The imperfect King James Bible

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mitex]Actually, it does. You see, people don't believe the KJV because of its supposed translation errors. Those who accuse it of error are supposed Greek experts, telling us day in and day out, with all the requisite humility of experts, that it is wrong, and they can correct it. But us ignoramuses, dogmatic and arrogant and all, for English speakers only, well, we understood the passage perfectly, until we read it in modern versions and delved into the Greek, that is.[/quote]

False dichotomy. One can still "believe the KJV" and recognize its errors. And, one can stick to English and find error when they carefully study. For example, the aforementioned SoS passage and the Deuteronomic passage where the land had hills that you from which you could mine "brass".

[quote author=Mitex]Ok, let's summarize. Two points. One. There are two schools of "lexicology" mentioned in the post. Did you see that? If you don't know which one is right, then how can you correct the KJV...[/quote]

This is based on the assumption that the KJV is supposed to be the standard by which we measure accuracy, an assumption I see no reason to grant.

That reminds me...you haven't answered my question. What is the standard Bible for English-speaking people?

 

[Mitex]

What I don't understand is Mitex's issues with pointing out things that can be improved1 or are imperfect2 in the KJV. Even Mitex diverges from the KJV3 in his own translation4 of the Polish Bible. So, while he can chastise the rest of us for pointing out deficiencies5, he is working on a Polish translation that fixes those he deems deficient.

Whether Mitex agrees with the OP approach with 3 loves or not, the title of this thread and summary point of the OP do state what Mitex believes, or at least makes his practice... the KJV is not perfect. Improvements can be made6. Improvements are being made by Mitex.

...

As I always like to say, "Those who do not know Greek and Hebrew are best to remain inquisitive and less provocative."

So, Mitex... if you really believe that those of us who know Greek & Hebrew are arrogant7, then we must ask why are you so arrogant so as to update the Gdansk?

I'm under the impression from the picture that FSSL and admin are one and the same Barry despite the different names. Wow! What a coincidence FSSL, admin and Barry referring to the exact same person despite three different words. Will wonders never cease? I'll answer Barry point by point.

1) I don't have a problem with anyone pointing out where the Scriptures in its multilingual editions can be improved. The original spoken words of God were improved when they were made into Scripture. The original Scriptures were improved when multiple hand written copies were made giving multitudes of people access to the Scriptures that they previously didn't have. The form in which the Scriptures were found was improved when copyists went from using scrolls to codex to typeset books - all improvements. The Scriptures were improved when they supposedly went from ALLCAPSWITHNOSPACESORPUNCTUATION to modern grammatical syntactical structures. The Scriptures were improved when they were translated into various languages giving the plowboy access to the Scriptures that previous only the scholar had. Objections to improvement is not only a red herring it's a false accusation. The reader probably got an inkling of this when Barry himself pointed out that I'm on a translating committee here in Poland updating the extremely archaic Polish Gdańsk Bible. What I would and do object to is skeptics, critics and wanna-be-scholars calling the Scriptures imperfect, almost meaningless and deficient because of such things.

2) The Scriptures are perfect by definition - its an axiom that I believe all parties in this debate agree to.  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul... Ps 19:7.  By perfect I mean complete, excellent, sound, true in all its parts, accurate, fitting the need of every soul of man and Church of God, etc. So, yes, I object when skeptics, critics and wanna-be-scholars claim that our English Scriptures are meaningless, deficient, replete with errors, boo-boos and mistakes. As you well know, or should know, archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original, has nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures. Accusing our English Scriptures of imperfection because of an archaic word is proof of skepticism and unbelief of the Scriptures. The original autograph contained archaic words (1Sm 9:9, etc.). As far as I understand all extant mss in the original languages are replete with archaic Greek. Do you and should you not take offense at those who would state, "The original is meaningless, deficient, full of errors and boo-boos, etc. because of archaisms? Why do you so strenuously object to my objections along these lines? The Divine example as found in the Scriptures demonstrates that rigid jot and tittle word counts, exact matches and order are not required in translation:

- note the variants the wicked one (Mt 13:19), the devil (Lk 8:12), and Satan (Mk 4:15) for one spoken word of Jesus;
- note the multiple words in translation of one or more words in Mk 5:41 (two original words into 6 words in translation), Mk 15:22 (one original word turns in to 6 words in translation) and Mk 15:34 (four original words are translated into 9 words in translation), etc.;
- note the variant accounts of the 10 Commandments, Gospels and translations found in the New Testament of Old Testament sources.

So, yes, I object when skeptics, critics and wanna-be-scholars call our English Bible (or portions thereof) meaningless, deficient, full of errors, mistakes and blunders, etc. because of variants in translation, not using rigid word-for-word translations and not having exact jot and tittle word counts.

