From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 20:25:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.014717.17140@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>Some of the rules of textual criticism include:
>
>While they are important to keep in mind, I couldn't care less.  The rules
>of textual criticism aren't MY scripture at all.

There was a process involving some form of "textual criticism" that
produced the AV - the fact that the rules used more recently may be
somewhat different doesn't change the fact that ALL translations
involve textual criticism.  You can ignore it, but that doesn't change
the fact...

>>A further problem with your argument is that of the Catholic church.
>>They include "extra" books, and have done so for hundreds of years,
>>including the time prior to the reformation.  By your methods of 
>>examination, the fact that this has existed over such a period of
>>time should prove its authenticity and validity.
>
>Not *my* methods....

At this I want to say something like "And who made YOU the one who
chooses the methods of textual criticism?"  That could turn things
into a "flame war."  I'll just say: "Careful that you don't redefine
your criteria too much as arguments are given against your points.
You could wind up digging yourself into a hole."

<variant readings section omitted>
>>Two of what are considered source documents use "her" the rest use
>>"their".  The strongest indication is that "their" was used in the
>>original documents.  "Her" is easily explained as a correction to
>>the text for the reasons you have noted.  The question is, should
>>the translation use "their", which has the weight of evidence, or
>>"her", which is more correct based on Leviticus.  This is a tough
>>call.  I'm not sure.  In either case I would footnote it.
>
>"Their" was *not* used in the original documents.  You don't even
>*know* what the original documents say, because they don't exist.  

Since they don't exist, you don't *know* what the original documents
say, and they could well use "their."

>>The problem here is not "removing 'without a cause'" as you have 
>>said, but in adding without a cause in order to soften the original
>>statement in order to justify our anger at others.
>
>That's a possibility.  But there isn't anything saying that isn't what God
>meant.

But if it ISN'T what God meant, then it certainly shouldn't say
"without a cause."

>>My suggestion:  Learn about textual criticism.  Read commentaries.
>>Become a scholar.
>
>If I didn't know by now, I would know after reading this.  I couldn't care
>less what a scholar said to me about the Word of God.  I want the Word of
>God to tell me about the Word of God.  There are scholars that are
>evolutionists; there are scholars that are atheists.  There are all kinds of
>scholars.  What the heck makes you think becoming a scholar will open my
>eyes to the truth?  I don't find that in the Bible.  In fact, I find that
>true wisdom is an understanding of the Scriptures.  I find that understanding
>is the fear of God.  I find that "the love of Christ surpasses knowledge"
>(paraphrased, possibly).

The issue here is textual criticism.  You're trying to do it, without
the knowledge.  (I don't have too much knowledge about it myself!)
When you try to attack the wording choices made in Bible translations,
you are getting involved with textual criticism.

You don't need to be an expert on textual criticism to make everyday
use of the Bible - although it is probably of some value.  In order to
BEST understand the scriptures, one needs to know some Greek and
Hebrew.

>Hard to take, isn't it?  Hard to accept that you, as a scholar, don't have
>intellectual dominion over the rest of us.
>
>Wisdom to man is FOOLISHNESS to God.  And the Word of God is GOD'S wisdom.
>So don't even talk to me about becoming a so-called "scholar."

Unfortunately, this is similar to some of the anti-intellectual
arguments that get heard so much in Christian circles.  On occasion, I
hear arguments that "I'm wiser because I'm ignorant."

>>And don't forget about the work of the Holy 
>>Spirit within the translator or group of translators.
>
>Oh!  So you think the Holy Spirit needs fifty million translations to perfect
>the Book in the English language?  He wasn't powerful enough to get it right
>in the King James?

This is getting a LITTLE silly.  An easy reply would be "Why bother
with AV?  Wasn't God powerful enough to get it right in the Greek and
Hebrew?"

Were you thinking that it WASN'T a group of translators that produced
the King James Version?  The process of translation hasn't changed ALL
that much over the centuries; THEY were also fallable human beings
just like the fallable human beins involved with translationwork today.

>>minds that think, and provided these source documents for a reason --
>>so that we can insure the accuracy of the word of God.
>
>"...so that *WE* can..."  ?????

I'm sure that the translators that worked on the AV considered it
important that they do a good job to "ensure the accuracy".

>>p.s.  I have nothing against the KJV, except that it is not highly
>>understandeable language.  God wants us to understand His word not
>>stumble over His word.  Sticking with archaic language is another
>>way in which the church puts stumbling blocks in front of the un-
>>churched population.  
>
>You just got finished saying it should not contain "without a cause",
>probably should contain "their", shouldn't contain "through his blood" and
>a number of other things.  Hmmm.

None of these passages are the FUNDAMENTAL passages that are the SOLE
supports for major doctrines.  Some churches have taken obscure
references and elevated them into major doctrines.  These tend to be
the people that most dislike newer translations.  There have been a
couple of "translations" done by cults in which they have used bizarre
translation methods to make a verse read something that they wanted to
be a major doctrine.

Having a problem with what amounts to a few words does not amount to a
total rejection of the version.  I think that if the statement was
reworded as "I have no fundamental objections to the KJV" that he
would be happier, and I would tend to agree with him.

The "major" problem with the AV is that the English used therein is
quite different to that used today.  IF you are VERY careful to make
sure that you know the language of 1611, and how it differs from the
English of 1992, the AV is a wonderful version.  If you are NOT
careful, it is easy to misread things.

The POINT of the AV was that it was a GOOD version of the Bible that
was intended to be in the language of the English people.  Since the
English language has changed after the passage of nearly 400 years, it
is appropriate that there be a GOOD version of the Bible that is in
the language of TODAY'S English people.  For there to be newer
translations now is very much in line with the ideas of the men that
produced the Authorized Version back in the 1600s.



-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian