The mutable bible

[CanuckMA]

Don't your think there must be at least one correct translation?

The JPS or Artscroll translations will bring you as close as a translation can to the original text.

However, in the case of the Bible, we do not have the original texts. Do you think that mean we can never know what they said?

We do. It's called Torah. In the original language. Still understood by millions.

 

[oftheherd1]

I watched a documentary on the King James Bible a little while ago and it told of the influence it's had on the English language and the way we speak now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12205084

A lot has been written about how the KJV has influenced English. Some no doubt correct, some no doubt not correct. My guess would be one of the main things is how it slowed the change of the language. I do disagree with the statement that the KJV was directly translated from the Greek, that is, words and word order perfectly preserved. Greek is heavily inflected, which would make it difficult to do so. In fact, many times words had to be added to make the English correct. In the KJV, when you see a word in italics, that is a word that had to be added to make it correct in English. That often has to be in translation of one language to another. In the KJV, that shows the integrity of the translators. They didn't want anyone to misunderstand that a word added to make the translation correct in English, had been in the original Greek. However, from what I have read, Wycliff did make his English translation from the Latin (also an inflected language) Vulgate, word for word. Would have made for some very stilted English in many places.

 

[oftheherd1]

I appreciate your courtesy and you having taken the time to reply. Thank you.

I think to write a set of immutable doctrines to cover every action of every person in every situation, in which that person and those situations are continually changing and altering, while that may be conceivable for a God of omniscience, would result in a tome of infinite length / or ever-changing content I think. For that reason I think the Bible (and other holy texts) are necessarily ambiguous in certain aspects. This may lead to the accusation of contradictoriness and then to the facile conclusion that it the text is in no way of God. I do not subscribe to that conclusion. For me, the Bible is a work of Man inspired by God. In instances therein, it is the direct transcription of the words of God.

My personal belief is that it isn't difficult at all. We are told not to steal. The Israelites could not have contemplated theft by hacking into a computer. But the injunction not to steal worked because they understood taking something that wasn't theirs from someone to whom it belonged, was wrong. That is a little simplistic, but my point is, most things we should not do in life are covered in some way by the Ten Commandments, or other laws in the Bible. So God doesn't need to be explicit and change to meet the changes in cultures. He relates His law and requires us to follow to these laws no matter our culture. That is, we are required to follow God's laws, even if that means we have to change something in our culture or society we kind of like doing.

I believe that the right and correct INDIVIDUAL interpretation and translation of the doctrines and the parables and the historical records within the books of the Bible (and other extant texts) comes EXACTLY from a personal relationship with God. That personal relationship through prayer IS the tool of translation. There simply cannot be one immutable translation. It would be insufficient. It is the Word of God that is immutable.

EDIT: I inadvertently did not comment here. I think many of us do put personal/individual values on the meaning of God's word. I don't know that is correct. If God does not make mistakes, he says what he means. How far can we deviate from His meaning? I do agree is should be read from the point of view of having a personal relationship with God. That will hopefully help keep us from straying from the meaning of His words as He intends it. I would hope there are several immutable translations, in other languages than English. But there could not be more than one. My belief is that there must be one immutable translation, and would, because of its immutability, be sufficient. Does my answer show an understanding of what your were saying?

You may feel the KJV is the most resonant with your values. I understand this. Many have a fondness for a particular translation. That is perfectly natural. If you conceive of an infinite God, then would he not also have appreciated our ability to translate?

I do feel the KJV is correct, but not that it resonates with my values, but rather I must bring my values in line with the Bible. I don't believe that blindly. I started with the KJV, went to a Catholic translation for its footnotes, then to the New JKV, and finally back to the KJV as the most correct translation in English. I have read commentaries on the differences in the various translations, showing the differences. I have personally checked many of them. Many are profound. Again, I would not say God would appreciate our ability to translate, but rather guided the minds and hands of some men to provide the exact words he wanted us to read as His inspired words. I believe He made us, so He knows our limitations, and for His word for us to live by, would not leave us in our imperfection to produce His instruction incorrectly.

Again though, even within your thumbed KJV, is the very act of searching through the books and verses for guidance in a particular life situation itself not a form of filtering? especially in a text which has ideas which may yield differing potential paths through your situation. How do you decide which route is correct? Surely deriving meaningful information from your KJV is predicated on your heart having God within, no?

Well, that would be to admit that God's word was subject to contradictory interpretation would it not?

I do not know if that makes sense. I appreciate that my reply is not particularly cogent and for that I apologise. Just my personal thoughts. I hope you are well

I don't think your reply doesn't make sense. I just don't agree with the sense it makes. But, we all have a God given right to make choices and therefore to believe as we do. We can only hope we are as close to living as God wants us to be as we possibly can. The same with salvation. We may choose to accept God's gift of salvation by grace, or not, and therefore the consequences.

I am sure you do realize, but let me say, my comments are not by any means meant to be confrontational. I only wish to reply to your comments, and state my beliefs as you have done. If I have offended in any way, please let me know so I can clarify or restate in a manner that removes any doubt that I may disagree but do not wish to do so in a confrontational manner.

And, thanks for your thought provoking and civil reply.

 

[oftheherd1]

The JPS or Artscroll translations will bring you as close as a translation can to the original text.

I don't know anything that would cause me to disagree with that, unless those translations disagree with the KJV. My belief is that the KJV is God's inspired word in the English language. If you do not, that is your right, and we just have to be in disagreement.



We do. It's called Torah. In the original language. Still understood by millions.

I have read of the efforts by Jewish copyists to ensure there are no mistakes made in copying. Commendable. But copies, however exact, are not the originals. The same applies to the New Testament. No known originals exist. Those of us who believe in the Textus Receptus, believe God controlled the copying so the original texts were copied correctly. Then also that the translation of the KJV was also controlled by God so it is His inspired word. Again, if you disagree, we will just have to be in disagreement.

1

 

[CanuckMA]

1

The KJV was translated from a Greek translation. It is interpretation of interpretation.

The Torah as we have it agrees with the fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls. You need to see a scribe at work to understand the painstaking work that creating a new scroll is. It takes the better part of a year to ensure that it is copied letter for letter. And we have old works to go from. A torah will last on average 400 years. We have some that are closer to a thousand. And we have other texts that are even older. Torah passages in older texts are the same as in a modern scrool. As a people, one of the things we do best is remember.

I read it in the original Hebrew. The JPS and Artscroll translations are faithfull to the Hebrew. There are many mistranslations in the KJV. The 2 most glaring are: "Thou shalt not kill" the Hebrew actually says "No Murder". And the famous passage about a virgin birth. There is a Hebrew word for virgin, and it's not the one in the text. The word in the text is young woman or maiden. Translation simply work that way. The translator from Hebrew to Greek used a Greek word that was close, but not quite "young woman", likely the Greek equivalent of "maiden". The Greek to English translator could not find a proper English term for the Greek, and since maidens then were virgins...

Hebrew is a complex language. More so by the lack of vowels. The Torah is also rife with terms that do not translate word for word. A good example is that in Shabbat, we are supposed to refrain from melacha. That is usually translated as "work". But that is not what it really means. melacha is more of a concept of activities. Certainly not work as we know it. Hence, I can't carry a feather from inside my hoise to outside, that is melacha. I can however move my ppiano up and down the stairs all day long.