So, yes, I object strenuously to the presumptuous author of the OP stating that the passage in question is "almost meaningless" not only in our Authorized Version of the English Scriptures, but in almost every extant translation available to us. Some of the greatest genuine scholars and translators in history consistently translated the Greek words in question as love. The Apostles John himself stated the Jesus said the same thing three times.

Yes, I object to the presumptuous author of the OP blithely stating that the English language (or any language) is deficient in translation. God is the author of languages (Gen 11:9, Acts 17:26) and expected His word to be translated into the common languages (Mk 16:15, Mt 28:19, Acts 2, 1Cor 14, etc. See the major Confessions of Faith such as the Westminster Confession of Faith as well). Why even your old professor Rolland McCune agrees that "God's sovereignty makes human language adequate" (A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Rolland McCune, pg. 99 - see the entire section on human and Divine aspect of Scripture).

Yes, I object to of the author of the OP's arrogance when he stated that understanding this passage "depends on a knowledge of the Greek words being used" and more importantly where he repugnantly stated, "Therefore the King James Bible (and most other translations) are the imperfect word of God."  Besides the apparent misnomer "imperfect word of God" his attitude towards not only one the greatest English translations in history, but "most other translations" as well, displays his willful ignorance and arrogance in such matters.

3. Without context this statement is inflammatory. The translators and grammarians working on this project are not translating the English of the AV or even the AV itself into Polish. We are updating the archaic syntax and grammar of the old Polish Gdańsk Bible into modern understandable Polish. Our updated version no more "diverges from the KJV" than the New Testament quotes diverge from the Old Testament sources. Or the Gospel of John diverges from the other Gospel accounts.

4. Not my own personal translation. A grammatical update by a remarkable number of translators and grammarians of the Common Polish Bible.

5. Incorrect. I don't believe that archaisms are a defect as you imply and I certainly don't chastise anyone for pointing out archaisms in any Bible including the original. I do chastise you and those like you for belying your profession of belief in the English Scriptures by insisting that they are imperfect, meaningless in places, deficient, full of mistakes, error and boo-boos. For insisting that without proper knowledge of Greek and Hebrew that millions of Bible readers with absolutely no knowledge of either of those language could not and cannot properly understand and interpret the word of God. My chastisement is consistently reserved for those who call into question the Scriptures in any language including the original languages. I reserve my chastisement for those who make such outlandish statements as "a rigid word-for-word translation is required for proper translation", "any deviation from a jot and tittle match of word count and word order is proof of imperfection, error and mistakes" and "proper, accurate and valid translation requires that subtle nuances of every word be translated", etc.

6. Demonstrating Barry's ignorance of the meaning of perfect where it relates to the Scriptures. See point 1 above. Improving the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language is not proof that the source was "imperfect" (not perfect), as Barry and others imply. Translating the Scriptures into the language of the common man is an improvement for the common man and not proof of imperfection of the source document. Again, see point 1 above.

7. Inflammatory and deceptive. I don't believe anyone is arrogant simply because they know Greek and Hebrew. And it certainly isn't arrogance on anyone's part to grammatically update or translate the Scriptures into another language. It is arrogance on the part of those who pretend to know Greek and Hebrew and those who genuinely know Hebrew and Greek to presume that because a translator uses one word in the target language for two or more in the source language that this is proof of "deficiency", makes the target language "meaningless" and impossible to "fully understand". It is arrogance on the part the author of the OP and those like him to accuse almost all the scholars and translators of every edition of the Bible who actually know Hebrew and Greek of "failing to communicate", "mistakes", "errors in translation" etc.

For the record I know that a given text can be translated differently and both translations be correct. Barry already is aware of my position on these matters. For the record, with the exception of the JW's translation of John 1:18 "only begotten god" I don't cast doubt on any edition of the Scriptures not even the meanest of them. FSSL already knows this. For the record, I encourage people of all nations to believe the Bible - the Scriptures - in their language, in the form that God intended them to have. Admin of course is fully aware of my position in such matters.
I don't spend my time "correcting" or calling into question the Scriptures in any language. I do believe every word of my Bible in English, Polish and Spanish and object to skeptics, critics and wanna-be-scholars pretending that they are in error.

As I always like to say, "Those who profess to believe our English Scriptures are best to be more inquisitive and less arrogant in their criticisms of our English Bible."

 

[Mitex]

[quote author=Mitex]Actually, it does. You see, people don't believe the KJV because of its supposed translation errors. Those who accuse it of error are supposed Greek experts, telling us day in and day out, with all the requisite humility of experts, that it is wrong, and they can correct it. But us ignoramuses, dogmatic and arrogant and all, for English speakers only, well, we understood the passage perfectly, until we read it in modern versions and delved into the Greek, that is.

