Author Topic: Article on the silliness of Biblical translators. (Read 11542 times)

Colin Michael · « **on:** March 15, 2009, 03:55:44 AM »

http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm

I didn't read the whole thing, only mostly skimmed it. It came from a post on a very "liberal" forum so be weary.

And yes, I know that I like to drive the point that Lucifer is not Satan.

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2009, 10:41:12 AM »

Hence why I dislike most modern commentators, because almost all of them accept flawed translations as 100% accurate.

The only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT. Anything else is subject to the bias of the translators.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2009, 05:22:08 PM »

Quote from: Hedgehogman on March 15, 2009, 10:41:12 AM

The only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT. Anything else is subject to the bias of the translators.

Most Christians would agree with that statement. However, I believe that God has protected the accuracy and authority of the Bible even to today by also inspiring the copyists and translators who have been involved over the years in producing the Bible's that we all know and love.

If He didn't, then almost no one in the world would be able to REALLY know what God's message was. After all, most people don't have access to Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT, and even if they did, they couldn't read them. God's whole purpose in sending the Bible was to have a written record that wouldn't change over the centuries, and that could be available to all.

God wants us to come to him like little children. That means reading the Bible for its plain meaning, not tearing it apart like a literary critic.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2009, 05:23:07 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 15, 2009, 05:22:08 PM

Quote from: Hedgehogman on March 15, 2009, 10:41:12 AM
The only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT. Anything else is subject to the bias of the translators.
Most Christians would agree with that statement. However, I believe that God has protected the accuracy and authority of the Bible even to today by also inspiring the copyists and translators who have been involved over the years in producing the Bible's that we all know and love.

If He didn't, then almost no one in the world would be able to REALLY know what God's message was. After all, most people don't have access to Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT, and even if they did, they couldn't read them. God's whole purpose in sending the Bible was to have a written record that wouldn't change over the centuries, and that could be available to all.

God wants us to come to him like little children. That means reading the Bible for its plain meaning, not tearing it apart like a literary critic.

This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.

crustpope · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2009, 08:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 05:23:07 PM

This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.

Countless English translations. There are far fewer greek or hebrew translation and since we have no avaliable aramaic translations, we rely on the greek. All responsible english translations are based on the best hebrew and greek texts. so we do the best we can

Colin Michael · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2009, 08:02:32 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on March 15, 2009, 08:00:39 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 05:23:07 PM
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.

Countless English translations. There are far fewer greek or hebrew translation and since we have no avaliable aramaic translations, we rely on the greek. All responsible english translations are based on the best hebrew and greek texts. so we do the best we can

I agree. Mark, however, is suggesting that all translations are protected from error.

What would you say about the different books in the Bibles of the Catholics and Ethiopian Orthodox churches? Are those valid as well?

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2009, 09:44:06 PM »

That article doesn't surprise me, because after really looking at the chapter, long before the article, I have been wondering why it sounds so much like an arrogant HUMAN king.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2009, 09:47:32 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 15, 2009, 09:44:06 PM

That article doesn't surprise me, because after really looking at the chapter, long before the article, I have been wondering why it sounds so much like an arrogant HUMAN king.

Yeah, I've notice that too as well as well as that Lucifer is a latin word and no explaination is given as to why it is capitalised.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2009, 10:20:51 PM »

So I guess from now on, if I say that I "bow my knee to Lucifer", I basically mean I'm bowing my knee to Jesus.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2009, 10:36:47 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 05:23:07 PM

This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.

I read the article, and it doesn't prove anything.

As for varying translations, I wouldn't say that all of them are 100% accurate. There are some translations that are only the work of 1 man (The Message for instance), and don't even claim to be accurate translations. However, there are other translations that are developed very carefully over years by many people who are dedicated to God. I believe that these "major" translations are the ones that God protects so that they are accurate and authoritative.

These would include KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, NRSV, etc. And as for the extra books in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Bibles, I don't have a problem with them. From what I hear, they don't contradict anything in the regular Protestant Bible, so it's a moot point to me.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2009, 10:45:02 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 15, 2009, 10:36:47 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 05:23:07 PM
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.
I read the article, and it doesn't prove anything.

As for varying translations, I wouldn't say that all of them are 100% accurate. There are some translations that are only the work of 1 man (The Message for instance), and don't even claim to be accurate translations. However, there are other translations that are developed very carefully over years by many people who are dedicated to God. I believe that these "major" translations are the ones that God protects so that they are accurate and authoritative.

These would include KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, NRSV, etc. And as for the extra books in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Bibles, I don't have a problem with them. From what I hear, they don't contradict anything in the regular Protestant Bible, so it's a moot point to me.

Well then, why was the word Lucifer misstranslated and then capitolised?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2009, 11:06:24 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 10:45:02 PM

Well then, why was the word Lucifer misstranslated and then capitolised?

Quite simply, it wasn't mistranslated. This is something that we're just going to have to agree to disagree

Colin Michael · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2009, 11:14:20 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 15, 2009, 11:06:24 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 10:45:02 PM
Well then, why was the word Lucifer misstranslated and then capitolised?
Quite simply, it wasn't mistranslated. This is something that we're just going to have to agree to disagree

I mean, you have no grounds for that belief; not even Biblical grounds.

The Schaef · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2009, 11:29:50 PM »

You seem to operate from this strange perspective that everyone works from the same data set as yours, and if they don't, theirs must be inferior and/or invalid. Just sayin.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2009, 11:37:47 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 15, 2009, 11:29:50 PM

You seem to operate from this strange perspective that everyone works from the same data set as yours, and if they don't, theirs must be inferior and/or invalid. Just sayin.

I'm sorry, I was just asking him what his grounds for that were.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2009, 10:03:31 AM »

Are we saying that man is not capable of distorting scripture as long as the scripture is in written form? What is wrong with saying that the guy who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible was in error? I don't understand why this would somehow call God's sovereignty into question or make any other translation of the Bible any less reliable. I think that is one of the biggest pitfalls of the church is that when others sin we want to point it out, but when we do we want to push it under the carpet...

Colin Michael · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2009, 10:07:09 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 16, 2009, 10:03:31 AM

Are we saying that man is not capable of distorting scripture as long as the scripture is in written form? What is wrong with saying that the guy who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible was in error? I don't understand why this would somehow call God's sovereignty into question or make any other translation of the Bible any less reliable. I think that is one of the biggest pitfalls of the church is that when others sin we want to point it out, but when we do we want to push it under the carpet...

Well, it's that the translator "sinned" (though it was the translation following the Vulgate in which the error was made), he just made a mistake in translation.
However, I think we need to be careful in regards to understanding what the Bible says and what we have been told that it says. In my studies, I have found 90% of Christian demonology and theology regarding Satan to be completely unbacked by scripture. The rapture and the serpent are other good examples of this.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #17 on:** March 16, 2009, 11:11:34 AM »

I completely agree. When the sin of the original translator led to others sinning, they are all accountable. We need to study the scriptures ourselves otherwise we will be easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #18 on:** March 16, 2009, 11:26:09 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 16, 2009, 11:11:34 AM

I completely agree. When the sin of the original translator led to others sinning, they are all accountable. We need to study the scriptures ourselves otherwise we will be easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along.

Why is it a "sin" though? Isn't it more likely a mistake? Also, could we say Luther "sinned" if he hypothetically "left out" Maccabees because he disagreed with doctrine that it presented?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** March 16, 2009, 11:47:31 AM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 11:14:20 PM

I mean, you have no grounds for that belief; not even Biblical grounds.

I have already stated that my primary belief in the accuracy and authority of the Bible is based on three grounds:
- The depiction of God in the Bible matching up with what we can learn about God by studying His creation
- The character of God giving Him the power to protect the Bible, and the desire to do so
- The character of humans giving us the need to have an immutable authority outside of ourselves

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 16, 2009, 11:11:34 AM

We need to study the scriptures ourselves otherwise we will be easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along.

And I would say that it is useless for the majority of the world to study the scriptures if we are going to have such a weak view of them. Imagine telling someone that the Bible is God's Word EXCEPT:
- that it really only USED to be God's Word when it was in Hebrew or Aramaic (which they can't read)
- that it really is only God's Word on spiritual issues, but is messed up when it comes to history, science, etc.
- that it really is only God's Word in parts that still apply to us today, and not all that culturally irrelevant stuff

Once you put all those exceptions on, then suddenly there's no way for any normal person to really understand what God's Word is really saying. So they would have to depend on some scholar of ancient languages, or ancient cultures, or history, or science, etc. to really tell them what it means. Which means that the exact thing that you are trying to avoid ends up happening. The masses are easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along

The Schaef · « **Reply #20 on:** March 16, 2009, 12:17:23 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 11:37:47 PM

I'm sorry, I was just asking him what his grounds for that were.

Asking is a question. You DECLARED that he had NO grounds.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:39:19 PM »

is the bible truth no mater what? yes or no?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #22 on:** March 16, 2009, 05:32:47 PM »

Quote from: Soundman2 on March 16, 2009, 01:39:19 PM

is the bible truth no mater what? yes or no?

To whom are you directing the question?

metalpsalm · « **Reply #23 on:** March 16, 2009, 08:19:48 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 16, 2009, 05:32:47 PM

Quote from: Soundman2 on March 16, 2009, 01:39:19 PM
is the bible truth no mater what? yes or no?
To whom are you directing the question?

I'll take it. The Spirit of Truth is the only thing we can trust. The Spirit illuminating a text is what brings life out of it. Ultimately we have a relationship with God, not a book. The Bible is the testimony of different people's relationship with God.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #24 on:** March 16, 2009, 09:29:49 PM »

The Bible is truth, but if someone distorts it intentionally which is what it sounded like the accusation that was being made in the article then it is sin, not a mistake. If I am reading it wrong then my apologies. God's Word is infallible...period! When you have a book though without a relationship with the Living God then you will not get what is being said anyway. Let him who has ears hear...

News:

Author Topic: Article on the silliness of Biblical translators. (Read 11542 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef