Translate this...
A commonly used fallacy regarding the Bible's inerrancy is "The Bible has been translated so many times over so many years, you can't trust it because it's changed." (This fallacy has changed so many times over so many years, I don't even think I've got it right.
One of the problems with debate using this as a starting point is that it neglects the fact that over the years, the Bible has been translated many times, but always from the same source documents. If you were to translate the Gettysburg Address into Japanese a hundred years ago, you would have an accurate translation for that time. But, if we look at the changes in meaning and context of the Japanese language over the past hundred years, we would find many words that are no longer in use or have different meanings. When a word no longer means what it was used to mean, translators must use a "substitute word", or different word/phrase that better befits the author's original intent.
Would it be wiser to translate the original Gettysburg into modern Japanese or translate the translation into more modern terms? The latter could lead to changes that would "warp" the original intent, a la our above fallacy, causing subsequent "warping" of future translations. In studying the origninal Gettysburg and late 19th century American English we could more wisely make intelligent contextual choices for the 21st century translation.
Are not these the steps taken to translate the Bible into KJV, New KJV, NIV, NAS, Message editions? Original text to 17th c language, original text to 20th century language, not the alleged translation to translation to translation transmogrification... Am I wrong?
The study of words and cultures is essential to understanding the orignal intent of the Bible. If all we had today were translations of translations of translations to serve as our holy book, the veracity of the Bible would be reduced to the reliability of the childhood game of "telephone" where a secret is whispered, person to person, around a circle until it becomes something entirely different from its original state. We are fortunate to have scholars who deliberately and fearfully copied our Text over hundreds of years and to have copies of manuscripts decades apart that demonstrate the otherwise surprising lack of change from copy to copy.
In short, the original text has not changed, only the cultures and languages have required new, more temporarily relevant representations of the originals. The word of God stands as it always has. We are the ones who have moved.
For an interesting look at some archaelogocal findings that are supported by Biblical text and support Biblical claims, check this out.. And I highly recommend checking out some of former punk rocker Rob Bell's work, especially his reading list and anything he has to say about Old Testament culture.
One of the problems with debate using this as a starting point is that it neglects the fact that over the years, the Bible has been translated many times, but always from the same source documents. If you were to translate the Gettysburg Address into Japanese a hundred years ago, you would have an accurate translation for that time. But, if we look at the changes in meaning and context of the Japanese language over the past hundred years, we would find many words that are no longer in use or have different meanings. When a word no longer means what it was used to mean, translators must use a "substitute word", or different word/phrase that better befits the author's original intent.
Would it be wiser to translate the original Gettysburg into modern Japanese or translate the translation into more modern terms? The latter could lead to changes that would "warp" the original intent, a la our above fallacy, causing subsequent "warping" of future translations. In studying the origninal Gettysburg and late 19th century American English we could more wisely make intelligent contextual choices for the 21st century translation.
Are not these the steps taken to translate the Bible into KJV, New KJV, NIV, NAS, Message editions? Original text to 17th c language, original text to 20th century language, not the alleged translation to translation to translation transmogrification... Am I wrong?
The study of words and cultures is essential to understanding the orignal intent of the Bible. If all we had today were translations of translations of translations to serve as our holy book, the veracity of the Bible would be reduced to the reliability of the childhood game of "telephone" where a secret is whispered, person to person, around a circle until it becomes something entirely different from its original state. We are fortunate to have scholars who deliberately and fearfully copied our Text over hundreds of years and to have copies of manuscripts decades apart that demonstrate the otherwise surprising lack of change from copy to copy.
In short, the original text has not changed, only the cultures and languages have required new, more temporarily relevant representations of the originals. The word of God stands as it always has. We are the ones who have moved.
For an interesting look at some archaelogocal findings that are supported by Biblical text and support Biblical claims, check this out.. And I highly recommend checking out some of former punk rocker Rob Bell's work, especially his reading list and anything he has to say about Old Testament culture.
posted by Aarron & Cristine Pina at 12:38 AM
2 Comments:
I agree with you whole-heartedly. very good post!
Thanks for the link ... gatta run and check out Rob Bell.
GREAT IS HIS NAME AND GREATLY TO BE PRAISED
Post a Comment
<< Home