False dichotomy. One can still "believe the KJV" and recognize its errors. And, one can stick to English and find error when they carefully study. For example, the aforementioned SoS passage and the Deuteronomic passage where the land had hills that you from which you could mine "brass".[/quote]

To say that "one can still 'believe the KJV' and recognize its errors" is like calling Thomas Jefferson, Richard Dawkins and Bart Ehrman Bible believers. They, along with most Liberals, "believe the Bible" they just don't believe "the errors" (their opinion of errors) in the Bible. No Fundamentalist that I know of would use such vocabulary. To say that one "believes the Bible" is to imply that one believes all the books, chapters, verses and words of the Bible. To say or imply that there are "errors" in the autographs is a direct indictment of the character of the autographs and an acknowledgement that you don't believe the autographs - certainly not in their entirety.

Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, but all translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.

[quote author=Mitex]Ok, let's summarize. Two points. One. There are two schools of "lexicology" mentioned in the post. Did you see that? If you don't know which one is right, then how can you correct the KJV...

This is based on the assumption that the KJV is supposed to be the standard by which we measure accuracy, an assumption I see no reason to grant.[/quote]

No, it is based upon the text of Scripture as found in any standard Bible in any language including Greek. John told us that Jesus said the same thing three times despite the use of different words in the extant, but non-original Greek.

That reminds me...you haven't answered my question. What is the standard Bible for English-speaking people?

This is the second time you asked the same question, shall we try for a third to make a point? The Standard Bible is not a sectarian Bible, such as the JW edition, it is not Wesley's, Darby's, Weymouth's or Verkuyl's (Berkely) no matter how well they are or are not translated. The Standard Bible is the Bible recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any given language. The AV is certainly one such Standard Bible. Sorry, if I intruded into your opportunity to ask the same question "the third time", but you no doubt caught my drift despite the intrusion.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, butall translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.

Huh.

Episiotomy

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mitex]1) I don't have a problem with anyone pointing out...[/quote]

That's an entire army of straw men you just slayed in one single post!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]False dichotomy. One can still "believe the KJV" and recognize its errors. And, one can stick to English and find error when they carefully study. For example, the aforementioned SoS passage and the Deuteronomic passage where the land had hills that you from which you could mine "brass".

To say that "one can still 'believe the KJV' and recognize its errors" is like calling Thomas Jefferson, Richard Dawkins and Bart Ehrman Bible believers. They, along with most Liberals, "believe the Bible" they just don't believe "the errors" (their opinion of errors) in the Bible. No Fundamentalist that I know of would use such vocabulary. To say that one "believes the Bible" is to imply that one believes all the books, chapters, verses and words of the Bible. To say or imply that there are "errors" in the autographs is a direct indictment of the character of the autographs and an acknowledgement that you don't believe the autographs - certainly not in their entirety. [/quote]

Implicit in your tirade is the idea that there aren't differences in these respective translations, an idea that is completely unfounded. Of course I haven't said anything about the autographs, but why not kick a straw man when he's down?

Of course, I wouldn't call myself a fundamentalist so...

[quote author=Mitex]Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, butall translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.[/quote]

You really should do more research before you post. It's not like it's my own idea and unshared by many, many others. In fact, here is a hint:

Moving up the body, you don't go from feet to legs to belly to navel to breasts to neck to head. And describing a navel as "a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine" would be odd indeed.

[quote author=Mitex]No, it is based upon the text of Scripture as found in any standard Bible in any language including Greek. John told us that Jesus said the same thing three times despite the use of different words in the extant, but non-original Greek...

...This is the second time you asked the same question, shall we try for a third to make a point? The Standard Bible is not a sectarian Bible, such as the JW edition, it is not Wesley's, Darby's, Weymouth's or Verkuyl's (Berkely) no matter how well they are or are not translated. The Standard Bible is the Bible recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any given language. The AV is certainly one such Standard Bible. Sorry, if I intruded into your opportunity to ask the same question "the third time", but you no doubt caught my drift despite the intrusion.[/quote]

And where there are differences?

 

[Mitex]

2) The Scriptures are perfect by definition - its an axiom that I believe all parties in this debate agree to.  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul... Ps 19:7.  By perfect I mean complete, excellent, sound, true in all its parts, accurate, fitting the need of every soul of man and Church of God, etc. So, yes, I object when skeptics, critics and wanna-be-scholars claim that our English Scriptures are meaningless, deficient, replete with errors, boo-boos and mistakes. As you well know, or should know, archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such...

Your definition is moving even in the same paragraph. So, what meaning does "perfect" have in 19:7?

