In this episode we continue our series on Bible versions. The focus is on the nature of translation. Can we assert that we have God's Word? Do words have fixed meaning? Can words accurately convey meaning? What types of translation are there, and is there a method to be preferred? Listen to this episode to find out.
_______________________________________________________
Bible Versions:
The Nature of Translation
Episode 11
Remnant Bible
Fellowship
I.
Introduction
a. One thing I want to say before we begin
is for those particularly who are more simplistic in their faith. You may not
have ever studied out things like logic or manuscripts. What I want to tell you
is DON’T BE INTIMIDATED. Don’t let things that may be foreign to you keep you
from looking into things. And don’t let people who use big words that sound
really intelligent ever intimidate you. A lot of times when you look up
definitions and examine what people said you find that it doesn’t make any
sense. That’s because there are certain people who try to talk a certain way to
portray themselves in a certain light. Does that mean they’re wrong? No. But
does that necessarily mean that they are correct and you should follow them
blindly? Absolutely not. My main point is to encourage you to always examine
things and take time to learn new things to make sure you’re not deceived. For
those who are more learned, don’t ever use what you know to talk down to
others. I know simple Christians who rarely use 3-syllable words that have more
critical thinking skills than some people with doctorates. Don’t be afraid to
be simple you scholars. Whether you’re educated or simple, it only helps you if
you’re grounded in truth.
b. If you haven’t listened to the last
episode, please listen to that episode first. I’m intentionally going over
things in a certain order. If you listen to things out of order you might
think, “He didn’t go over this,” or you may assume I’m trying to overlook
something intentionally. I assure you I’m not intentionally avoiding certain
things. I’m just trying to address things at the appropriate time. I honestly
just don’t have enough time to make something exhaustive on this issue.
c. Some people will want me to assert things
up front like, “God must’ve preserved His Word in English perfectly for us.”
Others will want me to assert things up front like, “Because of the variants in
the MSS evidence we will never be 100% certain about the rendering of the
original autographs.” The fact is, people need to stop asserting things before
they prove the premises that lead to those conclusions. In other words, you
need to begin at the first point, and prove it first. Only after that can you
move forward in your argument.
d. People have a lot of prejudices and
biases when it comes to Bible versions. Usually because of denomination, level
of education, ministries you listen to, and books you’ve read you’ve already
formed some biases in your thinking that affect how you interpret things.
Evidence never speaks for itself. It is always interpreted in light of your
biases. The only thing that matters is that our biases are logical, consistent,
fact based, and especially godly.
e. So, in discussing Bible versions and the
nature of translation, we have to take a massive step back and begin at the
first point. In arguing for a particular conclusion you must lay down premises,
and order them logically so that your conclusion follows from those premises.
Now I’m not going to be formal in laying out things logically. I just want to
emphasize this point because a lot of the reasoning around the topic of Bible
versions is not sound. A lot is assumed that is not proven. That means you have
no logical reason to believe the person’s conclusion. So let’s try to begin at
the beginning and think about some things.
II.
Can
we logically assert that we must have God’s Word?
a. If we come to the table as believers,
that is as Christians, then we come to the table understanding that there is
one true God who Himself became man to die on a cross, be resurrected, and
redeem a fallen mankind from sin, death, and judgment. I’m not going to bother
with arguing those points. I come to the table with that as my assumed truth.
b. God is going to judge mankind for sin,
sin is the transgression of the Law, therefore, man has broken God’s Law
because he has sinned.
c. God will cast all those who are condemned
by the Law into Hell, some men are going to Heaven, therefore some men have
become obedient to the Law of God.
i.
I
use the word Law in the general sense, and not just in the sense of the Mosaic
Law. I mean “Law” in the general sense of God’s Word. I’m not intending to
imply that men are saved by the Law. We know that it is through faith in Christ
that a man is reckoned righteous before God. Faith establishes the Law we are
told. Only in this sense do I reason.
d. If some men are going to Heaven then they
must have the Word of God to obey it. I’m not going to argue doctrinal points
right now. I don’t hold to the teaching of “once saved always saved”. But to
clarify, so that I’m not falsely accused of teaching a works-gospel, we are
told in 1 John 3:10 that, “In this the children of God are manifest: he that
doeth righteousness is born of God.” The distinguishing characteristic of the
children of God is that they obey Him. Only in that sense do I mean “obey”. It
is referred to as the “obedience of faith”. (Rom. 16:26) I don’t mean it in the
sense of earning salvation by works or anything like that.
i.
