From: mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:04:17 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

The Rink (ss1@kepler.unh.edu) wrote:
: >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.

However, you should keep in mind that the translators of the KJV did
keep these sort of things in mind.  They attempted to go through and
remove later additions to the text, etc., as they could identify them.
This resulted in a translation of the Bible which was different than
the Latin translations which had been dominant up to that point.

I would propose that if the translators of the KJV had today's Biblical
sources available (i.e. DSS, Chester-Beatty Pappyri, etc.) that they
would have used these instead of the 12th and 13th century documents
which they used.  They went back to the original text to the extent
which they could.  If more information would have been available, they
would have used it.  They were very much interested in an accurate
translation of the Bible in a language the people could read and
understand.  I would be very surprised if the same scholars (yes scholars)
who translated the KJV, if given todays sources and language, would
come up with a translation much different than the NIV or NASB.

What I am saying in a nutshell:  The KJV was a great translation of
the sources it had available.  The NIV and NASB are also great 
translations of the sources that they have available.  All of these
translations were done with great care, thought, and study.  Accuracy
and readability were (and still are) the two greatest concerns of
Bible translators.

: >: DIFFERENCE:  Mark 1:2-3
: >: 
: >: KJV says:  "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my
: >: messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
: >: thee.  The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
: >: way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
: >: 
: >: NIV says:  "It is written in Isaiah the prophet:  I will send my
: >: messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.  A voice of
: >: one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make
: >: straight paths for him.'"
: >

[I originally said this]

: >If this is your strongest case, your are in trouble.  The _GREAT_
: >majority of texts in the Greek state that Isaiah is the prophet,
: >which he is, for the first quote.  The emendation to "prophets"
: >instead of Isaiah is clearly a later editor making the passage
: >more "correct" so that it includes both quotes.  Metzger gives the
: >Isaiah reading an "A", which means that they are VERY sure that this
: >represents the original reading.
: 
: Ouch!!!!  The Isaiah quote was the *SECOND* line.  The Malachi quote was
: the *FIRST*.  I think you are the one in trouble here....

Sorry for my typo.  You are correct, Isaiah is the second quote.  However,
I stand by my statement that the overwhelming evidence is that "Isaiah"
and not "prophets" was the original reading, with the reasoning behind
the change being exactly what was quoted above.

: >: DIFFERENCE:  Luke 2:22,24
: >: 
: >: KJV says: (verse 22)  "And when the days of her purification
: >: according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought
: >: him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord."
: >: 
: >: NIV says: (verse 22)  "When the time of their purification
: >: according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and
: >: Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord."
: >
: >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.  A previous
: poster mentioned how 1 John 5:7 was in an early third century document, but
: how that they were not in later manuscripts (dating a thousand years later),
: and that these manuscripts were both earlier and "more reliable" than the
: manuscripts from which the King James was translated.  I'll wager the "their"
: was something errantly changed along the way, but corrected before the KJ
: was translated -- as 1 John 5:7 was.  I don't know this, but I'll wager it.

Note that I said that the strongest indication is that "their" is the
original reading.  I know we don't have the original documents.  I would
wager that if you traced through all the old documents from the earliest
to latest you would find that "her" was introduced in a few documents,
and could probably narrow it down to the century (and possibly even the
geographic area) where this change occurred.

As for the inconsistency with Leviticus, there is no hard and fast rule
that everything must be neatly consistent.  Tension is OK.  James talks
about FAITH and WORKS, as does Paul, and there is some tension.  Chronicles
and Samuel have some interesting things to say about David numbering Israel.
One attributes it to temptation by Satan, the other to God.  Not neat
and consistent.  The tension must be recognized and examined.  It is 
good.  It gets us thinking about what we believe and why.  (However, I
believe that tension over the misuse of a pronoun is a better spent
elsewhere).

: 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.

Perhaps this is food for thought.  The KJV translators were scholars.
Luther, Calvin, Gregory of Nicene, Wycliffe, Luke, and Paul, all seem
to have been scholars.  In fact most of the people termed as the
church fathers were considered scholars.

Also, what you were trying to do regarding scripture comparison is
"scholarly".  You were performing textual criticism on versions
of the Bible and questioning the differences.  Where I think you need
to go further is to compare the sources for these various versions
and learn where they come from, back to the original languages.  Learn
how and why various choices are made on modern translations.

: I find that understanding is the fear of God.

Perhaps you meant to quote Proverbs: "The beginning of wisdom is the fear
of God."

: Hard to take, isn't it?  Hard to accept that you, as a scholar, don't have
: intellectual dominion over the rest of us.

I have no intellectual dominion.  Agreed.  I apologize if I came accross
in that manner.

: 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."
 
: >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?

As I said before, the KJV was a good translation for the time.  The 
translators did an excellent job with the sources available.  However,
as more sources become available, these should be put to use and not
ignored.  For some reason, God deemed it appropriate that we should find
and have available these ancient manuscripts, perhaps if for no other 
reason than to show the overall consistency of the Bible over time.

As for the need of fifty million translations -- I think that the Bible
should be continually retranslated into the language of the day.  Language
changes over time and so the language of the Bible needs to change.  Notice
I say language and not theological content.  The translation or the language
is not what makes the Bible infallible.  Otherwise Greek and Hebrew would
be our choices.  The translation and the language put the infallible Word
of God into terms which people can understand and apply to their lives 
today.  When I get up to preach, my hardest challenge is to put religious
terms and phrases into terms which non-religious people can understand
and apply, without losing the theological and spiritual truths.  Every
week I meet and talk to people, some of whom have no clue as to what book
of the Bible is where, what "propitiation" means, etc.  If I simply
spout KJV terms at them (as some NIV and NASB terms for that matter), I
lose my right to be heard, because they cannot understand what I am saying.

The central purpose of the KJV was to put the Bible into the language
of the common people so that they could read and understand the scriptures.
The same can be said of the ASV, NIV, NASB, and the host of Bibles being
translated into other languages by the American Bible Society.  God meant
His word to be easy to read.  Language should never be allowed to be a
stumbling block for the scriptures.  The Bible tells us to go to the "ends
of the earth" to make disciples, which to me means coming to people where
they are at.  To do this I cannot use 400 year old language which people
can neither understand or relate to.

p.s.  I have no trouble with being called a scholar.  However, I am
      first of all a Christian.  My beliefs include:  the trinity,
      that Christ is the one and only way, and that humankind will
      one day stand in judgment before God.  I also believe that God
      created the earth and all that it contains.  And, for the record
      I have about 1 year left in the MDIV program at Fuller Theological
      seminary.  I get by on my Greek, Hebrew, and church history.  I
      do computers to pay for school.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark McGregor -- mmcgreg@uswnvg.com

Wisdom exceeds folly as light exceeds darkness -- Ecclesiastes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian