[Manny Rodriguez]

I would like to recommend the website of a newly formed ministry that I believe all defenders of the KJV should be aware of. This ministry is the William Carey Bible Society.

The website is - http://www.wcbible.org.

This ministry was started by Dr. Phil Stringer (former Vice President of Landmark Baptist College), Dr. Stephen Zeinner, Dr. Mickey Carter, Dr. Rex Cobb, Dr. Humberto Gomez and a few other men who stand for the inerrancy and preservation of the KJB. I know several of these men personally and have at least met all but 1 of the leaders of this group. While we all may not agree with each of these men on every single particular of the Bible issue, I can vouch for these men that they are are strong in their stand on the KJB as the inerrant and preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. These men will not hesitate to tell you that there are absolutely no errors in the KJV and they vehemently opposed the modern translations and the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that they are based upon.

The William Carey Bible Society's purpose is to promote Bibles in other languages that are equivalent to or are least the closest to the KJV. This may not mean a lot to some of you but to those of us who minister to people of a different language it is an important issue. We know we have a perfect Bible in English in the KJV. But what do we do when God leads us to minister to people outside of the English language?

The leaders of the William Carey Bible Society are committed to investigating the situation of Bibles in other languages in order to determine which are the best to use. On their website they have provided a list of Bibles in other languages around the world that are at least based upon the Received Texts of which the KJV came from:

http://wcbible.org/documents/theword.pdf

Now keep in mind that this list is not impeccable. It should be understood that this list simply provides a starting point for those interested in finding out what Bible in a certain language reads closest to the KJV. There are over 4000 languages in the world that do not have 1 verse of scripture translated. There is about 400 whole Bibles and about 1100 NTs of Bibles in different languages. Some language groups only have corrupt bibles. And so this list is provided by the WCBS to help the seeker get past the bad bibles and find what real options for a foreign Bible are available if any.

There is much more I can say about this important ministry but I trust those interested will peruse the website and let the information speak for itself. Of course, I look forward to some dialogue in this thread concerning Bibles in other languages as it is a subject near and dear to my heart.

Needless to say, as a Bible-believer I am in full support of what the William Carey Bible Society is doing. I'm sure you will be to.

[stephanos]

Doctrinal Statement

The William Carey Bible Society believes that the Holy Scriptures are the verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. We believe that God has preserved His word through the Received Text. The Old Testament Received Text is to be found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The New Testament Received Text is to be found in the Greek New Testament as edited by Dr. Scrivener (1894). The King James Bible is the Received Text in English.

I could never stand with those who believe that the Holy Scriptures are preserved in Scrivner's text. Scrivner was a notorious Bible corrector who is well known to have edited the AV 1611 to fit his weak faith in God's Word.

Also this doctrinal statement makes it clear that they are TR guys. They are not King James Bible Believers (not by this statement that is).

Nice try.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[bibleprotector]

I believe that it would be better to help people learn English than to waste resources making second-best translations into other languages. The trends are toward global use of English anyway, and knowing English gives them economic advantage, etc. If people know English, they can read the KJB and in many cases get it from the internet right now.

[bibleprotector]

The following quote from the “William Carey Society” is a woeful disgrace:

On the other hand, a translation taken only from the English might be less accurate than one also using the Greek, especially if it is done too literally. For instance, Revelation 3:20 says, “. . .if any man hear my voice. . .” This first-year Greek student can see at a glance that the word “man” is not found in the Greek phrase. The English uses the word “man” to mean any person; therefore “man” is a good choice. However, suppose that in the receptor language the word “man” can only refer to an adult male. Then a literal English translation would be an inaccurate one. Paul asks a ridiculous question in Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” He answers his question with, “God forbid.” A look at the Greek shows that the word “God “ is not found in this phrase and neither is the word “forbid.” The Greek uses a very strong word meaning “no” any another word meaning “to be.” The Spanish Bible translates this phrase as “in ninguna manera” (in not any way). The Greek, Spanish and English are all different; which is correct? They all are! By studying the Greek along with the English, the translator may get a better understanding of the text, something he desperately needs. He also sees that there is a certain amount of liberty in choosing the best word in the receptor language. Perhaps the receptor language best expresses it, “never, never.”

“never, never.”!?!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Overall I am more warm to such a web-site, preferring in a case like this to emphasize agreements more than differences. Or at least to point out that they can still be largely allies, even while their presentation has flaws.

There is an irony in placing the Scrivener back-translation, derivative from the King James Bible, over the King James Bible itself. This is only a result of paradigmic muddle, the refusal to simply see and declare our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

Stephen, they are referring to the Greek Scrivener back-translation, not the deficient Cambridge Paragraph Bible done by Scrivener. The back-translation to Greek (ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other) is a decent scholarly work, the Greek text today closest to the King James Bible.

The list of Bibles in other languages is fairly good, and at least can be a help. I have seen one other web-article with similar information.

Among those who believe that Bible translations into other languages can be a positive effort, the issue of the source text (when skills in Greek or Hebrew as well as English are available) is a fascinating question. As of today I would not belittle the arguments on either side.

Although the "men" argument for Greek translation given in their article is flawed since someone translating from the King James Bible is likely to know full well when "men" is inclusive of men and women, simply by English knowledge and context. They also would likely know full well that "God forbid" is idiomatic, or dynamic equivalence. And the web site articles clearly do not see God's hand in the English Bible as we do. And by their theories could easily end up translating incorrectly from "the Greek" (e.g. they could crash-up some 'faith of Christ' into 'faith in Christ'). Thus the Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic TR alone would be a very dubious source option today, if the KJB was not included.

Another strange aspect that pops up continually is how there could be over 50 pages (in two articles) on the "LXX" with no mention of the Psalm 14 gross tampering. This always amazes me.

Beyond that, I hope to look at those articles a little closer. Oh, I note that they mention Josephus but miss the fact that the Antiquities Preface indicates the lack of an available Greek translation of the Old Testament histories in the late first century. This is a bit more nuanced than the Psalm 14 issue but should be in every substantive "LXX" article.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I could never stand with those who believe that the Holy Scriptures are preserved in Scrivner's text. Scrivner was a notorious Bible corrector who is well known to have edited the AV 1611 to fit his weak faith in God's Word.

Also this doctrinal statement makes it clear that they are TR guys. They are not King James Bible Believers (not by this statement that is).

Nice try.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Then if you are a King James Bible-believer, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. You must not realize that Scrivener's Greek Text of the TR is the most accurate edition of the TR in that it is the ONLY Greek Text that was made to mirror the KJV. Here is an official statement from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the Greek Text they print (read carefully and learn):

Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?

In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.


How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?

F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I believe that it would be better to help people learn English than to waste resources making second-best translations into other languages. The trends are toward global use of English anyway, and knowing English gives them economic advantage, etc. If people know English, they can read the KJB and in many cases get it from the internet right now.

As a Missionary to a non-english speaking people, I strongly disagree. You are out of touch with reality if you really believe that. There are thousands of language groups in this world. Most of which live in 3rd would countries where education is not very good. Some language groups in this world are simply not going to learn English and that is a fact and reality. Some will REFUSE to learn English because they are proud of their language, and if God calls you to minister to such people, the only way you are going to reach them is through THEIR language not yours. God has not called you to Americanize or Anglicize them but to evangelize them.

Besides, even if you COULD teach everyone English, the time, money, energy, and resources spent teaching them English could have very well been used to give them the words of God in their language. Outside of the Gospel itself, there is no greater gift you can give to a foreign people than the word of God in their own language.

Almost every pioneer Missionary to we read about and uphold today as heroes of the faith were involved in translating the word of God into the language of the people the minister to. Only in this day and age of apostacy and APETHY do you find a de-emphasis of translating the word of God into foreign languages.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The following quote from the “William Carey Society” is a woeful disgrace:



“never, never.”!?!

How is this a "woeful disgrace"? Do you even understand what this man, who is an experienced Bible translator, is explaining? Have you ever studied a second language?

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I could never stand with those who believe...

Bob Jones Sr. said:

“It is never a compromise to go as far as you can on the RIGHT road with anyone: it is always a compromise to go any distance on the wrong road with anyone.”

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

Hello Bro. Avery, it's been a while.

There is an irony in placing the Scrivener back-translation, derivative from the King James Bible, over the King James Bible itself. This is only a result of paradigmic muddle, the refusal to simply see and declare our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

Just for the record, and I speak for myself, but I do not hold the TR as superior to the KJV. I believe the KJV and the Greek and Hebrew words that underlie it are equal. For those who don't know me, I believe the KJV is PERFECT. It is the infallible word of God. There are no errors in it whatsoever. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. God's words have always been around and always will be because Ps. 12:6-7 and a score of other verses says so. And before 1611, yea before John Wycliffe's translation in the 1300s, the words of God existed in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac and other languages before it ever did in English. Just because God has chosen English to be the universal language of today, and He has given us a perfect Bible in that language, does not mean that his words in other languages ceased or expired from being God's words as well. So I furthermore believe that these Bible-believers who utterly despise any consideration of the Greek and Hebrew make absolutely no sense and shoot themselves in the foot.

Of course, Bro. Avery, I'm sure you already knew these things about me from past conversations. I state my position for the sake of others.

the Greek Scrivener back-translation

If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation". I've done a little write-up about this which I have yet to publish. Here is a portion of it:

"First off, Scrivener’s Annotated Greek NT is not necessarily a “new Textus Receptus”. According to Scrivener’s own testimony (see the preface of Scrivener’s Greek NT), his text is basically Beza’s 5th edition (1598) save in 190 places. For these 190 places, Scrivener replaced those readings with Greek renderings that matched the KJV more closely. But these replacements were not new TR readings nor were they a back-translation of the English into Greek as some have suggested. These renderings already existed in prior editions of the TR and were borrowed from those editions to replace the 190 instances in Beza’s 5th edition which did not match up as closely with the KJV. So there is really nothing new about Scrivener’s TR text. It is simply an edited version of Beza’s text in just 190 places with renderings that already existed in prior TR texts."

Among those who believe that Bible translations into other languages can be a positive effort, the issue of the source text (when skills in Greek or Hebrew as well as English are available) is a fascinating question. As of today I would not belittle the arguments on either side.

I'm glad not everyone is so close-minded. The subject of Bible translation is an important subject. It would do us as Bible-believers some good to listen a litter better and actually try to understand what is going on before delving into something half-cocked. Even if we don't agree with everything a certain individual is proposing, some of these men have a sincere desire to help people by providing them the pure words of God. They are doing the best they know how to figure out what is the best way to do that. Instead of "biting and devouring" one another, we should set are pride aside, and see what we can contribute to the discussion in assitance of those who have a true burden to help people receive God's pure words in their language.

Although the "men" argument for Greek translation given in their article is flawed since someone translating from the King James Bible is likely to know full well when "men" is inclusive of men and women, simply by English knowledge and context. They also would likely know full well that "God forbid" is idiomatic, or dynamic equivalence.

I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence. Bible believers need to understand that Formal Equivalence (word for word translating) is not necessarily a demand for an exact translation IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE. It is a demand for an exact word for word translation WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE. Anyone who has studied a second or third language knows that a word for word equivalent is not always available for every word in every language. In such cases, an exception must be made and the translator must diligently and prayerfully search for the closest to an equivalent that is possible. This is what the KJV translators did when 2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God". There is no 1 word available for "theopneustos" therefore they had to improvise in order to convey the Greek word properly into English. There is right now a team of Bible-believing Missionaries in Papua, New Guinea translating the word of God into the Pidgin dialect. They do not have a word for "modest" in Pidgin. So the translators had to do the same thing as the KJV translators did in 2 Tim. 3:16 with the translating of "theopneustos". They had to use several words to convey the English word "modest" into Pidgin.

Another example of when an exception must be made is with idiomatic expressions. The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to. The KJV translators were so fluent in the original languages as well as the cognate languages that they could identify the idiomatic expressions in those languages.
Most Greek and Hebrew professors today have not even begun to understand the languages that they teach at a level in which they can identify the idioms. The KJV translators could. Those who criticize the KJV translators for translating an idiom in the original languages (mA genomia) into an idiomatic expression in the receptor language (God forbid) fail to appreciate the expertise of the KJV translators for this proper methodology.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here. The vast majority of words in any language WILL have an exact word for word equivalent. Therefore, a dynamic equivalent translation is never justified. However, it is an error to refer to exceptions in word for word translation as Dynamic Equivalence because the dynamic equivalence method of translating is not concerned with conveying the most literal sense of the source but rather the most "understandable" sense for the reader. This is a big difference. The KJV translators were not concerned with an easy to understand translation. They were concerned with an ACCURATE translation of God's pure words.

And the web site articles clearly do not see God's hand in the English Bible as we do. And by their theories could easily end up translating incorrectly from "the Greek" (e.g. they could crash-up some 'faith of Christ' into 'faith in Christ'). Thus the Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic TR alone would be a very dubious source option today, if the KJB was not included.

Bro. Avery, you obviously must have skimmed through the articles. Dr. Rex Cobb was trying to explain that both the KJV and the original languages should be used when translating into another language. And I agree wholeheartedly with that. I believe the Received Texts should be the foundation, but the KJV should be the standard on how to translate. In fact there is not translation on planet earth, including the KJV, that was ONLY made from the original languages without the collaboration of a foreign translation (or several) and vice-versa.

I have talked extensively with both Dr. Stringer and Dr. Zeinner of the WCBS on several occasions about Bible translation. These men would never accept a translation that is not equivalent to the KJV or at least an attempt to be and in order to accomplish that the KJV must be used as the standard in the translation process. In fact, on this same website Dr. D.A.Waite wrote an article critiquing another man for insisting that a KJV equivalent is not possible. These men are on the right side of the fence. It's time for Bible-believers to quit with the "friendly fire" and start realizing who their fellow-soldiers are lest Satan should get an advantage in this war.