen.

 

A person's theological persuasion is not inconsequential. However, they need not agree with me on every jot and tittle in order to provide an accurate translation of the mss.

Still, the versions I trust have been translated by translators I trust. One of the high marks the ESV gets is this very area, in my opinion. The translation team and review team is a who's who of Bible believing conservatives.

I'll get into text critics and the like tomorrow. I'm out of gas for today

 

Combination. But mastery of the languages would carry the most weight.

For the most part, I'd say probably. When a king makes a proclamation, even citizens of other countries can copy/translate that message and have it still have some value. When Saddam spoke on TV, both Iraqi and non-Iraqi newsmen and translators were able to convey the message intended. Sure biases entered the mix, sometimes strongly, but for the most part the original message can be understood.

No, of course he could not spiritually discern all the variants and choose which was the original. Saved men can't even do this for "all" the variants, and an unsaved man isn't going to "spiritually discern" anything. But spiritual discernment isn't the only way of evaluating textual evidence.

As would I. But I would rather have a translation from an unsaved man then a translation from a saved man who didn't know the difference between Greek and Hebrew.

Yes. Repeatedly.

Ah, interesting. I've never really thought about the application of this passage to Bible versions. Actually, in context of the whole eating or not eating something some find controversial, this may have interesting applications. In fact, the context starts with "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink;". In comparision, the KJV translators asked the rhetorical question "For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables?"

 

The question(s) posted by Bob is very interesting, and something myself has pondered in my mind now and then.
First, I believe the theological views of the translator(s) has bearing on the final result, i.e. the finished translation.

Bob asked:

"Would a lost man be able to understand the things of God enough to properly translate God's Word from the ancient languages?"

REPLY: First, the word "properly" in the question should be defined. If by "properly translate etc." is meant that a lost man can give people a comparatively good and faithful translation I believe the answer is an emphatic YES. A lost man could also give people a clinically accurate translation of God's word provided that the Holy Spirit of God enabled him and guided him. But I would not know whether such has ever occured in the course of the history of the Bible. But left to himself a lost man would probably not be able to give people a flawless, accurate, faithful and precise translation without translational errors in the sense that the author meaning of the original is left intact and not twisted. What I mean is that he would not be able, left to himself, to give people a "perfect" translation, insofar as it is possible to produce a translation which is optimally perfect within the limitations of a target language. I believe that during the course of history God the Lord has used many many lost men to translate His word from the ancient tongues into a target language. And these have produced many good versions which in the providence of God have been made a blessing to His true sheep. What I mean is that lost men have understood the things (inspired words, doctrines) of God enough to properly (not absolutely perfect & flawlessly) translate God's written word from the ancient languages. I believe in certain instances God in His providence has blessed such lost translators in their work in a certain measure, for the good of His people who later on have come into possession of the version they made. I will give some examples of men I believe to have been lost translators, but who produced comparatively good versions, upon which versions God's blessing (has) rested to some degree.

Martin Luther - many be they that have praised Luther's German Bible. Myself is not so proficient in German so I will have to take their testimony as truth. But the beliefs which Luther clinged to unto his death makes me fear he was a lost man, a lost translator. Luther held to the heresy of baptismal regeneration. He propagated infant baptism. He believed in baptismal remission of sins. He omitted the 2nd commandment from his catechism. He believed the Bible taught conditional security (aka "final apostasy"). He consented to the persecution and slaying of anabaptists. He held to a strange view as to the Lord's Supper. He believed the heresy that a man is justified before God by or through subjective faith in Christ as opposed to justification before God by Christ Jesus and His finished work. He held James' epistle to be a "straw epistle". All these, and other unscriptural things of Luther, taken together makes me believe he was a lost man who died without the Father and the Son (2John 9). I believe Luther never received into his heart "the things of the Spirit of God", 1Cor. 2:14 (KJV). He did receive into his heart the majority of the doctrines of the New Testament Scriptures, but these are not the same as "the things of the Spirit of God". Any lost man may be persuaded, through proper teaching, of the truthfulness of the doctrines of the Christ and of the apostles, and thus receive them into his heart and embrace them as being true. This is a receiving of the truth in the mere letter of it, resulting in a notional faith which knows nothing of the power of the Spirit of God.
Many persons who unwisely call themselves "Calvinist" or "Reformed" think the "Doctrines of Grace" so called are the same as "the things of the Spirit of God". And if they see anyone give assent to "the 5 points" they conclude him to be a "spiritual man", a "born again" believer. But the hard truth is that the 5 points of Calvinism are not "the things of the Spirit", which Paul spoke of in that verse. It is to be feared that the vast majority of "Calvinists", who give assent to the 5 points, are lost men, dead in trespasses and sins. They have received the truth of the Calvinistic system but have never been granted to receive "the things of the Spirit of God" into their hearts in resurrection power (Eph. 1:19). The things of the Spirit of God which Paul spoke of are not mere doctrines in the letter of them. The things of the Spirit of God referred to are things of a revelatory nature, 2Cor. 4:6, John 6:45, and related passages.

I believe also the translators of the King James Bible were lost men, the vast majority of them if not all. Their zeal for high churchian Anglicanism bespeaks this fact to me. I cannot for the world of it (as they say) believe the Spirit of Christ to have indwelt those men without chastising and rebuking them for their high churchian errorism so as to lead them out of Anglican Babylon. As far as I know they remained high church Anglicans, in spite of their being well familiar with the New Testament in the original tongue. And the Greek Testament of Christ the Lord does not teach episcopacy, infant baptism, the state church concept, rhantism as the mode of baptism etc. If they had been saved men the Holy Spirit would have led them into all truth, as Christ promised to His own. Either they were lost and disobedient professors or they were saved men who remained heretics and the Holy Spirit failed in His mission in their lives. Yet for all this I believe the KJV is among the very best of English translations ever to have been produced, and upon it has rested the blessing of Almighty God, more so than on any other English version. The KJV translators were sound on many points of theology and doctrine, and were reportedly great and learned scholars.

"This begs the question, what about those translators who deny the deity of Christ or other vital doctrines? Can they be saved? Can they, as unsaved men compile an unbiased translation?"

REPLY: Such translators as Bob describes are such who are evidently and manifestly unconverted. Example would be those that translated the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT. Such "can be saved" in the sense that all things are possible with God, He is able to save such if it be His eternal good will in the Son. But as such who deny the deity of Christ they evidence nothing but that they are unconverted, lost men. Such cannot, then, be considered saved men, Christians. As unsaved men holding manifestly heretical views concerning Christ's person, like denying His deity, they cannot compile an unbiased translation if they would be loyal to their false beliefs, as I see it. Yet if as lost men they were theologically and Christologically sound they could compile a translation quite unbiased, comparatively speaking, as compared to other versions in the same language. I give the KJV again as example. It may be said to be relatively and comparatively unbiased, or else it would not be so universally accepted among most denominations professing the name of Christ. The Douay Rheims version, a Roman Catholic version, is comparatively speaking a "biased" version, which is evidenced by the fact that almost all except Roman Catholics reject that version in favour of other versions. The majority of non-Catholics would probably judge the Jesuits who translated the DRB to have been lost men. Their papistically biased renderings would indicate this.

As I see it some translations are of such evidently poor quality that they clearly indicate their translators were lost men, void of the light of God and His Spirit. Example of such clear cases would be the aforementioned NWT and the Douay-Rheims version. Then there are those versions which are not considered poor by the majority of Bible readers, like NIV, Living Bible, The Message et. al., but which are considered poor by such who prefer formal versions in the King James tradition. Myself is of the opinion that the translators of these versions evidence lostness. Their method of translation is a practical denial of the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration. They may be comparatively "orthodox" and conservative in their theology, like the NIV translators, but their pulling through with such translation projects without ever repenting of it speaks to me of the fact that they have not the Spirit of truth dwelling within.

Then there are those versions which most "conservatives" and "fundamentalists" hold in esteem, like NASB, NKJV, KJV, ESV etc. I guess most here on this board, most of which are apparently "fundamentalists" and/or "conservatives" (however these epithets are to be defined), would judge their translators to have been saved men. As for me I have my own thoughts about them, and my judgments as to their states is based on the versions they have produced, and what I may know about their theologies, as held up against the whole counsel of God's word. As for the translators of NKJV, NASB and ESV, then. Their theological orthodoxy was not greater than that of the KJV translators, nor their skills in NT Greek. This fact is not to their credit. Frankly, I have a hard time believing they were saved men, especially as all these 3 versions attack the cardinal doctrine of justification by Christ's faith or faithfulness. This is one of the greatest disgraces of modern versions. I refer to verses like Rom. 3:22, Gal. 2:16, 3:22, Phil. 3:9, which in the original tongue set forth Christ's faith or faithfulness (Gr. pistis) as the sum and substance, the all in all, of the justification of the chosen people of God and Christ before God, the Almighty judge. These modern versions follow the heretic Luther in their rendering of these most vital passages. Also I have a very hard time to believe that saved Bible translators would translate a fresh new version from an Alexandrian edition, like the ESV and NASB translators did, when the superior Textus Receptus was readily available for use. If at all some saved translator or translator team would try and produce a new and fresh version, in addition to the multitude of existing ones, I am convinced they would choose the Textus Receptus as base text, at least if God was in on their project, and I cannot see why He would not be.

