Detour, Part 4 - Comparing Translations to Established Christian Doctrines
Rhetoric is the art of communication. Or more precisely...
Author of The Trivium -- The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric
Rhetoric, therefore, is the art of using language effectively. Every word has specific purpose, specific placement, and specific meaning in context of the whole of a sentence, the whole of a paragraph, the whole of a composition. No word is ever used frivolously.
Scripture follows this pattern beautifully. Often repetitive, but repetitive for clarity's sake, no line of scripture is frivolous... God isn't in the habit of being overly talkative; He says what needs saying, says what He means, and means what He says. In other words, "Every word in every verse has purpose."
This is certainly true of the Textus Receptus, in the original language. But if the Gospel is to be preached unto all the world, translation is required. After all, forcing aboriginals to learn Greek prior to evangelizing them would not only be unreasonable, but ridiculously cumbersome as well.
Translation, therefore is critical to the spreading of the Gospel. There is always something lost in translation from one language to another; be it nuance, native colloquialism, or cultural understanding. The same can be said for any bible translated from Greek, whatever the origin of the original text. The real question is whether or not the doctrines contained within the translation are watered down, or removed altogether.
So, is the King James version a perfect translation of the original Greek? A better question would be, "Is the King James version the best English translation of the original Greek?" And to that question I say yes. Absolutely!
And here's why.
Contained within the Apostles Creed [a colossal misnomer, btw] are the core doctrines of Christian Faith.
...Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
...He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.
...He suffered under Pontius Pilate.
...He was crucified. He died, and was Buried.
...He descended into Hell, and rose to life on the third day.
...He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God.
...And will return to judge the living and the dead.
In this creed we have the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and His second coming. Also important, though not contained within the Creed, is the Blood Atonement-- without this there is no forgiveness of sin.
As to the Deity of Christ...
Timothy 3:16
From the King James:
From the New American Standard Version:
From the New International Version:
From the Contemporary English Version:
After the King James Version, the common thread running through each of the texts that follow is the absence of "God was manifest in the flesh." A couple of these strange versions come with footnotes that say, "some manuscripts say....," but this is hardly a qualified statement of Christ's deity; footnotes do not carry the same weight as the text to which said footnotes are ascribed. By saying, "Some manuscripts say..." the authors, essentially, admit they believe otherwise. If these authors believed the verse should have said "God was manifest in the flesh" they would have included it.
Romans 14:10, 12
From the King James Version:
From the New American Standard Version:
From the New International Version:
From the Contemporary English Version:
On the surface, nothing here is wrong with any of these translations... We will all stand before the judgment seat of God to give account of ourselves. The problem lies, as with the first example, in the systematic failure of these other versions to identify the judgment seat as belonging to Christ Jesus... Who IS God. Christ Jesus is therefore robbed by these newer translations of His deity... His identity as God in human flesh.
Acts 20:28
From the King James Version:
From the Revised Standard Version:
Here, the RSV distinguishes between Christ and God as two separate entities, proving nothing in regard to Christ's deity. How can anyone reading the RSV take from this verse the knowledge, and understanding that Jesus is God? Logically, they can't. And again, footnotes don't count; if it's not in the body of their text, the authors do not believe it should be there.
I challenge anyone to compare their favorite translation to the King James and deliberately seek out differences. Not every verse in your favored version will disagree with the King James, but you have to ask yourself, how much difference is allowable before the whole of your "favored version" is deemed corrupt?
Some will accuse me of splitting hares/hairs, but I remind them all that God does not mince words. He speaks so that His voice and meaning are evidently and abundantly clear. He is the master of rhetoric, and nothing... not one jot or tittle... is ever superfluous. Not knowing which version to trust may seem confusing, but let me remind you, "...God is not the author of confusion..." 1 Cor 14:33
Next:
In Preparation for Detour, Part 5 - Exhibit A
Previously:
Interlude No.1
Detour, Part 3 - Manuscripts, Translations, and "Why the KJV?"
Detour, Part 2 - The Nature and Limits of God... and why this is important
Detour, Parenthetical - "What Will Shortly Follow"
Detour, Part 1 - "Preamble"
Warning: Detour Ahead
"Rhetoric is the master art of the Trivium, for it presupposes and makes use of grammar and logic; it is the art of communicating through symbols ideas about reality... rhetoric aims for effectiveness rather than correctness, it deals not only with the paragraph and the whole composition but also with the word and the sentence, for it prescribes that diction be clear and appropriate and that sentences be varied in structure and rhythm."Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.S., Ph.D.
Author of The Trivium -- The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric
Rhetoric, therefore, is the art of using language effectively. Every word has specific purpose, specific placement, and specific meaning in context of the whole of a sentence, the whole of a paragraph, the whole of a composition. No word is ever used frivolously.
Scripture follows this pattern beautifully. Often repetitive, but repetitive for clarity's sake, no line of scripture is frivolous... God isn't in the habit of being overly talkative; He says what needs saying, says what He means, and means what He says. In other words, "Every word in every verse has purpose."
This is certainly true of the Textus Receptus, in the original language. But if the Gospel is to be preached unto all the world, translation is required. After all, forcing aboriginals to learn Greek prior to evangelizing them would not only be unreasonable, but ridiculously cumbersome as well.
Translation, therefore is critical to the spreading of the Gospel. There is always something lost in translation from one language to another; be it nuance, native colloquialism, or cultural understanding. The same can be said for any bible translated from Greek, whatever the origin of the original text. The real question is whether or not the doctrines contained within the translation are watered down, or removed altogether.
So, is the King James version a perfect translation of the original Greek? A better question would be, "Is the King James version the best English translation of the original Greek?" And to that question I say yes. Absolutely!
And here's why.
Contained within the Apostles Creed [a colossal misnomer, btw] are the core doctrines of Christian Faith.
...Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
...He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.
...He suffered under Pontius Pilate.
...He was crucified. He died, and was Buried.
...He descended into Hell, and rose to life on the third day.
...He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God.
...And will return to judge the living and the dead.
In this creed we have the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and His second coming. Also important, though not contained within the Creed, is the Blood Atonement-- without this there is no forgiveness of sin.
As to the Deity of Christ...
Timothy 3:16
From the King James:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
From the New American Standard Version:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
From the New International Version:
"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."
From the Contemporary English Version:
"Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human. The Spirit proved that he pleased God, and he was seen by angels. Christ was preached to the nations. People in this world put their faith in him, and he was taken up to glory."
After the King James Version, the common thread running through each of the texts that follow is the absence of "God was manifest in the flesh." A couple of these strange versions come with footnotes that say, "some manuscripts say....," but this is hardly a qualified statement of Christ's deity; footnotes do not carry the same weight as the text to which said footnotes are ascribed. By saying, "Some manuscripts say..." the authors, essentially, admit they believe otherwise. If these authors believed the verse should have said "God was manifest in the flesh" they would have included it.
Romans 14:10, 12
From the King James Version:
"...For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ... So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
From the New American Standard Version:
"...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God... So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God."
From the New International Version:
"...For we will all stand before God's judgment seat... So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God."
From the Contemporary English Version:
"...The day is coming when God will judge all of us... And so, each of us must give an account to God for what we do."
On the surface, nothing here is wrong with any of these translations... We will all stand before the judgment seat of God to give account of ourselves. The problem lies, as with the first example, in the systematic failure of these other versions to identify the judgment seat as belonging to Christ Jesus... Who IS God. Christ Jesus is therefore robbed by these newer translations of His deity... His identity as God in human flesh.
Acts 20:28
From the King James Version:
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
From the Revised Standard Version:
"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son."
Here, the RSV distinguishes between Christ and God as two separate entities, proving nothing in regard to Christ's deity. How can anyone reading the RSV take from this verse the knowledge, and understanding that Jesus is God? Logically, they can't. And again, footnotes don't count; if it's not in the body of their text, the authors do not believe it should be there.
I challenge anyone to compare their favorite translation to the King James and deliberately seek out differences. Not every verse in your favored version will disagree with the King James, but you have to ask yourself, how much difference is allowable before the whole of your "favored version" is deemed corrupt?
Some will accuse me of splitting hares/hairs, but I remind them all that God does not mince words. He speaks so that His voice and meaning are evidently and abundantly clear. He is the master of rhetoric, and nothing... not one jot or tittle... is ever superfluous. Not knowing which version to trust may seem confusing, but let me remind you, "...God is not the author of confusion..." 1 Cor 14:33
Next:
In Preparation for Detour, Part 5 - Exhibit A
Previously:
Interlude No.1
Detour, Part 3 - Manuscripts, Translations, and "Why the KJV?"
Detour, Part 2 - The Nature and Limits of God... and why this is important
Detour, Parenthetical - "What Will Shortly Follow"
Detour, Part 1 - "Preamble"
Warning: Detour Ahead
from the mind of... Eric | 12:48 AM
23 Comments:
But how do you deal with the fact that the translators working for King James were not unbised? They *were* believers, and not only that, they were believers working for a king who was head of the Church of England, as the Reformation was going on around him.
In other words, the doctrines were firmly established, and the translators adhered to them, so *of course* they translated the Greek to fit their own preconceptions.
I agree with you that the KJV has the most exquisite language, and that it probably does adhere to the old, established doctrines more closely tnan newer trasnlations.
But to say that is evidence of the KJV's veracity is to put the cart before the horse, isn't it?
I wonder if any of Erasmus's translations are in print. ...
In other words, what you're saying is the King James translators exercised no faithfulness, or honesty in translating the greek texts?
How do you deal with the fact that the translators of every modern translation are not unbiased?
I say, the proof is in the pudding. Today's modern translations butcher Christian doctrine. The King James does not. Furthermore, the text of the KJV is public domain... no one holds a copyright* on it. The same cannot be said for the NIV, RSV, etc., etc.
As to Erasmus, he enjoyed a wide range of notoriety and acceptance; favored in one era, banned in another, especially by the catholic church under Paul IV (1555-1559), and Pius IV (1559-1565). That in itself means nothing as Erasmus, despite his acceptance of the Catholic faith to the very end, was a staunch critic of the Church. He believed that faith in the atonement of Christ, and not in the sacraments and rituals of the church, are the only guarantee of eternal life. In this he and I are in complete agreement.
I do find it curious that you haven't questioned my conclusions... only the integrity of the translators.
Despite the Oxymoron your handle implies, you are not-- intellectually speaking --what I would consider a redneck... I'm surrounded by them, so I oughta know. Thanks for your comment.
----
*Many (if not all) publishers DO copyright their footnotes, format, and additional materials. But write a letter to the publisher of, say, the Scofield Edition of the King James Bible (as a friend of mine once did), and they will tell you, "we do not hold the copyright for the text of the King James Bible."
Simply put... if I wanted to compile my own edition of the King James Bible, I could. But why bother? My local Christian book store will sell me one, though reluctantly... but that's another story.
What? I guess I didn't really see any conclusions, at least in the classically logical sense.
Besides that, we probably do, you and I, come to the same one or two -- or maybe just one -- conclusiion that makes us both Christians.
The Gospel is the message found *in* Scripture. I've given up worrying about jots and tittles. God is bigger than that -- and he's bigger than the God depicted in the Bible, actually, in some ways.
Come on! Six days of creation? I'd rather ponder a God who sepnt billions of year tinkering -- or watching his creation evolve -- than cram Him in a little box labeled "Biblically Inerrant" or "Literal." Pshaw. :-)
As far as my redneck pedigree: I consider it an ethnic label, not something one "acts" like, and certainly not the joke that Foxworthy has made it (although he makes me laugh).
Oh, what I'm saying is the KJV translators exercised honesty to the faith they had been handed by those who came before them. But that is not necesarrily intellectual, or even spiritual, "honesty."
They spun the Greek text as they saw it, and wanted to see it. God's hand was in it, I think, in the sense that they were trying real hard to explain the truth -- and their incredible and wonderful encounter with God -- as best they could, in light of the opposition they faced.
Ergo, inspired, clearly. Holy, absolutely. Inerrant, no.
And it's idolatry, in my view, to expect the Bible, as we know it today, to be anything other than a guide, along with tradition and one's own discernment, to the truth.
It's hard in some ways, this faith we've received. More energy should be spent on knees, not buried in arguments over texts.
The point remains: It has never been up to man to preserve God's word.
El, your point about the differences in the versions (KJV vs Modern) is valid. It's interesting that Christ and his blood seem to be ommitted or watered down in the modern versions as you note in your post.
Sometimes "jots and tittles" mean much.
"Come on! Six days of creation? I'd rather ponder a God who sepnt billions of year tinkering -- or watching his creation evolve -- than cram Him in a little box labeled "Biblically Inerrant" or "Literal." Pshaw. :-)"-ER
Faith seems to have eluded you, dude!
"God is BIGGER" than he is "depicted" in the Bible? Do you KNOW Christ? Or do you just believe in a god who fits into YOUR broad box?
EL-"says what he means and means what he says". With this truth in mind, my God fits very comfortably into the "box" the Word of God provides.
It's a matter of where one put's his/her faith. Do you have faith in man's flawed wisdom? Do you have faith in God's perfect wisdom?
Er...ummm...do you have faith at all?
I have only one personal rule in these kinds of discussions:
Thou shalt *not* doubt or directly challenge my personal faith.
Re, "Do you KNOW Christ? Or do you just believe in a god who fits into YOUR broad box?"
How dare you. What part of "don't judge" do you not understand? How presumptious. Stop.
Feel free to engage my arguments and assertions. I am a Christian because God has saved me through Jesus.
ALL you or anyone has to go on is my profession of faith. In Jesus. Every single word and comma of the 66 pieces of writing we call "the Bible," packed together 1,700 years ago by bishops and pilitcal leaders each with his own personal and political agenda, not so much.
I take the Bible seriously. I do not take all of it literally.
"I take the Bible seriously. I do not take all of it literally."-Redneck
Too bad!
I'm not judging you. I asked a simple question that seemed appropriate due to my analysis of your own statements. If you do not wish to be judged on your statements, don't make them.
We make judgements in every action we take. When you engage in a conversation about faith and exhibit the lack thereof, you should expect someone to call you on it.
Aren't you being "judgemental" to those who penned the translations? Can't you give them the benefit of the doubt? No, you can't. With God, there is no doubt. The same God who CREATED the universe and all things therein, is perfectly able to preserve His Word for all generations.
It is very much a matter of faith. You exhibit your lack of faith in your insistence that God doesn't have the ability to preserve His Word through man. You take it "seriously but not literally". I wonder if you would say the same about evolution theory.
It is a matter of faith that I believe that the KJV is that preserved Word.
If I offended you, it was unintentional. You asked a question in your first response to EL's post, I answered it in my own way.
Peace...
let's play nice. ER and I have differences in opinion, but as long as those differences don't touch upon the Deity of Christ, His Virgin Birth, His Atoning Blood Sacrifice, His Suffering and Death upon the Cross, His Descent into Hell, His Resurrection, His Ascension into Heaven where He sits at the right hand of God, and His Soon Return, we're quibbling over points of law/grace/doctrine... like Pharisees.
I do not object to any of those. I do not insist that all who follow Jesus adhere to each and every one of them, however.
Please come to the discussion that this post, and a comment on another one, sparked at my place today.
http://eruditeredneck.blogspot.com
Which Ozarks are you in, d.elrod? I was raised in the Oklahoma Ozarks, myself.
The foothills!
Izard County, Arkansas is my home and the home of my ancestors. I am and shall always be a....hillbilly.
Redneck is GOOD!
I have family buried in Prescott, just north of Hope. I spent the summer of 1979 stringing television cable in Hope and every hedge and highway in and about.
I don't have much of anything nice to say about Hope OR Prescott. But the bit of Arkansas I actually got to see was quite beautiful.
Depending on which is geographically farther west, Corpus Cristi or Texarkana/Hope/Prescott, that's as far west as this Florida Boy's ever been.
Eastward's a different story altogether... I've been further than Tripoli and/or Magnus Leptus.
Arguing that one translation of the Bible is better than another is akin to fighting it out over which color tie to wear on Sunday morning.
Calling a fellow believer's faith into question over interpretation of the biblical creation story is to stare so hard at the text that you miss its message.
I respectfully disagree. Which translation one chooses is of far greater importance than which tie one should wear. Most translations trash the truth, few actually cling to it.
Besides which, if it were such a trivial issue why would God have bothered to compel John to pen Revelation 22:18-19?
But then it's a matter of faith. I don't attack anyone for choosing the NIV, I simply try to point out why it's inferior... doctrinally speaking. As to, say, The Living Bible, it's not a bible at all... it's a paraphrase; it's the Bible in the authors own words. It doesn't cut, it doesn't heal, it isn't the truth.
I am a hillbilly-American, myself. :-) Sequoyah County, Okla.
EL,
Revelation 22:18-19 is certainly not a warning against translating the Bible into more understandable language.
The issue you raise is unrelated to faith. Faith is whether you see value in reading the Bible at all; not which translation you choose.
The ancient writers of the law were strict holders-on and guardians of doctrine. In fact, Jesus said they would cross the ocean to win a new convert, only to load them down with with more laws, making them twice the "son of hell" than they are. (Matthew 23).
According to the weight you are placing on doctrinal nuances, the scribes should have been in the best position, eternally speaking.
It is Jesus who saves, and the Holy Sprit who guides -- not our careful adherance to every doctrinal "jot and tittle."
Bo,
Your profile says you are a 13-year-old boy who loves to play video games. So what are you doing filling out resumes and the "ethnicity" section of job applications?