A man-made translation can never be without an error. Hence all of the editions of the KJV

My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's your definition of "navel" in the on going thread? You are mistaken, "man-made" translations are made without error on a daily basis. This of course doesn't mean that all translations are without error, but to say, "a man-made translation can never be without an error" is definitely incorrect.

...imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original

Imperfections and blemishes in the originals? No wonder we will never see eye-to-eye on the translation issue.

There is no attack on Scripture when pointing out errors.

Having trouble with English, Admin? Have you been equivocating with the word "original" so much that you lost track where you are at?

"As you well know, or should know, archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original, has nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures."

"...such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any LANGUAGE, including the original language (implied), has nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures."

But since you brought it up, archaic words in the autographs is no proof of imperfection. The human penmanship of Peter, Paul, Jeremiah, etc. has no bearing on the perfection of the autographs no matter how sloppy they may or may not have written. Spelling and grammar structure (ALLCAPSWITHNOSPACEANDPUNCTUATIONETC) has no bearing on the perfection of the autograph. Such "imperfections and blemishes" has nothing to do with the perfection of Scripture.

 

[Mitex]

Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, butall translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.

Huh.

Episiotomy

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

 

[prophet]

Attention Barry, FSSL, admin - here is a case of obvious arrogance: An implication that not just the AV translators, butall translators throughout history failed to translate "navel" correctly for fear of the sensitivities of the reader. If it wasn't so arrogant it would be funny.  I note that a derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4. Nobody cuts your implied word.

Huh.

Episiotomy

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

Yes, the picture is an abandoned new born, thrown out in the wilderness with the placenta still attached, and the post natal goo still covering it.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Mitex]No, it is based upon the text of Scripture as found in any standard Bible in any language including Greek. John told us that Jesus said the same thing three times despite the use of different words in the extant, but non-original Greek...

...This is the second time you asked the same question, shall we try for a third to make a point? The Standard Bible is not a sectarian Bible, such as the JW edition, it is not Wesley's, Darby's, Weymouth's or Verkuyl's (Berkely) no matter how well they are or are not translated. The Standard Bible is the Bible recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any given language. The AV is certainly one such Standard Bible. Sorry, if I intruded into your opportunity to ask the same question "the third time", but you no doubt caught my drift despite the intrusion.[/quote]

And where there are differences?[/quote]

*crickets*

[quote author=Mitex]My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's you definition of "navel" in the on going thread?[/quote]

We aren't even discussing the definition of navel, but whether or not the translation of the corresponding Hebrew word should be navel. If one cannot keep the difference between definition and translation separate, they are going to have a difficult time indeed following a discussion on translation issues with the Bible.

[quote author=Mitex]But since you brought it up, archaic words in the autographs is no proof of imperfection. The human penmanship of Peter, Paul, Jeremiah, etc. has no bearing on the perfection of the autographs no matter how sloppy they may or may not have written. Spelling and grammar structure (ALLCAPSWITHNOSPACEANDPUNCTUATIONETC) has no bearing on the perfection of the autograph. Such "imperfections and blemishes" has nothing to do with the perfection of Scripture. [/quote]

More sloppy reasoning. No one is talking about Paul knocking the ink well over on the lambskin thus rendering the scroll imperfect. No one is talking about spelling errors in the original (which in many cases wouldn't even make sense since multiple spellings would still be considered acceptable). No one is talking about word selection from the original authors.

We are discussing translations of those originals and whether or not the translated words adequately and correctly convey the intended meaning of the original authors to the later audience.

 

[FSSL]

My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's you definition of "navel" in the on going thread? You are mistaken, "man-made" translations are made without error on a daily basis. This of course doesn't mean that all translations are without error, but to say, "a man-made translation can never be without an error" is definitely incorrect.

That's nice. If you believe that your NT translation is without error (or even capable of being without error), then there is nothing more that we can really discuss!

Having trouble with English, Admin? Have you been equivocating with the word "original" so much that you lost track where you are at?

Nah. I just don't accept your speculative and unique definition. I am not fascinated by an unsupported theory that gets a lot of play among liberal editorial redactors. So, the answer is "no." I understand quite clearly what "the originals" mean.

You continue to add rabbit trails and apparently you are the one having difficulty following the discussion. I never brought up the "navel" question. But since you want me to say something... The word is transliterated as "shor" and it can mean "navel/umbilical cord."

 

[Mitex]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Mitex]No, it is based upon the text of Scripture as found in any standard Bible in any language including Greek. John told us that Jesus said the same thing three times despite the use of different words in the extant, but non-original Greek...

...This is the second time you asked the same question, shall we try for a third to make a point? The Standard Bible is not a sectarian Bible, such as the JW edition, it is not Wesley's, Darby's, Weymouth's or Verkuyl's (Berkely) no matter how well they are or are not translated. The Standard Bible is the Bible recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any given language. The AV is certainly one such Standard Bible. Sorry, if I intruded into your opportunity to ask the same question "the third time", but you no doubt caught my drift despite the intrusion.

And where there are differences?[/quote]

*crickets*[/quote]
Hmm. Did I miss something? Is the question, what about the differences in Standard Bibles recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any major language group? Despite the over zealousness of wild-eyed wanna-be-scholars in love with their recently compiled Greek NT and their counterpart wild-eyed KJV English Onlyists in love with their most recently published English edition, differences do not always, nor must they, constitute error. Things different can indeed be the same. This should not be construed to mean that all things different are the same.

There are 66 different books in our Canon of the Scriptures, there 4 different Gospels giving different accounts of the same event, there are differences in the quotes and translations of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament. I'll presume you believe or at least profess to believe all 66 books of the Canon, all four Gospels and all the quotes and translations of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament even with their differences. So, what about: "And where there are differences?" I have already given you a few examples of difference and I'll repeat once again: The Apostle John told us clearly that Jesus asked the same question three times despite the different Greek words.

- note the differences the wicked one (Mt 13:19), the devil (Lk 8:12), and Satan (Mk 4:15) for one spoken word of Jesus;
- note the different words in translation of one or more words in Mk 5:41 (two original words into 6 words in translation), Mk 15:22 (one original word turns in to 6 words in translation) and Mk 15:34 (four original words are translated into 9 words in translation), etc.;
- note the different accounts of the 10 Commandments, Gospels and translations found in the New Testament of Old Testament sources.

All that with Divine approval. Why imagine that, God giving us an example of acceptable differences - different words, different word counts in translation, different jots and tittles, different ways to convey the same message - all given by the inspiration of God in the Scriptures! It's enough to make the wanna-be-scholars in love with their Greek and their KJV only counterparts in love with their English have a conniption fit. God already showed us in the Scriptures that rigid word-for-word translations and jot and tittle word counts are not required for valid, accurate and authoritative translations.

[quote author=Mitex]My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's you definition of "navel" in the on going thread?

We aren't even discussing the definition of navel, but whether or not the translation of the corresponding Hebrew word should be navel. If one cannot keep the difference between definition and translation separate, they are going to have a difficult time indeed following a discussion on translation issues with the Bible. [/quote]
If you are sincerely worried about "following the discussion" then why the patch work of quotes in your most recent post? My question wasn't even directed to you, so, keep with the program sunshine! I showed you that the derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4 and noted that nobody cuts the vagina of a newborn girl. You insist that the Hebrew word means "vagina" (implied, but never stated, apparently you were too squeamish to come right out with it). I've yet to see any translation in any language that gives your translation. In fact, I've yet to see a commentary that gives your definition of the word. I did a quick Google search looking for commentaries that I don't have dealing with this passage and came up with an internet article accusing Osama Abdallah of propagating this idea of yours - http://answer-islam.org/pedophilia_rebuttal.html, but didn't find any commentaries. All we have up to this point from you is your assertion that every translator in history was too squeamish and erred in the translation So. 7:2. Perhaps now we know the source of the crickets you've been hearing!

[quote author=Mitex]But since you brought it up, archaic words in the autographs is no proof of imperfection. The human penmanship of Peter, Paul, Jeremiah, etc. has no bearing on the perfection of the autographs no matter how sloppy they may or may not have written. Spelling and grammar structure (ALLCAPSWITHNOSPACEANDPUNCTUATIONETC) has no bearing on the perfection of the autograph. Such "imperfections and blemishes" has nothing to do with the perfection of Scripture.

More sloppy reasoning. No one is talking about Paul knocking the ink well over on the lambskin thus rendering the scroll imperfect. No one is talking about spelling errors in the original (which in many cases wouldn't even make sense since multiple spellings would still be considered acceptable). No one is talking about word selection from the original authors.

We are discussing translations of those originals and whether or not the translated words adequately and correctly convey the intended meaning of the original authors to the later audience.
[/quote]

Barry, I mean Admin, no I mean FSSL, oh, what's the worry it's the same person, made some accusations to which I responded. My reasoning was neither sloppy nor out of place, it was in fact right on. Updating archaic words is not proof of imperfection. Updating syntax and grammar is not proof of imperfection in the source document. Using multiple words to translate one word is not proof of imperfection, nor is using one word in the target language to translate multiple words in the source language proof of error. Would you like a hanky to clean the egg off of your face?

