Is King James onlyism a heresy?
- Thread starter yogosans14
- Start date
- Status
SamInNi
God's Riches At Christ's Expense
- Jan 4, 2022
- 121
- 105
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Translation from one language to another can be challenging. All more formal English translations of the Bible need to be "dynamic" in places, but some dynamic translations can be overly interpretive.
Because the original languages of Scripture are the God-breathed Word, translation accuracy is particularly important. Other scholarly works can be used alongside our Bible versions to help us explore the richness of the text.
Teneo Linguistics Company, a translation service, defines equivalence in this way:
WHAT IS FORMAL EQUIVALENCE?
Formal equivalence is a literal, word-for-word translation. The goal is to stay as close to the original text as possible. The translation will preserve the lexical details, grammatical structure, vocabulary, and syntax of the source text. This assumes the reader knows the cultural and linguistic context of the source text.
PROS OF FORMAL EQUIVALENCE
Translating the text as faithfully as possible allows the reader to come to their own conclusions about the text. It is more likely to retain the direct meaning of the text and less likely to be influenced by the translator. Formal equivalence allows for untranslated idioms and strives to avoid localization, so those who are familiar with the source culture and language can come to their own conclusions.
WHAT IS DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE?
With dynamic equivalence, the target audience is taken into account. The text will be translated in a way that may make more sense than a direct translation. Dynamic equivalence wants to preserve the response of the reader – that is, the reader’s response to the translation should be the same as the reader’s response to the original.
PROS OF DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE
If the source language differs greatly from the target language, maintaining the original syntax and grammar can make the translated text difficult to read. Dynamic equivalence allows the translator to make edits as needed so the translated text is comprehensible. Oftentimes, the target audience is not familiar with the source language or culture and needs idioms and references explained or localized to make sense.
In the end, the best approach is often a blend of formal and dynamic equivalence. The translator must consider the target audience and adapt the text appropriately. Adapting for the target audience is an important skill that can sometimes be overlooked. When you’re looking to have text translated, you should find a qualified language service provider who can ensure a quality translation for your audience.
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 11,180
- 5,708
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
In general I agree, but I question the extent to which dynamic equivalence should be used, and I provided specific parameters in my previous post which outline the scenarios where it makes sense, which is to say, an obvious problem of semantics and an obvious solution from dynamic equivalence, which is semantically equivalent on a functional level.
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 11,180
- 5,708
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
That sounds like the wisdom of men trying to sit in the seat of God so as to determine what God actually said vs. what He did not say. I believe the true Doctrine of Preservation according to what God’s Word says, and not the Gotquestions or Scholarly version of it. But we can agree to disagree. The lines in the sand have already been drawn here. Many here want to bow before the scholar and kiss his ring and hang on every word he says as truth. I believe God’s Word. So there is a big difference in my approach to the Bible vs. others.
Upvote
0
shineyourlight
Well-Known Member
- Mar 6, 2020
- 1,412
- 1,885
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I actually have a close brother in the Lord who is not KJB Only. I also actually look at Modern Bibles, too; However, Modern bibles are not my final word of authority because they place the devil’s name in them where they do not belong, they teach false doctrines like Jesus had faith, or Jesus was a created demi-god, or they remove the one and only clearest verse that point blank teaches the Trinity, and remove the word “Godhead” (Trinity) and replace it with “divinity,” and they chop Romans 8:1 in half and they remove the blood in Colossians 1:14, and they remove the doctrine on fasting to cast out persistent demons, and they make Jesus appear to sin. The list goes on and on, and on, and on with the problems of Modern Bibles, etcetera. Yes, the KJB is very difficult to read. It’s language to many is offensive because people like easy to understand stuff. But God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). Note: This would be the foolish things from the world’s perspective (of course).
In any event, may God bless you (even if we disagree).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 11,180
- 5,708
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SamInNi
God's Riches At Christ's Expense
- Jan 4, 2022
- 121
- 105
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Hello Bible Highlighter. My post was mainly highlighting the problems faced by translators in general, and my quote was from a secular company that translates documents from one language to another, a skilled discipline.
In the general context of Onlyism, the English scholars who worked on the original KJV faced the all these typical challenges of translating one language into another. They are very humble about this in their original preface, Translators to the Reader:
"But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?... The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest... all of us in those tongues which we do not understand are plainly deaf...
"Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light... Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue [common language], the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well... the Church [was] furnished with Greek and Latin translations, even before the faith of Christ was generally embraced in the Empire...
"...the godly learned... provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen... by the written word translated..."
"Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light... Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue [common language], the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well... the Church [was] furnished with Greek and Latin translations, even before the faith of Christ was generally embraced in the Empire...
"...the godly learned... provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen... by the written word translated..."
As you know, the "Doctrine of Preservation," as you call it *, is a personal position of faith that's impossible to quantify in real terms. It certainly is NOT "the written Word translated". It's a belief issue the vast majority of Christ-centered believers aren't interested in and would never need.
But, if it helps to lead you into a deeper spiritual walk with Him, I sincerely wish you well in it, although I can think of no way it which it could.
* In relation to the Textus Receptus and KJV? Or "providential preservation"? See HERE.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
SamInNi
God's Riches At Christ's Expense
- Jan 4, 2022
- 121
- 105
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Yes, I agree. Standards of Bible translation, one language to another, need to be very high indeed. Dynamic equivalence needs to be tightly controlled.
In my experience the 1995 NASB is a good place to start and a very useful go-to translation. But that's just my opinion.
Upvote
0
GreekOrthodox
Psalti Chrysostom
- Oct 25, 2010
- 4,121
- 4,191
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Those of us who read Greek
As for your tag line, Taco Bell? Don't you mean something authentically Mexican?
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Do we walk by faith or by sight?
Are you looking at things from more of a purely sight based viewpoint or a faith based viewpoint? Everyone has faith, but where is that faith being placed?
One either believes God is involved in providentially providing His Word for us today or it is men providing God’s Word for us.
The issue here really is believing what God’s Word says vs. what men (the Modern scholars) say.
The Doctrine of Inerrancy & and the Doctrine of Preservation are actually taught in the Bible (Psalms 12:6-7 - which is a passage that is suspiciously altered in Modern bibles). Granted, Modern Scholarship redefines the doctrines of Inerrancy and Preservation. Calvinist B.B. Warfield was the first to perpetuate the false belief of “The Originals Only are Perfect” contrary to what the church originally believed (and people today believe this belief by FAITH). The problem is that folks do not even know what Proverbs 30:5-6 even says and or means. First, it says EVERY word of God is pure and not just some general message. Second, it says in the passage that to add to God’s words means one is a liar. It’s a fact that the NIV, NASB add tons of new words and remove words every couple of years. They are shapeshifter bibles trying to mimic the true Word of God. The scholars who add new words to God’s Holy Word are simply lying (and don’t even know it). This never happened with the KJB because they put those words in italics (letting the reader know that these words are not a part of the original manuscripts they were working off of). But the Modern Bibles keep changing. They never say the same thing and they are never settled. That’s confusion. However, God is not the author of confusion. If the Lord has not come back yet in 100 years from now & Modern bible publishers are able to sell butchered bibles to the flock, your Modern Bible in one hundred years will be totally different than the one you have now. It will be different. There is no regard for the words of God as holy and special. The deliciously deceptive thing that authors of the Modern bibles do is that they change the words in your Bible and don’t even tell you the changes. They never told you. For generally, they never tell the reader of these changes. But most people just don’t seem to care if God’s words change or are altered. That is the state of the world we are living in now.
However, there can only be ONE true set of the words of God (Holy Bible) and not many.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
shineyourlight
Well-Known Member
- Mar 6, 2020
- 1,412
- 1,885
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
I don't go to Taco Bell for the authenticityThose of us who read Greek
View attachment 311738
As for your tag line, Taco Bell? Don't you mean something authentically Mexican?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
YeshuaFan
Well-Known Member
- Oct 19, 2018
- 3,003
- 996
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
The Lord has indeed preserved to us in all of the manuscripts pretty much the originals, and we can trust that the Kjv and the formal MV all are the English word of the Lord to us now
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't go to Taco Bell for the authenticity
I used to love Taco Bell. It was even way better when Taco Bell used to cook the raw beef and raw chicken in the actual restaurant (Note: This changed sometime in 1991 whereby they simply drop the already previously cooked meat and rewarm it up in boiling water). However, I stopped going to Taco Bell a year ago or so after reading their warning at the bottom of their website.
Things have gotten worse in these last days. Before the King James Bible used to be in public schools. Now, the King James Bible is despised by Christians or it holds no power in their life anymore.
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
What good does it do to preserve the originals perfectly if they don’t exist? Divine inspiration of the originals is a waste of time if there is no Divine Preservation. It does not make any logical sense and you know it. It would also make God out to be a respecter of persons, as well (and make it seem like God does not care about giving us His exact words). The Modern bibles are corrupt ten times over. Wrong doctrines, the devil’s name is placed in them where they do not belong. Just because they are easier to read does not make them better. They also came late in the game, as well. They came at a time when the King James Bible had already been around producing good fruit. The frog in the throat plague took hold of some of those who created Modern Bibles. This is because Revelation 22:18-19 tells the reader not to add to his words otherwise God will add the plagues upon them that are written in God’s book. I could go and on. But will that ever change your mind? Will you keep clinging to B.B. Warfield’s belief?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Please watch this video:
May God bless you.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SamInNi
God's Riches At Christ's Expense
- Jan 4, 2022
- 121
- 105
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Something for Onlyists to consider:
By critically translating the Scriptures into common English, the KJV scholars were acknowledging that the Word of God existed free from all error in the original documents only (autographs).
Quotes from their original preface:
The 1611 KJV translators are here saying that:
By critically translating the Scriptures into common English, the KJV scholars were acknowledging that the Word of God existed free from all error in the original documents only (autographs).
Quotes from their original preface:
"[There is no] cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
"For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?...
"...we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good...
"These tongues therefore [Hebrew and Greek] (the Scriptures, we say, in those tongues) we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.
"There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once... so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places... Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? ...so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
"For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?...
"...we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good...
"These tongues therefore [Hebrew and Greek] (the Scriptures, we say, in those tongues) we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.
"There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once... so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places... Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? ...so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
The 1611 KJV translators are here saying that:
- a translation cannot be perfect, that only the original in Hebrew and Greek was infallible (by God's Spirit),
- that their principal translation had made former translations better,
- and that such were the demands of translating from Hebrew and Greek that the reader would benefit from marginal notes where the main translation was unclear.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
