Languages other than English

[DaveW]

There will always be differences between languages because of different grammatical rules etc.

For instance the Spanish bible is much closer to the Greek, both being latin stream languages, and both ahve similar sentence structure (for instance).
The english has a different structure to its sentencing, and therefore there are differences in the way things are stated.

There are also differences in particular words.
The classic example is the word Love - we can love our wife, love our car, love our dog, and love ice-cream, but all these uses of the word have differences of meaning.
The Greek actually has four difference words that can be translated love - they actually wouldn't use the same word in each of these cases, but different words, because they have different words.

THAT is why there are differences between languages and that is also why we should translate from the most original language we can find - that would mean we should use the greek, hebrew, and aramaic texts and portions to translate into a new language.

HOWEVER - if a missionary is the first to translate into a new language and he does not ahve teh greek, hebrew, aramaic skills, then I would suggest a translation from the KJV would be "acceptable" until the skills are aquired to make a proper translation.

Anyone know what William Carey translated from?

Or Adoniram Judson?

[Tootle]

How do you figure that Greek is a "Latin stream language?" There are some borrowings, and they share a common ancestor, but they do not have the same relationship that Spanish and Latin have.

[Guest Guest]

I believe that this article answers the idea that we must have a perfect Bible in languages other than English:

http://av1611.com/KJBp/faq/language.html

[kevinmiller]

I'm still waiting to see if there is anything that comes from av1611.com that I can actually appreciate as being based on some kind of common sense. Oh well, I won't expect much. :wink

[Guest Guest]

I'm still waiting to see if there is anything that comes from av1611.com that I can actually appreciate as being based on some kind of common sense. Oh well' date=' I won't expect much. [/quote']

I personally appreciate much of their articles. :smile

[Kubel]

I'm still waiting to see if there is anything that comes from av1611.com that I can actually appreciate as being based on some kind of common sense. Oh well' date=' I won't expect much. [/quote']

I believe that experience in a second language can give someone a wider perspective of Bible translation issue. I think it could do a lot of people some good.

[kevinmiller]

Totally agree. I think going and living and learning amongst people in a foreign country gives a completely new perspective on life and certain issues. A different worldview. I think more people should participate in overseas ministries, at least at one point in their lives.

[Tootle]

I believe that this article answers the idea that we must have a perfect Bible in languages other than English:

http://av1611.com/KJBp/faq/language.html

That article has two flaws that reaches back and attacks its premise. The premise is succinctly stated by Gipp as, "God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job--convert the world."

The first flaw is this: Why assume that the Authorized Version is the perfect version given by God to convert the world? It didn't convert the English-speaking people of its own age; that had largely been done by several predecessor translations. It isn't converting very many people today; modern conversions are typically done by modern versions. Gipp suggests that, because foreign businessmen and military personnel learn English, a Bible written in Early Modern English is suitable to convert the world. Even if a few Chinese intelligence officers or Indian businessmen get a yearning to read an archaic dialect of their auxiliary language, that's no guarantee they'll be converted. If there is one perfect Bible to convert the world, it might be in English, but it would be a simplified, modern dialect of English.

The second flaw is this: If the perfect Bible to convert the world was published in 1611, where was the perfect Bible from the first century through the seventeenth? If it existed, did it become imperfect when the AV1611 was published? If no perfect Bible existed before 1611, then Gipp's premise--"God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job"--is false. There was a time when God did not give His word to any people. If there was a perfect Bible before 1611, then there are at least two perfect Bibles in existence today, and we cannot dismiss the possibility that another perfect Bible will be given in the future. In fact, we should carefully study each MV to determine if it is the next perfect Bible, so we don't become frozen in tradition and blind to new revelation like the Pharisees were when they ridiculed Jesus, or the Catholics and Puritans who rejected the KJV.

Gipp's defense of radical KJVO is disturbingly similar to the line taken on the Vulgate by traditional Catholics. Gipp writes, "It is obvious that God now needed to get both His Old Testament and His New Testament welded together in a language that was common to the world. Only English can be considered such a language." That is the same argument used by the Roman Church for the millennium or so that Latin was the common language of Europe. At their worst, they declared the Vulgate free of doctrinal error and oppressed those who tried to translate it. Ironic, since the Vulgate itself displaced the more popular Vetus Latina, which was defended with some of the same arguments used by the KJVOs today. Plus ca change... (French was another common language in much of Europe.)

Gipp continues digging his hole when he writes, "The English language had been developing for many centuries until the late sixteenth century. About that time it finally reached a state of excellence that no language on earth has ever attained." Besides the obvious ethnocentricism and the SCA-level of Tudor fanboyism, Gipp ignores the fact that English had no consistent spelling in the late sixteenth century, spoken English--and the KJV was made to be read aloud--was pronounced unlike almost any modern accent, and yet most of the greatest works in English are seventeenth century or later. (Partially due to the influence of the KJV, and partially due to the spread of the language.) If the English of 1600 London is the pinnacle of communication, how come no one--not even KJVOs--uses it anymore?

"But let us not forget the fact that, by choosing the English language, God has given us a mandate to carry out the great commission." I partially agree with Gipp's conclusion here. The Anglosphere has been blessed. So we shouldn't get lazy now and pretend that all the work was done four hundred years ago.

[DaveW]

Hey Tootle, sorry in being so long getting back - I am no language expert for a start, let's get that straight.
You probably put it better than I did when you said they were of the same ancestor.

In a very basic sense I have always understood that Greek, Latin, French, Spanish etc are of the same base, as are English, German, maybe Russian?, the Arabic languages as a group, and the Asian languages as a group, possibly an African group in there as well.

This is not a technical distinction, but a wide generalisation.

It however doesn't change the thrust of what I said - the differences are due in some part to grammar and sentence structure.
Again this is not exhaustive but a simple explanation.

I am sorry if I am totally wrong on this, but I seem to remember that sort of divison from my high school days - which were long time ago....... :ooops :roll

As far as the article - I didn't bother reading it I'm afraid....

But to the point of the English reaching perfection in the 1600's - it is generally considered to be so.
People talk of Shakespeare etc writing at the pinnacle of the english language, and since that time it has been in gradual decline.

From what you quote there I think the writer has overstated the case, and it sounds ethnocentirc alright, but historians generally do consider that time to have been the pinnacle of the English language (not all language by the way. Very few scholars would dispute that Greek is a very comprehensive and complete language, in it's content and expression!)
And yes it was far from settled in its form, and still is in fact!