Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?

Y

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
En Hakkore said:
Bracketing out ideas about inspiration, which are not directly related to text-critical analyses, we can agree that the writings now collected under the banner of the "Old Testament" by Christians were predominantly composed in Hebrew with a few sections in Aramaic. We have no access to these original compositions, however, only to much later text and manuscript traditions... among these is the LXX, which is a collection of ancient translations of these texts into and a few new compositions in Greek. While there is evidence that some of the differences owe to the translators themselves, in many cases they reflect a sound translation of a variant Hebrew text. In other words, in the Second Temple period -- which is as far back as the oldest manuscripts found at Qumran take us -- there were several different forms of the Hebrew text in circulation. This fact should not be surprising since we find the text of the Greek New Testament is in a similar state of plurality... the difference is in the extent of these variances -- there are far more and significant ones within the Hebrew Bible than the New Testament. Since the former is a much longer text and has been copied over many more centuries, this fact should not be surprising either. One should not and, indeed, cannot assume that what became the dominant form of the Hebrew text (MT) represents the earliest recoverable form of these writings. As I laid out in the post to which you responded, LXX is at times a valuable witness to recovering this form...

Since there are now three of us expressing interest in these matters and none of us are KJV Onlyists, I do recommend we take discussion to a more appropriate forum... others are, of course, welcome to join us.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Click to expand...
What would be an appropriate place here?
 
Y

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
praise_yeshua said:
Tell me how infallible differs? Surely infallible pertains to the orginals as well.
Click to expand...
Original books recorded down had no errors nor mistakes in them, but the greek texts and hebrew texts in use today not 100 % of the originals but very close! No English translation is perfect and error free!
 
P

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
En Hakkore said:
I was thinking "Bible Questions and Discussion". In any case, if there are no objections, I could start things off since it was my suggestion to focus discussion elsewhere with a thread this evening when I get back from work...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me.
 
P

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
YeshuaFan said:
Original books recorded down had no errors nor mistakes in them, but the greek texts and hebrew texts in use today not 100 % of the originals but very close! No English translation is perfect and error free!
Click to expand...

Then how does infallible apply? You're talking around the issue. Most all do.
 
P

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
YeshuaFan said:
Infallibilty is in the translations, as while not inspired nor perfect, are an accurate representation of the word of the Lord to us!
Click to expand...

Have you looked up the English definition of the word infallible lately? The Oxford dictionary says...

"incapable of making mistakes or being wrong."

Yet you admitted that translations that have been made of the Bible have mistakes. Do you see the disconnect?

When you apply infallibility to translations, you're not accurately representing what infallibility means.

If there is any hope of reaching this modern age for Jesus, we need to stop making mistakes like this and be honest with the information. There is more knowledge now than in many previous generations of man on this earth. When people here such things, they immediately dismiss us as "crazy" loons.

When someone ask me about such things, I try to be accurate with what I say. I ask they very specifically what they're talking about and where they're searching the Scriptures. If there is an issue, I tell them where the issue is.... and it is never with God. It is always with man. That give me plenty of opportunity to talk about how weak and feeble we are. How we need EVERYTHING from God.

There is no advantage to hiding behind empty rhetoric.
 
Y

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
praise_yeshua said:
Have you looked up the English definition of the word infallible lately? The Oxford dictionary says...

"incapable of making mistakes or being wrong."

Yet you admitted that translations that have been made of the Bible have mistakes. Do you see the disconnect?

When you apply infallibility to translations, you're not accurately representing what infallibility means.

If there is any hope of reaching this modern age for Jesus, we need to stop making mistakes like this and be honest with the information. There is more knowledge now than in many previous generations of man on this earth. When people here such things, they immediately dismiss us as "crazy" loons.

When someone ask me about such things, I try to be accurate with what I say. I ask they very specifically what they're talking about and where they're searching the Scriptures. If there is an issue, I tell them where the issue is.... and it is never with God. It is always with man. That give me plenty of opportunity to talk about how weak and feeble we are. How we need EVERYTHING from God.

There is no advantage to hiding behind empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...
The translations that we have that are legit available to us today are not perfect, as in exact copies of the originals, but the doctrines and practices that they give to us are from and of God!
 
P

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
YeshuaFan said:
The translations that we have that are legit available to us today are not perfect, as in exact copies of the originals, but the doctrines and practices that they give to us are from and of God!
Click to expand...

Every good and perfect gift comes from above. This is MORE than what you're including in your view of infallibility of translations.

The KJV taught a false doctrine and practice in Hebrews 13. It is very clearly a mistake. In your view, is the KJV infallible as a whole?

I can't see anyone saying that it is. In part, certainly.

Do we really make such distinctions in these conversation? I don't believe we do. We should.... but seldom does it happen. Most hide behind the usual rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top