John81's Question on MVs

[John81]

I understand what you are trying to say Dwayne, but I still don't understand how one can believe all (or most) of the different translations are the pure Word of God when they don't all agree with one another either in the words used, the ideas they convey and sometimes as to whether or not they even contain certain portions or not.

This being the case, doesn't that indicate that at least some must be in error (and therefore not the perfect Word of God) or that all are corrupted, or perhaps there might be one in there that's actually the perfect Word of God while the rest are corrupted?

[Jerry]

Just to point out' date=' the ESV, NKJV, and NASB, among others, are all formal translations like the KJV.[/quote']

Yes, formal translations of the wrong texts (ie. the Critical Texts - or in the case of the NKJV, a mixture of texts, including the TR).

[dwayner79]

I understand what you are trying to say Dwayne, but I still don't understand how one can believe all (or most) of the different translations are the pure Word of God when they don't all agree with one another either in the words used, the ideas they convey and sometimes as to whether or not they even contain certain portions or not.

This being the case, doesn't that indicate that at least some must be in error (and therefore not the perfect Word of God) or that all are corrupted, or perhaps there might be one in there that's actually the perfect Word of God while the rest are corrupted?

You are still defining "Word of God" differently. That is the disconnect.

[DaveW]

I know not all MV's are dynamic equivalence, but many if not the majority are.

The NKJV is not a "translation" in fact, but an update, where they took the KJV and updated it using the wrong text.

The idea was to change only the thee's and thou's into modern language but in fact they did more than just "modernise" it - they changed some parts.

Another thing is that your KJV should have italics where the translators inserted words that were not in the text, but assisted clarity.
They are italicised because the Translators wanted to be entirely honest about what they had inserted.

Which other versions do that?

I may be wrong but I don't think any do.

I personally want to know what was there and what wasn't, rather than be in the dark about what the translators may ahve added because they think it is better.

And in any case, you have picked up on a point of semantics, and ignored the points about the missing portions, and the places where Christ is either deleted or at best minimised.

[Pastor Matt]

You are still defining "Word of God" differently. That is the disconnect.

What do you mean? Please explain.

[dwayner79]

Dave,

Its not semantics. In fact, "the majority" has implications that are simply not there. By my count, Its split dead even, with the most commonly used heavily biased toward formal.

You posts on this topic are filled with error, so its hard not to point them out. The NKJV was a translation. It was to be simply a revision. Read through the introduction. Actually, most do use the italics method for obviously added material. And, most give alternate renderings, and textual discrepancies in the footnotes. If its information you want, you will get more from the MVs then the KJV. The KJV originally had similar footnotes, but they were removed.

About 'the missing portions, and the places where Christ is either deleted or at best minimised" this is an unsubstantiated and general claim that is hard to respond to. Would you like to get into specifics? The end of Mark is highly suspect. I like the NASB's treatment to give every possible rendering. Besides that, and the "trinity" passage, the 'missing' verses are not really an issue. I am not sure what you mean by Christ "deleted" or minimized.

I do not want you to think that I am ignoring your statements, I am simply trying to point out the errors in your post as I see them. If its a discussion you want to have, then lets. But please do not assume I am going after semantics. I simply responded to the parts I saw as incorrect.

[dwayner79]

What do you mean? Please explain.

Here is what I wrote before Matt.

I have two streams of data that I (all of us) must assimilate. The first is the message of scripture that God's message to us will not pass away. The second is that there were problems in keeping copyist errors, inclusions, etc. out of the manuscripts during the dark ages (specifically) and throughout history. There are a handful of ways to deal with this. The first is to say God is not faithful. We all reject that. Many don't, and that is why you have so many in the atheist/agnostic camp that do not see scripture as authoritative. The Second is to say that God supernaturally led the process of re-creating the text to its perfect state in one of the texts. Those who hold the TR to be that are KJVo. Then there are those (call this 2 with a twist) who take that a step farther to say He also supernaturally led the translation process to a perfect English Bible. That is Ruckmanism et al. The third is to accept that the transmission of the text has seen scribal errors, and marry that to the preservation of scripture by changing the definition of what it means to have the perfect word of God. See, position 2 uses the truth that the perfect word of God must be a word for word copy of what the originals said, a priori. It starts with the premise that there must be a perfect text. Position 3, however, rejects that premise and says the message of God is what matters, and that differences in the text do not negate the ability of God to perfectly preserve His message. Now lets take this to the tranlsation process. As alluded to, the Ruckmanite crowd assumes that God supernaturally directed the translation so that the English bible of 1611 is perfect, even fixing what scribal errors were once there. But we are not Ruckmanites, and as such, there are comments like (i think) KevinMiller who said if there was an updated translation of the TR he would be fine with that. That is the majority opinion on these boards (from what I can tell). The very same logic is used in the MV side when it comes to translations. Only for MVs there are multiple translations. If a new TR based translation came out, do you think that everyone would through out their KJVs? I sure don't. I'd guess many would have both and look at them side by side. So the perfect word of God is either a perfect text or its admitting there are imperfections in the text, but that the content of the message of God is perfectly there. I hold to the latter. The KJVo crowd holds to the former, and English is not even a discussion until the textual argument is worked out.

Here is the condensed version, and you can ask for clarification if needed. This is only dealing with Textual side first:

[John81]

Dwayne, I read that previously but I still don't see how that really established a workable definition.

Do we have God's true Word or do we have mistranslations that may or may not be close to God's true Word but not 100% God's true Word?

[Pastor Matt]

(Side note: I do not think' date=' nor did most scholars until recently, that Psalm 12 is talking about preserving God's Words. See Matthew Henry for more details. So the preservation argument takes on a new flavor without that proof text. )[/quote']Of course you can't. :duh You have to believe that God's Words are preserved for us perfectly today to believe that. If ones views do not match up to Ps. 12, one must change the context of the verse to match the views.

We are asking you to look in the Bible, and you are asking us to look into Matthew Henry

And BTW, are you sure that it is only recently that these so called scholars started to believe this, and that none did a long time ago?

[Pastor Matt]

I have two streams of data that I (all of us) must assimilate. The first is the message of scripture that God's message to us will not pass away. The second is that there were problems in keeping copyist errors, inclusions, etc. out of the manuscripts during the dark ages (specifically) and throughout history. There are a handful of ways to deal with this. The first is to say God is not faithful. We all reject that. Many don't, and that is why you have so many in the atheist/agnostic camp that do not see scripture as authoritative. The Second is to say that God supernaturally led the process of re-creating the text to its perfect state in one of the texts. Those who hold the TR to be that are KJVo. Then there are those (call this 2 with a twist) who take that a step farther to say He also supernaturally led the translation process to a perfect English Bible. That is Ruckmanism et al. The third is to accept that the transmission of the text has seen scribal errors, and marry that to the preservation of scripture by changing the definition of what it means to have the perfect word of God. See, position 2 uses the truth that the perfect word of God must be a word for word copy of what the originals said, a priori. It starts with the premise that there must be a perfect text. Position 3, however, rejects that premise and says the message of God is what matters, and that differences in the text do not negate the ability of God to perfectly preserve His message. Now lets take this to the tranlsation process. As alluded to, the Ruckmanite crowd assumes that God supernaturally directed the translation so that the English bible of 1611 is perfect, even fixing what scribal errors were once there. But we are not Ruckmanites, and as such, there are comments like (i think) KevinMiller who said if there was an updated translation of the TR he would be fine with that. That is the majority opinion on these boards (from what I can tell). The very same logic is used in the MV side when it comes to translations. Only for MVs there are multiple translations. If a new TR based translation came out, do you think that everyone would through out their KJVs? I sure don't. I'd guess many would have both and look at them side by side. So the perfect word of God is either a perfect text or its admitting there are imperfections in the text, but that the content of the message of God is perfectly there. I hold to the latter. The KJVo crowd holds to the former, and English is not even a discussion until the textual argument is worked out.

Here is the condensed version, and you can ask for clarification if needed. This is only dealing with Textual side first:

I read that, but it really did not have anything to do with what John81 was talking about.

[dwayner79]

After re-reading, I will be more specific.

I understand what you are trying to say Dwayne' date=' but I still don't understand how one can believe all (or most) of the different translations are the pure Word of God when they don't all agree with one another either[/quote']


My statement really only covers this one... my bad.

If Ideas differ while using the same text, then its a function of the translation. These cases are rare, and minor. This is why in my other post, I separated out the translation process, because it too has its own set of problems to deal with. I will finish my answer on the next one because they are related.
.
Both this and the one above are very often specific 'passage related', while the message of God is Bible wide. So if one verse on the Trinity is found to be suspect, and one translation keeps it, and another doesn't, the rest of the verses that support the idea of a triune Godhead are still there. The MVs tell the same message. They do not have to use the exact same words to do so. ***


This is why I made the comment Matt is questioning, and why I think it does fit. Simply because there are different wordings does not mean the message has changed. If you define the Word of God as a specific set of words, then John's conclusion is correct. If the word of God is the message, then it does not... hence my statement.

Clear as mud?

***Edit to add: When you hear "The NIV takes the Blood out of the Bible" this is exactly what is going on. The NIV removed the "blood" from one passage where it is suspect that is should be there. They certainly did not take it out of every passage.

[Pastor Matt]

**Edit to add: When you hear "The NIV takes the Blood out of the Bible" this is exactly what is going on. The NIV removed the "blood" from one passage where it is suspect that is should be there. They certainly did not take it out of every passage.

If one studies the Bible version issue and comes up with the conclusion that the KJV is perfectly preserved in English, then yes, it should be in there if it is removed. That is not hard logic to understand.

Simply because there are different wordings does not mean the message has changed.

True, but in hundreds of cases it can, so that logic goes out the window. You would have to look at each case and compare if the meaning has changed. With the MV's, the meaning has changed countless times from what we believe is God's preserved Words.

[dwayner79]

If one studies the Bible version issue and comes up with the conclusion that the KJV is perfectly preserved in English, then yes, it should be in there if it is removed. That is not hard logic to understand.

True' date=' but in hundreds of cases it can, so that logic goes out the window. You would have to look at each case and compare if the meaning has changed. With the MV's, the meaning has changed countless times from what we believe is God's preserved Words.[/quote']
I'll agree with both of those statements. From the KJVo POV, what I am saying can't work. But that is an a priori argument.

[DaveW]

I know not all MV's are dynamic equivalence, but many if not the majority are.

Its not semantics. In fact, "the majority" has implications that are simply not there. By my count, Its split dead even, with the most commonly used heavily biased toward formal.

I have not done the count, but surely "Many" is not innaccurate, and your point of "Heavily biased towards" is inriguing to say the least - does that mean that they use the form of translation that wanted when they thought it best? and how do you know what form of translation they used where?

And the RSV I have before me right now has no italics to indicate anything, and I believe the NIV is likewise. (I can't find mine to check?)

It may be different over there, but these would be the two most popular translations over here.

As to the NKJV - It was supposed to be a revision - but ended up as more than that.
The original intent was to use the KJV text and make it "more readable" ( :roll ) by revision.

It really is not a new translation because they used the already translated KJV so heavily, but it is not a simple revision because they strayed from the original translators methods and standards.

It is in fact a deceitful effort, in that it represents itself as a revision of the KJV but in fact is not quite as simple as that.
It should be called the modified KJV or somethign similar.

As to diminishing or minimising Jesus...

1 John 4:3
NIV
But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist.

KJV
And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of antichrist.

Care to comment on whether or not you think this is an important difference of intent?

Which would you consider to be a more correct statement?

And you out point out errors in my statements (of which there will be many - I am not infallible), but let others through to the keeper (uh sorry backstop?) without noting them - have you nothing to say about Wescott and Hort, and their doctrinal position and whether or not this is of any importance?

[Jerry]

Dwayner (I think) mentioned how the NKJV has the same kind of footnotes as the KJV. That is misleading. The NKJV contains footnotes explaining away phrases and whole verses - the KJV footnotes did not do that. What they did was give the Hebrew or Greek words underlying the phrase in the verse - or else they gave a definition. There may also have been alternate renderings (I do not have one handy to verify now) - but those are a far cry from higher critical notes.