Garrett has a little something to say on this post too...
MY RESPONSE to the this.
This is a great conversation, and I wish I could respond in detail to much of it, but unfortunately my hands are tied to many other things that I must think about.
I am in agreement:
1) Scholars are misleading when they tell us they are getting closer to "finding the originals." However, not all of TC can be brushed away simply because it is not as "certain" a science as, say, mathematics. They are no surer today than they were 100 years ago. However, again, that does not mean I can simply bury my head in the sands of fideism. The bible does not exist in a vacuum. It is subject to the hands of men and has been for thousands of years. Some are faithful some are apostate. God knows.
I am in disagreement:
1) I can personally attest to the idea that the awkwardness of the KJV translation is NOT in accordance with keeping with the text. For example: "God forbid!" in the KJV in Paul's letters. Paul does NOT say "God forbid!" This is dynamic equivalency at its finest. The text says something like "may it never be!" This is an extreme example, but the KJV is not free from dynamic equivalency. The real issue is much of the KJV english is stuck in 17/18thth century English, NOT 1st century Koine Greek. Kendall may cite places where the translation is in accordance with the text intentionally, but my guess is he did not cite the places where it was not done intentionally (I could be wrong, I have not read the book.)
I am in agreement:
Wrestling with the text forces a person to know the text better. So making the translation more "readable" may take away from what the Spirit would like to highlight, but again, the Scriptures are written for the average joe. You and I both know that the majority of Christians do not take time to "study" to show themselves approved. Adding on top of that a difficult translation to read only compounds the problem. People are far more likely to read something they are familiar with (style) and believe they can handle (understand). That would help explain why the NIV is the best selling. People want less work. People will never stop being people.
I am in disagreement:
Yes you will loose the force of words in making a translation more readable. But you ALREADY loose the force of words by simply translating from Greek to English or Hebrew to English. We simply cannot expect 21st century readers to understand the force of a word especially a 4th century B.C. context or what have you. Language changes. The force of words will change simply because language changes. The force of the KJV English is probably a lot less in today's culture than it was say 100 years ago.
I am in agreement:
The Holy Spirit of God has used the TR and the Traditional Text type to preserve his word for the majority of the last twelve hundred years. I also question the philosophical allegiances of those"scholars" who ignited the Critical Text. Some of the men should be held suspect, and certainly the powers of this world are not giving up on opposing the Scriptures! The fact that the TR was passed down in a faithful community is a powerful support for its veracity and integrity, but again, the Bible did not come to us in a vacuum.
The variants are frustrating. But again, we cannot simply look for arguments that support what we WANT to believe. The evidence must be accepted whether we like it or not. The variants exist and they exist in texts that are much older than the texts the TR is based on.
- Show quoted text -
MY RESPONSE to the this.
This is a great conversation, and I wish I could respond in detail to much of it, but unfortunately my hands are tied to many other things that I must think about.
I am in agreement:
1) Scholars are misleading when they tell us they are getting closer to "finding the originals." However, not all of TC can be brushed away simply because it is not as "certain" a science as, say, mathematics. They are no surer today than they were 100 years ago. However, again, that does not mean I can simply bury my head in the sands of fideism. The bible does not exist in a vacuum. It is subject to the hands of men and has been for thousands of years. Some are faithful some are apostate. God knows.
I am in disagreement:
1) I can personally attest to the idea that the awkwardness of the KJV translation is NOT in accordance with keeping with the text. For example: "God forbid!" in the KJV in Paul's letters. Paul does NOT say "God forbid!" This is dynamic equivalency at its finest. The text says something like "may it never be!" This is an extreme example, but the KJV is not free from dynamic equivalency. The real issue is much of the KJV english is stuck in 17/18thth century English, NOT 1st century Koine Greek. Kendall may cite places where the translation is in accordance with the text intentionally, but my guess is he did not cite the places where it was not done intentionally (I could be wrong, I have not read the book.)
I am in agreement:
Wrestling with the text forces a person to know the text better. So making the translation more "readable" may take away from what the Spirit would like to highlight, but again, the Scriptures are written for the average joe. You and I both know that the majority of Christians do not take time to "study" to show themselves approved. Adding on top of that a difficult translation to read only compounds the problem. People are far more likely to read something they are familiar with (style) and believe they can handle (understand). That would help explain why the NIV is the best selling. People want less work. People will never stop being people.
I am in disagreement:
Yes you will loose the force of words in making a translation more readable. But you ALREADY loose the force of words by simply translating from Greek to English or Hebrew to English. We simply cannot expect 21st century readers to understand the force of a word especially a 4th century B.C. context or what have you. Language changes. The force of words will change simply because language changes. The force of the KJV English is probably a lot less in today's culture than it was say 100 years ago.
I am in agreement:
The Holy Spirit of God has used the TR and the Traditional Text type to preserve his word for the majority of the last twelve hundred years. I also question the philosophical allegiances of those"scholars" who ignited the Critical Text. Some of the men should be held suspect, and certainly the powers of this world are not giving up on opposing the Scriptures! The fact that the TR was passed down in a faithful community is a powerful support for its veracity and integrity, but again, the Bible did not come to us in a vacuum.
The variants are frustrating. But again, we cannot simply look for arguments that support what we WANT to believe. The evidence must be accepted whether we like it or not. The variants exist and they exist in texts that are much older than the texts the TR is based on.
- Show quoted text -