When I was your age, I knew nothing but the King James Version. I still prefer it for some of the most familiar passages. These days, I also read the NIV and some of the other best known translations.
Bo, no Bible that I am aware of "negates the blood or diety of Jesus Christ." If you any doubt about this, check it out yourself or ask an adult.
We must play nice or not play at all...
Question: GP,
In regard to your previous comment, have you gleaned nothing from the body of this post and it's examples? There ARE versions-- translations, if you will --that destroy the doctrines of Blood Atonement, and Jesus' Deity. The evidence of this is as plain as the words and language the translators used in the verses I listed, and many many more I did not.
Jesus, every time he preached, held to doctrine, but he didn't obsess about it, he wasn't walled-in by it, as were the scribes and pharisees. Instead, He showed exactly what we should be doing.
But if I were to lead someone to God, through Christ, the fact that it was His blood that bought salvation is VITALLY important. What's NOT important, however, is us arguing over "points of Law," as it were. If we're not busy with the harvest we're wasting precious time.
BTW, the whole purpose of this detour of mine is not to argue with anyone here about points of doctrine. It's to demonstrate to Jamal that the Bible is both reliable AND uncorrupted. Detour, Part 1 - "Preamble" should have explained this.
The purpose of this particular post is simply to acknowledge that there are indeed bibles that are most Certainly corrupted. Having made that statement I only wish to assure anyone who may care, that God HAS preserved His word in the English language. We do have God's word available to us today... But there are a lot of pretenders out there. Because of this we must be careful, and try the spirits to see if they be of God.
Play nice. If you disagree with something, that's fine... say so, but play nice.
GP, I accidentally posted under my boy's name--complete accident, believe me. D.Daddio is my new blogger identity.
I'm an adult. Looking over my right shoulder, I can see the KJV, NIV, NASB, NWT, and even the Book of Mormon on a bookshelf in our living room.
My suggestion? Get out your "Strongs" concordance (if you have one!) and compare scriptures on Christ's blood and deity. I believe it is you who needs to see things for yourself.
BTW, I use the modern versions for comparison--that's it. I once used them in the pulpit, however! I read passages from the KJV and compared them to each of those versions (Mormon hogwash excluded). Once the blaring differences were displayed, I threw them each in the floor in order to show my contempt for them.
The KJV is more challenging to read as a novice--lot's of old word use. With a little effort, a good dictionary, and a certain amount of time, anyone can develop the ability to easily read and divide the KJV. Once the skills are gained, the other "versions" are completely useless except for their being a good example to demonstrate how unreliable and perverted they actually are.
I suggest you get your old KJV out along with a good college dictionary and a "Strongs"--maybe you'll begin to see the real "message" of the Word of God.
D--
I never would have gleaned from your now-defunct blog that you were a preacher. I guess now I have to pay even more attention to my P's and Q's
D--
I sincerely hope when you threw your "perverted" scriptures on the floor that you didn't influence someone away from Christ.
My point is simply this: If your bottom-line message isn't about His boundless love, mercy and forgiveness, it really doesn't matter which version of the Bible you're teaching from.
El, just a few quick points:
1. No, I am not persuaded. None of the best known translations of the Bible water down the Gospel or take away from his blood atonement or diety. In fact, they've been used to bring millions more people to Christ, which indeed was His divine will.
2. The translators of the KJV had no special insights in the 1600s that makes that translation somehow holier or better than those who came later. In fact, more information is available to translators now than then. There was no Bible as we know it when John penned the verse you rely on in Revelations, which does not apply.
3. Your "KJV-only" position also draws unnecessary division between committed Christians on a matter unrelated to fundamentals of faith. In other words, insisting that other translations have been somehow "corrupted" causes more harm to the Kingdom than it does advance it. As you can see from this thread, some of the readers -- or at least one who uses three different names :-)-- have even felt compelled to attack the faith of others over it.
I wish grace and peace to each of you.
I would never presume to say God cannot draw souls to Himself by a preacher who uses the NIV or most other versions. However, to grow strong doctrinally, I believe the KJV is best suited to that task.
The NIV, and other versions have their benefits, especially in their use of modern language, but they suffer in terms of "meat and potatoes" -- doctrinally speaking.
At least that is my belief.
But again, this particular topic is not the point of this current thread of posts, and I therefore ask for peace between us.
EL, you are exactly right.
GP said:
"No, I am not persuaded. None of the best known translations of the Bible water down the Gospel or take away from his blood atonement or diety."
This statement reveals much!
<< Home