[quote author=Mitex]Your tangent into preservation is clearly a clever and subtle debate tactic. I made no such suggestion, but now that you bring it up, do you have the originals? That's what I thought. ALL scholars agree that the originals are no longer extant, they are in fact
not preserved. Certainly not in their original state. Did you mean the meaning or original intent of the author is preserved in extant copies and translations in the form that God wants us to have today?[/quote]
An argument about preservation means nothing until both sides agree on what they mean by preservation.
[quote author=Mitex]In that case English Bible believers can make the same claim in face of the scholar's taunts just as John Bunyan did long ago:
A university man met Bunyan on the road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan, “How dare you preach, not having the original Scriptures?†“Do you have them–the copies written by the apostles and prophets?†asked Bunyan. “No,†replied the scholar. “But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.†“And I,†said Bunyan, “believe the English Bible to be a true copy, too.†John Bunyan The Immortal Dreamer, W. Burgess McCreary, The Warner Press, 1928, pg. 38
[/quote]
And I would fully agree with Bunyan. I don't care if you have a KJV, an NIV, an ESV, a Vulgate, a Reina-Valera, or any other of the myriad of translations. They are all true copies in so much as they faithfully relay the information the original authors intended.
[quote author=Mitex]
It is silly to suggest that Jesus would not be speaking in Greek to Peter.
It is only silly in your simplistic mind and your determined intent to find fault with the English Bible (and other Bibles as well). I quote the scholars:
"If (as
seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love." Exegetical Commentary, Bible.org.[/quote]
Actually, Jesus would have been just as likely to be speaking Greek as Hebrew or, for that matter, Latin. Aramaic was, by far, the most commonly spoken language, Hebrew was the language of the religious elites, Greek the political elites, and Latin of the common Roman soldiers.
And, no, there are different words for our English idea for love in Hebrew, about seven actually. You need to toss that commentary in the garbage if those types of claims are commonplace.
[quote author=Mitex]You failed to take note that the Scriptures in any language or edition state clearly that Jesus said the SAME THING three times despite the use of different words in the extant Greek Scriptures. The NIV that I have reads, "Do you love me" three times. Is this another one of your tangents? Proper and valid translations can translate multiple original words into the target language with one word. Any impartial translator knows this. [/quote]
And people can say the same thing using different words. My five year old understands that.
[quote author=Mitex]Another tangent. I made no reference to "a lost text". I did take note that the extant texts we do possess are most likely translations themselves - even the Greek copies. [/quote]
Of course it is a possibility. Whether this idea has any historical backing at all is another matter...
[quote author=Mitex]Another subtle debate tactic. I insisted no such thing, but since we off on this tangent may I say that valid translations are not required to translate "every nuance". Translating every nuance would make the translation unintelligible even to your great mind.
Translations are required to be honest, true, accurate, complete and impartial. Most translations of this text have done that and certainly the translators of our English Scriptures did so. [/quote]
So translations are required to meet an impossible standard?
[quote author=Mitex]Rogue and others like him are arrogant in their attitude toward the English Scriptures. They presume it upon themselves to find fault with the English Scriptures when there is no fault to be found.
Wow, what a profound statement, "Translating from one language to another ALWAYS involves interpretation and this is a classic example." Did you figure that out on your own or did you read it somewhere?
Again valid translations are not required, nor should they, translate every nuance. They are only required to translate accurately, honestly, completely and impartially which, as I stated previously, most translators in history have done so with this text. Some of the greatest translators in history and most others translated two Greek words in this text with one English word - love. We are to presume from the argumentation presented in this thread that they were wrong and Rogue and other critics of the English Scripture are right. I'll stick with the English Scriptures. You're welcome.[/quote]
I'm assuming you know nothing at all about translation? It's also pretty apparent that you most definitely only speak a single language because anyone with any understanding at all of linguistics knows better than this.