"What I am looking for in this thread is your opinion on these questions, and possibly testimony of some translators that would leave no doubt as to their salvation."

REPLY: As for some translator that would leave no doubt as to his salvation. This, as I see it now, is not so easy. I have one name in mind, which I have high thoughts of. John Wycliffe. I have no reason as for now to think otherwise than that he was a true man of God, and a saved translator of God's holy word. William Tyndale is another man I think quite highly of, whose conversation was reportedly becoming the Gospel of Christ. His translation is good, quality-wise not far from the KJV. It is available today on the internet and in hardcopy format as well. Other men which I am inclined to believe may have been saved translators are Cassiodoro de Reina and Cypriano de Valera, from whom the Spanish Reina-Valera Bible has its name. Still a man who I would want to know more about is William Whittingham, the main translator of the Geneva Bible. The same goes for Robert Olivetan who translated the French Olivetan Bible in the 16th century. Not to forget yet another important character in the history of Bible translating, Myles Coverdale. As for more recent Bible translators I have not as high thoughts of them, albeit a few modern versions are comparatively good. I come to think of Robert Young, who made the YLT, and George Ricker Berry, a Baptist whose interlinear NT I esteem quite highly. But I know almost nothing about these two men.

In conclusion, it seems to me that God through the centuries has not bound Himself to exclusively use saved men to translate His word. But he has seen it proper to use, for reasons unknown to me, mostly lost translators, who nevertheless were equipped for the task with the needed mental powers and knowledgeability of the original tongues. Yet it is apparent that in recent decades the vast majority of translators have not been used of God to produce faithful translations of His holy word. They have on the contrary been used of Satan and/or done their translating on their own initiative, in their own name, for their own profit and gain, and not for the glory of God and His Christ, nor for the benefit of God's people. The fact of God's sovereignly using unsaved men for His own purposes and for the benefit of His people is supported by the Scriptures, both the OT and the NT. Examples would be Balaam, king Saul, Judas Iskariot. Another example in modern times, besides some translators, I think might be given in the person of Erasmus of Rotterdam, the man who compiled the first Greek NT edition in modern days, which later on became known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text.

Harald

 

MV-neverist. The verse you mentioned has little or no bearing on translating the Bible. I think many Baptist KJV onlyites would judge the KJV translators to have been lost, yet they highly price their finished product, the AV 1611. Likewise the verse has little or no bearing on modern versions. The vast majority of modern versions are manifestly corrupt, and this is not to the credit of their translators. It gives some indication that they have never received the things of the Spirit of God into their hearts. But even if modern versions were as qualitative as the KJV it would not per se bespeak the fact that they have received the things of the Spirit. Lost men may go quite far in doctrinal orthodoxy, farther than most professors would think is possible, compare 1Cor. 13:2.

Harald

 

Very interesting. So a bulk of Christians, even very conservative seminary students and professors, are lost because they use the NIV? To be consistent with your logic they would need be, because they deny the verbal plenary inspiration for using the NIV. But I know this is not true because many good friends and acquaintances use the NIV and are more conservative and more Christ-like than many others that I know of, even here on this forum. And I did not know that ones view of Bible translation affected your salvation. I thought that had to do with a response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would have to disagree with you greatly, Harald. First it does not deny inspiration. If God wanted us to have word for word of the originals there would not be so many varying manuscripts. I think he would have made it crystal clear. The originals were inspired, not every copy and translation. Also, going from the Biblical evidence, the writers of the Bible did not seem to be concerned with exact word for word translation. Examples are many of the quotes from the OT in the NT and Mark 5:41, for starters. And one more thing, you can have an extremely literal translation and it still not be accurate today and convey the proper message to today's audience. Like it or not, many today do not understand Hebrew and Greek euphemisms.

With all due respect, Harald, I think you do err in your harsh dealing with some of today's MVs. Would I recommend all of them? No. But I do take exeption to the NIV because it is the one I grew up on and am using a lot right now. And I have to disagree with your conclusions linking type of translation with salvation. IMHO, all translations done by commitee probably have a very good shot of having unsaved folks in their ranks. I think the best thing that we could do is praise God for His power and working despite men.

Neal

 

I am not sure how this verse has relevance to the questions you ask. I think this verse is talking about believers who are the light of the world. However, on to your questions ...

Yes, because translation into another language does not require spiritual understanding. Words and phrases are just that, words and phrases.

Yes, if he knows the parent language and the receptor language.

No and Yes.

1 Cor 2:14 refers to understanding the significance of the Scriptures, not the meaning. Anyone can understand the words on the page, provided that they are in a language he or she knows.

It would be ideal to have a Bible translated by believers, but it is not necessary. Language is language, and if you know two of them well enough, you can translate from one into the others. The most important qualification is significant knowlege of the language.

 

It seems as though some of the [modern]versions have created many questions about the unsaved man's ability to interpret scripture. This is not surprising as it was Satan's intention to do so. In this regard, after reading over some of the responses above, he has been very successful.

The term natural man ( in 1 Cor 2:14)as used in the pure word, the KJV, literally means unspiritual man. That means also that he is "unreceptive man".

He is virtually unable to admit the truth into his heart.(Ref Luke 8:12 and 13, Act 8: 14 and 11:1, James 1:21). As spiritual discernment is generated only by The Holy Spirit, the capacity to generate spiritual truth is beyond the inate powers of the natural man.

Clearly and simply, the natural man lacks the ability to sift the facts required for spiritual discernment.

The spiritual man has founded his faith on God's revelation. He has the ability to discern both earthly and heavenly things through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is absent in the natural man. The saved, spiritual man can discern what is and what is not of God, the gospel and salvationand whether a man is truly preaching God's word.

A prime example of this are two brilliant scholars and Bishops from the Church of England who, using the corrupt Vayicanus and Siniaticus Manuscripts, brought us the Westcott and Hort Greek Text used as the basis for almost all of todays modern versions. Westcott and Hort are revered by bible schools and scholars worldwide. They are raised up to hero status by many.

Yet, a study of of their lifestyles, habits and interests should cause them to question their own salvation. Is it any wonder then, given the source of our modern bibles , that there would be so much confusion as to what go God's word says?

God bless you as you study this must fundamental topic.

Alex

[ June 16, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

"Clearly and simply", spiritual discernment is not required to "sift facts", but to understand the *spiritual meanings* of the text. My son can transcribe my computer programming manuals, even if he doesn't understand the message within them.

Have you read their books, or just butchered quotes from Riplinger and her ilk? Have you compared their "lifestyles, habits and interests" to those of the KJV translators and Erasmus?

 

No they haven't. And this is off topic anyway since this thread is about translation, not interpretation.

I think we all wholeheartedly agree on this fact. But again, that nas nothing to do with this issue.

Absolutely true, but irrelevant for this discussion.

The WH text is not used as the basis for the modern texts. The manuscript evidence is the basis for the modern texts. I don't know anyone who reveres them. The KJVO side comes closest because they distort much about them and bring up things that have no relevance to the topic. That is disappointing but unavoidable apparently.

 

Dr. Bob, do you have any evidence that any of those who translated the AV believed a false gospel? You refer to "Anglican Doctrine", but have you ever read the 39 Articles, which lay out the ACTUAL doctrine of the Chruch of England?

Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

And just in case we're still wondering...

Article XII: Of Good Works

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

I don't agree with many things contained within those articles; but that doesn't mean they believed a false gospel. Just because the Episcopalian church in the USA is totally apostate, and the Church of England started to become so from the nineteenth century, doesn't mean all Anglicans follow a false gospel, nor that many of them did back in 1611.

 

But Dr. Bob, those two articles of faith I just quoted teach 100% salvation by grace through faith. That is the official line. The Episcopal church in America has always been apostate, due to the fact that it was founded by the Catholic bishops exciled from Scotland after the Reformation (or at least that's what an Episcopal priest told me). On the other hand, the Chruch of England was founded under the beliefs of the 39 Articles, which although wrong in some areas, never-the-less teach salvation by grace through faith (as I have shown). The great departure from these beliefs only began in the nineteenth century, with the Oxford Movement.

Well, I was saved in the Church of England (was a memeber until recently), and I know many other saved Anglicans. Don't confuse the (especially pre-19th century) Church of England with the American Episcopal church.