First off there are no extant direct translations or even copies of "the originals". The originals being in this case the autographs. I say that for equivocator Barry's sake. All extant original language compilations have every weakness that you allege translations have - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men. Standard translations of the Holy Scriptures most certainly "adequately and correctly convey the intended meaning of the original authors to the later audience". If not, what's all this gas from anti-KJVoists, wanna-be-scholars, etc. telling us that the very meanest of translations are adequate and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? Insisting to us that nothing of value is lost in the very meanest of translations?  If you weren't around for all that hot air you missed a real wind storm, let me tell you!

Now, do you have the originals - the autographs? That's what I thought. Do you have the original source documents from which the AV translators translated from? That's what I thought. Having neither you are in no position to accuse the AV translators of translating incorrectly. It is simply arrogance on your part. I note for the Gentle Reader's sake, that you don't reserve you criticisms just for the AV translators, but with all the humility of the chief accuser of the brethren you accuse every translator that has ever lived of error. I call that arrogance of the chiefest sort.

As an English teacher I'm sometimes called upon to evaluate the translation work of my students. It inevitably happens that some of my students will bring me their translation, but fail to give me their source document. I can look at their translation and make a valid determination of general syntax, punctuation and other English grammatical structures of their paper, what I cannot rightfully do is determine if they translated correctly - not without the source document from which they translated.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

 

[FSSL]

The originals being in this case the autographs. I say that for equivocator Barry's sake. All extant original language compilations have every weakness that you allege translations have - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men.

Oh! Really?! You know this, how? Do you now know Greek? Hebrew? "ALL" of the extant mss have errors and weaknesses? Do you really want to go there?

You have gone on record to say you do not undermine any translation... but all you do is undermine the idea of "originals" and make up some crazy notion that they cannot rightly be considered original because, maybe the original conversation was not in Greek.

RSC2A nailed it... you are sloppy. You cannot keep on point.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Mitex]No, it is based upon the text of Scripture as found in any standard Bible in any language including Greek. John told us that Jesus said the same thing three times despite the use of different words in the extant, but non-original Greek...

...This is the second time you asked the same question, shall we try for a third to make a point? The Standard Bible is not a sectarian Bible, such as the JW edition, it is not Wesley's, Darby's, Weymouth's or Verkuyl's (Berkely) no matter how well they are or are not translated. The Standard Bible is the Bible recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any given language. The AV is certainly one such Standard Bible. Sorry, if I intruded into your opportunity to ask the same question "the third time", but you no doubt caught my drift despite the intrusion.

And where there are differences?

*crickets*[/quote]
Hmm. Did I miss something? Is the question, what about the differences in Standard Bibles recognized as such by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians in any major language group? Despite the over zealousness of wild-eyed wanna-be-scholars in love with their recently compiled Greek NT and their counterpart wild-eyed KJV English Onlyists in love with their most recently published English edition, differences do not always, nor must they, constitute error. Things different can indeed be the same. This should not be construed to mean that all things different are the same.[/quote]

You have a very unfortunate translation of one of the ten commandments(!) in the KJV. This is corrected in later translations.

If you read the KJV, you'll find where you could mine "brass" out of the hills. Newer translations correctly state that you could mine "copper" out of the hills. Now I'm not metallurgist, but I know that brass and copper are different things.

Acts refers to "Easter" in one passage where the later translations correctly refer to this as Passover. In spite of their shared dates on the calendar, these are not the same observances. Again....different things in different translations.

Of course, this doesn't even address the wording in the KJV where the same words mean completely different things in modern English.

(Of course, this isn't to say that the newer translations are without error either.)

[quote author=Mitex]There are 66 different books in our Canon of the Scriptures, there 4 different Gospels giving different accounts of the same event, there are differences in the quotes and translations of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament. I'll presume you believe or at least profess to believe all 66 books of the Canon, all four Gospels and all the quotes and translations of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament even with their differences.[/quote]

My suspicion is that you and I define inerrancy in completely different ways, likely resulting from completely different views on appropriate hermeneutical approaches to Scripture.

[quote author=Mitex]So, what about: "And where there are differences?" I have already given you a few examples of difference and I'll repeat once again: The Apostle John told us clearly that Jesus asked the same question three times despite the different Greek words....

All that with Divine approval. Why imagine that, God giving us an example of acceptable differences - different words, different word counts in translation, different jots and tittles, different ways to convey the same message - all given by the inspiration of God in the Scriptures...[/quote]

"Different words" can mean two things: "different words that have the same meaning" or "different words that have differing meanings". Both are present in the various translations. The first category: who cares? The second category: you seem to deny these exist which is nothing more than willful ignorance.

[quote author=Mitex]

[quote author=Mitex]My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's you definition of "navel" in the on going thread?

We aren't even discussing the definition of navel, but whether or not the translation of the corresponding Hebrew word should be navel. If one cannot keep the difference between definition and translation separate, they are going to have a difficult time indeed following a discussion on translation issues with the Bible. [/quote]
If you are sincerely worried about "following the discussion" then why the patch work of quotes in your most recent post? My question wasn't even directed to you, so, keep with the program sunshine! I showed you that the derivative (or vice versa) of the underlying Hebrew word is רשׁ (shorshore) as in "... in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut," Ez 16:4 and noted that nobody cuts the vagina of a newborn girl. You insist that the Hebrew word means "vagina" (implied, but never stated, apparently you were too squeamish to come right out with it).[/quote]

Care to tell me the definition of "novel" again? And you completely avoided the points I made. Let me repeat them:

Moving up the body, you don't go from feet to legs to belly to navel to breasts to neck to head. And describing a navel as "a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine" would be odd indeed.

Maybe you would explain why the author of SoS is being completely illogical at this point?

[quote author=Mitex]I've yet to see any translation in any language that gives your translation....[/quote]

Yes. I believe I made that point. And it is deliberate on the part of the translators, no less!

[quote author=Mitex]In fact, I've yet to see a commentary that gives your definition of the word. I did a quick Google search looking for commentaries that I don't have dealing with this passage and came up with an internet article accusing Osama Abdallah of propagating this idea of yours - http://answer-islam.org/pedophilia_rebuttal.html, but didn't find any commentaries.[/quote]

Then you really should hone your research abilities.

[quote author=Mitex]All we have up to this point from you is your assertion that every translator in history was too squeamish and erred in the translation So. 7:2. Perhaps now we know the source of the crickets you've been hearing...

... I note for the Gentle Reader's sake, that you don't reserve you criticisms just for the AV translators, but with all the humility of the chief accuser of the brethren you accuse every translator that has ever lived of error. I call that arrogance of the chiefest sort. [/quote]

I never said they erred. I said they deliberately mistranslated. There is a world of difference in those two.

[quote author=Mitex]Updating syntax and grammar is not proof of imperfection in the source document. Using multiple words to translate one word is not proof of imperfection, nor is using one word in the target language to translate multiple words in the source language proof of error. Would you like an hanky to clean the egg off of your face?[/quote]

You again appear to be confusing the ideas of different words that have the same meaning and different words that have different meanings.

[quote author=Mitex]Now, do you have the originals - the autographs? That's what I thought. Do you have the original source documents from which the AV translators translated from? That's what I thought. Having neither you are in no position to accuse the AV translators of translating incorrectly. It is simply arrogance on your part...

...what I cannot rightfully do is determine if they translated correctly - not without the source document from which they translated.[/quote]

Of course you could always go with the ridiculous notion that all the translations are the same and that differences don't exist when differences are easily found by someone doing the smallest amount of comparison.

 

[Mitex]

My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's you definition of "navel" in the on going thread? You are mistaken, "man-made" translations are made without error on a daily basis. This of course doesn't mean that all translations are without error, but to say, "a man-made translation can never be without an error" is definitely incorrect.

That's nice. If you believe that your NT translation is without error (or even capable of being without error), then there is nothing more that we can really discuss!

You didn't address the question nor the points being made. Do you have a different definition of perfect than the one I gave above? FSSL, you really should take a breath before you answer. You falsely implicated me in your first post and then fail to acknowledge the points that I made and now come up with: "...or even capable of being without error" right after quoting me as saying, This of course doesn't mean that all translations are without error, but to say, 'a man-made translation can never be without an error' is definitely incorrect." I believe the Scriptures in whatever language they are found are without error. From what I gather you believe only the originals (the originals being sometimes autographs, sometimes Greek & Hebrew mss, and sometimes recently compiled Greek editions in your world of equivocation) are perfect - all other copies or translations put together by fallible men are and must be imperfect. You apparently side with those who claim that translating two different source words with one word in the target language is proof of error - I don't and get weary of these false accusations of error. It is simply ignorance and in the present case arrogance of the accusers to assume that all the translators got it wrong, but they got it right.

Having trouble with English, Admin? Have you been equivocating with the word "original" so much that you lost track where you are at?

Nah. I just don't accept your speculative and unique definition. I am not fascinated by an unsupported theory that gets a lot of play among liberal editorial redactors. So, the answer is "no." I understand quite clearly what "the originals" mean.

You clever fox you! I didn't say, "the originals"; I said "including the original: "As you well know, or should know, archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original, has nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures." In the context of this sentence it is clearly a reference to "the original languages" and not as you falsely accused "the original autographs."

So, you clearly know the meaning of "the originals"?  Are only the originals perfect? Did the AV translators translate the originals? If the AV translators translated the originals what were the NIV translators translating from?  The same originals? If so, it appears they missed some parts.

You continue to add rabbit trails and apparently you are the one having difficulty following the discussion. I never brought up the "navel" question. But since you want me to say something... The word is transliterated as "shor" and it can mean "navel/umbilical cord."

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to chase a rabbit trail in our current discussion. Excuse me if I impose once more upon your precious time, but you having studied the original languages, Hebrew in particular, would you mind informing us English speaking readers if you believe the transliterated word "shor" can ever mean, shh(!) vagina, in the Scriptures? More specifically do you believe that all the translators in history were in error for translating the Hebrew word represented by the transliterated word shor as "navel" or "umbilical cord"? Behold, I have taken upon me to ask you once again, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, is it not arrogance of the worst sort to accuse every translator in history of error on this particular point?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=FSSL]You continue to add rabbit trails and apparently you are the one having difficulty following the discussion. I never brought up the "navel" question. But since you want me to say something... The word is transliterated as "shor" and it can mean "navel/umbilical cord."[/quote]

http://books.google.com/books?id=BqsR48TdPqIC&pg=PA234#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[bgwilkinson]

My definitions don't move. I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one? By the way, what's you definition of "navel" in the on going thread? You are mistaken, "man-made" translations are made without error on a daily basis. This of course doesn't mean that all translations are without error, but to say, "a man-made translation can never be without an error" is definitely incorrect.

That's nice. If you believe that your NT translation is without error (or even capable of being without error), then there is nothing more that we can really discuss!

Having trouble with English, Admin? Have you been equivocating with the word "original" so much that you lost track where you are at?

Nah. I just don't accept your speculative and unique definition. I am not fascinated by an unsupported theory that gets a lot of play among liberal editorial redactors. So, the answer is "no." I understand quite clearly what "the originals" mean.

You continue to add rabbit trails and apparently you are the one having difficulty following the discussion. I never brought up the "navel" question. But since you want me to say something... The word is transliterated as "shor" and it can mean "navel/umbilical cord."

There are those who drive by with whom it is fruitlessly painful to engage in their blatantly devious deception and illogical flights of fantasy. I have a headache after trying to follow the rabbits.

Those who are always moving the goal posts can not be convinced or moved in their opinion.
One who uses exclusively private word definitions should only interact with himself.
I doubt if such a one even thinks with understanding.
Their minds are like cured concrete thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

Anyone that claims to be able to interpret the Scriptures without a knowledge and working understanding of the original languages or Golden Pipes (common definition is meant) is not in agreement with the translators of our Common English Bible. Miles Smith referred to the Golden Pipes, by which he meant the original languages.

It is ridiculous in the extreme to claim to be a Bible translator and not use Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the original sources for your translation.

The Douay-Rheims would be more to the liking of some, I would think, as it was translated not from the Golden Pipes, but from the Vulgate.

 

[Mitex]

The originals being in this case the autographs. I say that for equivocator Barry's sake. All extant original language compilations have every weakness that you allege translations have - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men.

Oh! Really?! You know this, how? Do you now know Greek? Hebrew? "ALL" of the extant mss have errors and weaknesses? Do you really want to go there?

You have gone on record to say you do not undermine any translation... but all you do is undermine the idea of "originals" and make up some crazy notion that they cannot rightly be considered original because, maybe the original conversation was not in Greek.

Barry, it really gets wearisome correcting your misguided accusations. I didn't say, "'ALL' of the extant mss have errors and weaknesses" as you falsely state, why you even quoted my exact words and then turned around and twisted what I said.  I said, "All extant original language compilations have every weakness that you allege translations have - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men." I defined the weaknesses - they were put together by the interpretations of fallible men. You presume that anything "fallible men" do must have "errors" in them, I don't.

As for your latter tirade, I originally said, that the original (the autograph, the extant mss and extant Greek NT's in this case) is most likely a translation itself. I further stated and pointed out, which you conveniently ignored, that translations of the same conversation can be translated differently (with different words) and those different translations can both be correct - without error. I also stated and repeat again, (the third time?), that valid and accurate translations can use one word in the target language for multiple source words in the original (original being in this case the source document from which the translation came from) or multiple words in the target language for one word in the source language. You neither acknowledge this point nor refute it. Instead you blather on about non-essentials.

If you can't keep up, get out of the race!

 

[Ransom]

Thank you for that reminder. My point was that no newborn child has their vagina cut even if the mother had an episiotomy. The "navel" being cut in this context is not the mother's, but the child's.

Is it your contention that if a word is used literally in one place, then it can't be used as a euphemism in another?  If so, where did you learn this rule?