But
that is Paul’s reasoning in Romans 10, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17)
ii.
“For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall
they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in
him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom.
10:13-14)
e. If men are saved by grace through faith,
and faith comes by hearing the Word of God, then men must have God’s Word at
their disposal. Not just in a general sense, (i.e. know about Jesus by word of
mouth). Men cannot follow the teachings of a man whose words they do not have.
Christ says only those that do the Father’s will enter into the kingdom of
heaven (Mat. 7:23). We must know the Father’s will to be doers of it.
f.
In
essence, if nobody has God’s Word then nobody is saved. Some people then put
forth a question about that old man on the mountain who has never heard of
Jesus. If you’re thinking about something along those lines then please listen
to our episode called, “Do people who have never heard the gospel go to hell?”
III.
Words
and Meaning
a. Some people then say, “Well, do you mean
that we have God’s Word or His very words?”
b. Some assert that we only have God’s
thoughts or ideas and not the very words that He spoke. We have to take a
moment to consider words and meaning. They say that it’s just a phrase that
indicates the gospel only and not the words or teachings of Christ Himself.
Most don’t consider it strange to think that God would preserve for us the
exact books He wanted in the canon of scripture (39 books in the OT and 27
books in the NT) and not take care to make sure the contents are correct. That
would seem to be pretty useless.
c. Words are the basic unit of
communication, not ideas or concepts. We think with words, we describe with
words. If someone asked you, “What do you mean?” You would use words to explain
your meaning to them. You wouldn’t use pictures. Like the saying goes, “A
picture is worth a thousand words.” It’s true, but if you are trying to convey
a specific meaning you don’t want to leave it open to interpretation. If you
accidently took too much of a particular medicine, and there was danger of an
accidental overdose, wouldn’t you hope that the instructions on the bottle
about what to do were specific and conveyed the meaning clearly? How much more
can we expect the things pertaining to eternal life and death to be conveyed
specifically?
d. To illustrate the folly of believing that
only the “thoughts” or “concepts” of God are preserved for us today, consider
how you would answer the following question: “If you have an idea can you
explain it to me?” How could you communicate an idea to me “specifically” without
using words? Some say through facial gestures, body language, sign language,
pictures or visions, etc. I then ask how does a God you never knew before you
were saved, who is a Spirit and not a physical entity, specifically communicate
to you that unless you repent of sin (as He defines it), and unless you believe
on His Son (whom you’ve never met), and unless you obey His commandments, then
you’ll be cast into Hell? It is absolutely impossible without God giving men
His very words. There must be an objective truth that God has communicated to
men so that they may hear it and do it.
i.
It
is interesting to consider that even when prophets had visions, as recorded in
scripture, they were still told things using words regardless of what they saw.
Consider Peter’s vision of the sheet descending out of heaven in Acts 10:9-16.
Though he indeed did see things, there was still a voice speaking with him
also.
e. It will be asked then if words have
objective meaning that can be correctly understood by a reader. Do words have
objective meaning? By that I mean, can one person’s intended meaning accurately
be carried using words so that others may hear it and understand it exactly as
the speaker/writer intended? Can you get exactly what the speaker/writer
intended simply using words? Listen to what Dr. Jason Lisle has to say on this:
i.
“To
say that a word (or combination of words) has “meaning” is to say that it
represents a particular idea or limited range of ideas that the author/speaker
is intending to convey to the reader/listener. When you read the word “lion” on
a page, it likely conjures a particular thought in your mind. Although this
thought may not be exactly identical to what another person thinks when reading
the word (size, age, posture, mountain lion vs. African lion, etc.), it is very
likely that the ideas will be very similar. It certainly won’t conjure up the
idea of a quasar, an apple, or waffles. The word has meaning since it
represents an idea. And that meaning is objective since the word represents the
same idea regardless of who reads it within the context of a given language.
The entire point of communication is to transfer an idea from one person to
another person, often to induce a particular action in the recipient. Thus,
general communication is only possible if words have objective meaning. Of
course, it should be obvious from everyday observation that communication is
possible. Ideas are indeed transferred from one person to another. Thus, it
follows logically that words do have objective meaning.” –Dr. Jason Lisle (Understanding Genesis, p. 17)
f.
It’s
a self-refuting concept that words do not carry fixed common meaning given
context. This would mean that communication is impossible. Imagine the
foolishness of someone asserting that extracting an author’s intended meaning
is impossible because words have multiple meanings, and then they write a book
about it. If their proposition is true, then how could they write a book about
it for people to understand the ideas that they were explaining? This shows that
it is not only possible to understand an author’s intended meaning by the words
that they use, but it shows also that it is a normal part of everyday life.
i.
In
fact, it’s a New Age idea that words don’t convey truth very well. Neal Donald
Walsch, in his New Age book Conversations
with God, wrote, “Words are the least reliable purveyor of truth.” (Walsch,
Conversations with God, p.8) Even in
the Hyper-Charismatic movement they proclaim that pictures and visions are more
effective than words. This is why they encourage visualization—which is also a
New Age and occultic practice.
g. People know that words are effective in
their hearts, but they try to apply different rules to the Bible. That’s the
fallacy of special pleading. God intends for men to have His Word so that they
can hear it and do it. Men cannot obey things that they do not have, or that
they cannot understand.
h. So words have objective meaning that can
be understood by the context of how they are used. That’s basic communication. Words
strung together in a grammatically structured way convey more specific ideas
than individual words do. So in consideration of this, there is only one
correct meaning of any given statement: the one that the Author intended. This
not only applies to interpreting scripture, but to the nature of translation as
well.
i.
Consider
the statement, “The plane is going to land.” Is “plane” meant to convey a
geometrical plane? Is “land” meant to convey the action of setting down on the
ground or the noun of earth? I’m pretty sure that when you heard me say that
sentence you understood that “plane” meant airplane and “land” meant setting
down. Why could you understand that? You could understand that because the
context of the words together and us having a common cultural understanding
made it possible.
j.
There
is only one correct interpretation of any statement. That is self-evident because
of the fact that me and you can communicate. Then that interpreted meaning as
intended by the speaker/author can be understood by the listener/reader. In
essence, if it can be understood, then it can be translated. We see practical
examples of this every day. When the President of the United States speaks at
the UN everyone there has headphones on. Someone is translating what the
President is saying in real time for the other diplomats to hear. It’s an
example of how words have fixed meaning that can be understood by others and
translated correctly into other languages with the same meaning as intended by
the original speaker still being intact. It’s communication.
IV.
Translation
a. The word “translation” means, “The act of
removing or conveying from one place to another; The act of turning into
another language; That which is produced by turning into another language; a
version.”
b. The act of translation is taking the
meaning of a given word, or statement, and conveying the same intended meaning
in another language.
c. There is even a scriptural example of
this being possible. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit fell on the
Apostles and they began to speak with other tongues (languages) as the Spirit
of God gave them utterance. All the men who were gathered in Jerusalem heard
them speak in their own language. Nowhere is it even implied that the Jews or
Greeks heard some “additional” thing that the other languages couldn’t convey. Some
could argue that the Holy Spirit is the one who did the translating, but the
fact remains that it shows that earthly languages can equally render the same
meanings intended.
d. We must remember that Hebrew and Koine Greek
are not “magical” languages. They are simply the languages that the original
autographs were penned in. Though, there were also some places in the OT where
it was written in Syriac/Chaldee such as Daniel and Esther.
V.
What’s
necessary for translation?
a. It should be obvious that in order to
translate a person must have an excellent knowledge of both languages involved.
In translating scripture a person must have an excellent knowledge of Hebrew,
Koine Greek (depending on whether or not you are translating the OT or the NT),
and an excellent knowledge of the language into which it is being translated.
There is grammar and syntax, idioms and figures of speech, types of literature
in the language, etc.
b. But contrary to some people’s thoughts
this is not all that is required of a person translating scripture. The Holy
Scriptures are not just like any document needing translation today. It is one
of the most copied and distributed documents in all of human history. That
creates not only some benefits, but it creates some peculiar difficulties.
c. Philip Mauro had this to say in his book Which
Version?:
i.
“Very
few of those who read the Scriptures have any idea how much depends upon the
all-important matter of settling the Greek Text of the New Testament, or how
many and how great the difficulties involved therein. Of those who give any
thought at all to the matter the larger number seem to suppose that there
exists somewhere an acknowledged original Text of the New Testament, and that
the work of preparing an English Version is merely a matter of the correct
translation of that Greek Text.”
ii.
“But
the case is far otherwise; for the first part of the work is to settle the
Greek Text from which the translation is to be made; and this is a matter of
immense difficulty, for the reason that the original materials from which the
Text must be constructed embrace upwards of a thousand manuscripts. Some of
these contain the whole, or nearly the whole, of the New Testament; and the
rest contain a part, some more, some less, thereof. Of these manuscripts a few
are supposedly as early as the fourth or fifth century, and others as late as
the fourteenth.”
iii.
He
continues, “It will be seen, therefore, that the making of a Greek Text, as the
first step in producing an English Version, involves the immense labor of
examining, for every disputed word and passage, the numerous manuscripts,
ancient Versions, and quotations now known to exist, and also the making of a
decision in each case where there is a conflict between the various witnesses.”
iv.
“This
is a highly complicated task; and for the proper performance of it other
qualities besides Greek and English scholarship are required. For example, one
must settle at the outset what degree of credibility is to be imputed to the
respective manuscripts…” (Mauro, Which
Version? as quoted in True or False?,
edited by David Otis Fuller, p.61, 62-63)
d. We’ll get into the issues around
manuscripts and textual criticism next episode, the point to be seen now is
that the issues of translation of scripture are not so simple as some would
like it to be.
e. In addition to these things, it must be
acknowledged that an understanding of the cultural customs of Biblical times
are required to accurately understand the ideas being conveyed by the languages
used at the time of the writing. There are customs, traditions, figures of
speech and idioms that need to be understood as figurative and/or symbolic
language. The reason for this will be seen as we continue.
VI.
Types
of Translation
a. There are basically two types of translating:
Formally equivalent, and dynamically equivalent.
b. Formal equivalence is where individual
words are the basis of translation. The text is rendered word-for-word as much
as possible. Only minor deviations are allowed such as grammatical structure
being suited to fit the new language’s grammar.
c. Dynamic equivalence is where the
translation is attempted on a thought-for-thought basis. Phrases or whole
sentences are the basis of translation.
d. The contention between the two methods
should become clear quite quickly. There are some things that you must first
take into account though.
i.
Not
every one word in a given language can accurately translate its meaning into
another language with one word. You cannot always do “one word equals one
word”. Sometimes it takes a phrase to accurately translate one word from a
given language into another.
ii.
What
if there is no equivalent in the language being translated into? Do you choose
the closest already existing word, or do you create a new word in that
language?
iii.
What
if there is a grammatically significant structure in the original that cannot
convey the same significance in the new language? An example would be the
Hebrew waw-consecutive. The significance in the original Hebrew is shown when a
long list of statements uses the waw-consecutive. It indicates a historical
narrative. That’s important in defending the Genesis 1 account of creation. But
how would you emphatically render that concept in English grammatically? All
that we can do in English is render it “And ___” or “Then ____”, but it doesn’t
get the significance across.
e. These are just a few examples to show you
that it’s not as simple to translate as we think sometimes. To complicate
matters, each language can be different. Have you ever heard of tonal
languages? That’s a whole other matter entirely!
f.
So
you see the problems that can arise using either method of translation. When
using formal equivalency, word-for-word, you can come across grammatical and
readability difficulties. When using dynamic equivalency, thought-for-thought,
you are relying on the person doing the translating work’s ability to
comprehend the meaning of the statement being translated.
g. On another note, there is also the
question of translating literally or figuratively. That’s a major point when
considering a dynamic translation. Is the author intending a literal or
figurative meaning? Then there’s the question of translating it appropriately.
This is really the battle-ground for a major portion of the arguments about
which translation of the Bible is “more accurate”.
h. Consider the example of Romans 6:2. The
phrase in Greek is “Μη γενοιτο”, and it’s rendered several different ways in
the English versions:
i.
KJV
says, “God forbid!”
ii.
NKJV
says, “Certainly not!”
iii.
NASB
says, “May it never be!”
iv.
NIV
says, “By no means!”
i.
If
you would notice they all carry the same basic meaning. There is an emphatic
denial of what Paul previously said in the passage. If you wanted to be
ultra-literal you would have to render it something like, “Not come to pass!”
It is literally rendered but it doesn’t read well in English. Oftentimes people
will point to a Bible translation in a situation like this and accuse the other
versions of being incorrectly translated. Someone could say, and indeed they
have incorrectly said it, “The word “God” is nowhere in the Greek so the KJV
has incorrectly translated this verse.” Has it? Well, it’s not a literal
translation it’s a dynamic translation of the phrase. It can’t qualify as
“incorrect” though. If it was, then you would have to disqualify the others also
for not being ultra-literal.
j.
It’s
a simple phrase, but you can see how lots of supposed “mistranslations” are
cleared up with a better understanding of the process of translation.
VII.
Thee’s
and Thou’s
a. I will digress here for a moment. I find
it funny to listen some of the discussions of the Greek scholars sometimes. For
example, Bill Mounce, a Greek scholar on the committee of the NIV, was discussing
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 in his blog entry for September 5, 2008. He gave an
illustration of a fictional foreign student coming and asking why English used
the same word (you) to signify one or more than one.
b. I found it quite funny because people
always mention that they want to get rid of the “thee’s” and “thou’s”, or the
“-est” and “-eth” endings in the KJV of the Bible. I marvel that I’ve never
really seen an honest enquirer as to why they are there in the first place. It
may surprise people that that form of English passed out of common speech some
years before the KJV translation ever began.
c. The reason that the translators kept them
is because it is the easiest way to accurately translate first, second, and
third person in English. As well as distinguishing between singular and plural
pronouns. Everyone who wants to take them out then faces the dilemma of what to
do in situations like Bill Mounce related. In my opinion, it’s easier to keep
them in as it makes exposition of a passage in English easier in my mind.
d. But back to the issue at hand.
VIII.
Words
or the meanings they carry?
a. Is there then a better way to translate?
Should one method be taken over the other: formal or dynamic? It may surprise
people to be made aware that every version uses both methods. So we find it to
be more of a scale than an either-or situation sometimes. The KJV is more
formal than dynamic. The NIV is more dynamic than formal. Both versions use
both methods though at certain times. Formal focuses more on translating
individual words and trying to retain the Hebrew/Greek grammar structure as
much as possible when going into the other language. Dynamic focuses more on
translating whole phrases or sentences.
b. The question does arise though, is there
a simple “method” that is biblical or non-biblical? The nature of translation
is such that it deals with understanding meaning. The meaning of words, the
meaning of statements, and how to faithfully communicate those same meanings in
a different language. Meaning makes interpretation necessary. So all
translation implies interpretation.
c. Here is where I can relate a funny story.
Pepsi once started an advertising campaign in China with the slogan, “We bring
you back to life.” The person who did the work should’ve done more research,
because the way in which it was rendered on a billboard was read as, “We bring
your ancestors back from the grave.” It caused some alarm in China.
d. The buzz-word in translation is
“literal”. People assume that the best translation is the most literal one. But
that’s not necessarily the case. Listen to this quote where Philip Mauro is
quoting Dr. Alexander Carson:
i.
“ “There
is no greater mistake than to suppose that a translation is good according as
it is literal. It may be asserted that, without exception, a literal
translation of any book cannot be a faithful one. For if the word is not used
in its literal sense in the original it is a mistranslation of it to translate
it literally. This is a canon of Biblical Interpretation of universal
application, and of the greatest moment—a canon not only often violated, but to
violate which is, in the estimation of some translators, the highest praise. A
translation of this kind, instead of conveying the original with additional
light, is simply unintelligible.” Such being the case (and we think that the
truth of Dr. Carson’s statement is self-evident) it will be clearly seen that
the making of a real translation is not merely a matter of giving the literal
meaning of the words of the original. Further, in order to be a good
translator, one needs other qualifications besides a knowledge of the original
tongue.” (Mauro in Which Version? quoting from Dr. Alexander Carson’s Inspiration of the Scriptures)
e. So literal is not always good. We might
wonder, how can it not be good? The answer being that sometimes things rendered
literally, or too formally, can actually obscure, or altogether change, the
meaning of the original statement. Just like the Pepsi ad slogan. For instance,
if a figure of speech or a cultural idiom is translated literally into a
different language (that is word-for-word equivalent) it can sometimes be taken
to mean something quite different in the new language. You are forced to either
have some sort of cultural explanation, or in the process of translating the
phrase go by the meaning of it and choose a cultural equivalent in the new
language.
f.
The
problem with doing a dynamic translation though is that it allows for more
interpretation than is safe in my opinion. You leave yourself at the mercy of
the mind of the translator for doctrinal interpretation. They will read a
sentence, interpret it, and then render their interpretation. Sometimes it can
be pretty close to just being a formal translation, but sometimes it is
something altogether different. For instance, in the Message “bible” (which is
actually just a full-blown paraphrase) the Lord’s words in the model prayer,
“on earth as it is in heaven,” is changed to the occultic phrase, “as above so
below”. What happened? False interpretation is what happened. An interpretation
that connects the words of Christ to the New Age Movement and the occult.
IX.
Words
with multiple word equivalents
a. Before I make some closing remarks I
would like to address a specific issue. Sometimes a word in Greek can have up
to 50 English words that match its meaning. Which do you choose? For example,
here is 1 John 2:24 in the KJV:
i.
“Let
that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that
which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall
continue in the Son, and in the Father.”
b. The Greek word I would like to point out
is “meno”. It is translated by 3 separate words here by the KJ translators:
abide, remain, and continue. If you look at some other English versions you
will find that sometimes all three instances the Greek word is in this verse
they use the same English word for each instance. This brings up a common
question: what constitutes a perfect translation?
c. Having talked about words, meaning, and
translation a little bit, what could be classified as a “perfect” English
translation? One with no translation errors? What does that mean? No word
translation errors? I would agree, but what do you mean when a particular word
in Greek can legitimately be rendered by multiple English words? I’m obviously
addressing an issue common to those of the KJV-only school of thought.
d. If I may, I would like to relate some
points to simply provoke some thought on this issue:
i.
“Perfect”
needs to be specifically defined before one can say something is perfect.
ii.
Words
that are synonymous, by very definition, have the same meaning and are
therefore equivalent with each other. That means if they’re equivalent with
each other then each of them can be translated from the same Greek word.
iii.
Words,
or phrases, that define each other are equivalent in meaning. If God has chosen
only one specific English word to be translated from one Greek word, then what
do you do when someone says, “What does that word mean?” You have to use other
words to explain it.
e. Some have criticized the KJV for using
multiple English words of the same meaning to translate one Greek word. My
question is, “If they are synonyms how is it wrong?”
f.
Some
people have criticized other versions for using words different than the KJV
because they believe its English rendering to be specifically chosen by God
providentially, my question then is: if they are synonymous how is it wrong?
i.
We’ll
talk more about this view later.
g. In the case of 1 John 2:24, the KJ
translators used these three English words because they were synonyms. Their
reasoning being that if you didn’t know one of the words you most likely
would’ve known one of the other two. Then, seeing them used interchangeably in
the passage makes clear that they all carry the same meaning. It’s just a
different view on making the meaning of the underlying Greek text clear to the
English reader.
X.
Let’s
put it all together
a. We can logically expect to have God’s
words available to us in some objective form because God is going to judge us
one day according to His Word. Men cannot obey commandments that they don’t
have; therefore, God must’ve given us His Word.
b. Words are the basic unit of
communication. This is very much to our advantage. Words have fixed meaning
that can be determined by the context of how they are used. If this weren’t so,
then you wouldn’t be following what I’m saying. Communication proves that words
do have fixed understandable meaning that can accurately convey ideas from one
person to another. If meaning can be carried from one person to another, using
words, then there is nothing that stands in the way of accurate translation.
c. There are two main forms of translating:
formal equivalency is translating word-for-word as much as possible between two
languages. Since words have fixed meanings in cultures and languages, it is
more preferable to have a more formal translation of the scriptures. While all
translation requires interpretation, it is much easier to accurately convey the
meaning of individual words than whole sentences without allowing for bias. This
also allows for bias to be shown more easily since words do have fixed
meanings, and they can be checked easily.
d. Dynamic equivalency should be used only
when necessary to render the meaning of a particular phrase accurately. Whole
sentences translated dynamically allow for too much personal interpretation.
This can affect doctrine. Anything that limits personal interpretation coming
through should be encouraged. Words have objective meaning. Statements need
interpreting. Only translating phrases dynamically when absolutely necessary is
the best way to protect the integrity of scripture.
e. If something is figurative in the
original languages then it ought to be translated so as to not be taken
literally in the language being translated into, and vice-versa. If something
figurative is translated to be taken literally then it is mistranslated.
XI.
Closing
a. Now one thing you will see about the
information in this episode is this: it’s not enough to help you settle on a
particular Bible version. The dividing line comes when you mention the
underlying Greek text of the Bible versions. There are two things that every
pastor, teacher, or really every believer needs to have some knowledge of:
i.
Textual
Criticism: what it is, and why it’s important.
ii.
Textual
Theory: what it is, and why it’s important.
b. These two issues being settled upon will
generally solidify the Bible versions confusion for believers. That is, if we
base our views upon facts and not conjectures.
c. Remember, don’t be intimidated. Keep all
things in prayer. The Lord will give wisdom to those that ask Him in sincerity.
No comments:
Post a Comment