[Manny Rodriguez]

Hello everyone.

It's been a while since I've been on here. I travel constantly as I'm on the deputation trail and many times I hardly have any Internet access or the time to come on here and fellowship with you guys around the word of God. Today I come on and see that this conversation has been brought back up, for which I am glad because it is an important topic. This is a subject of such paramount importance in regards to worldwide evangelism that this issue needs to be hashed out by Bible-believers who may provide different angles of perspective.

I feel that I have already said enough on this topic on the first few pages of this thread. But as I've perused through some of the new comments, some of which I am mentioned in, I just want to make a couple things very clear.

For those who have any doubts as to where exactly I stand or what flavor of King James Bible-believer I am... I believe that the King James Bible is PERFECT. It is the Preserved, Infallible, Inerrant, and Inspired (yes I said Inspired) Word of God in English. It is the final authority in all things especially in the matter of translating God's pure words into a foreign language. I believe the KJV should be the standard for foreign Bible translations and revisions. I believe Dr. Edward Hills said it best when he said that the KJB is "an independent variety of the Textus Receptus".

When the printing press was first invented in the late 1400s there was a push to publish all 66 books of the Bible into one volume and mass produce it. Before the invention of the printing press, having all 66 books in one volume was a rarity considering that God's words were handwritten and therefore could take over a year to hand copy the entire word of God from Gen to Rev. The push for the entire Bible in one volume for mass production began with the Latin Bible which was the first book ever printed on the newly invented press. As you all know, Erasmus was the first (in the new era of the printing press) credited with producing the entire NT into Greek. Prior to the printing press, Latin had been the language of choice for both scholars and the common Christian (such as the Waldenses and Albigenses) to render God's pure words as Latin was the most prominent of languages in the world for many centuries. Erasmus's efforts sparked a revival of interest in producing God's words in the NT into it's original language - Greek. God not only raised up Erasmus but others like Stephanus and Beza to continually purify the Greek text.

I said all that to say this. I believe the KJV is the fulfillment of the Received Texts. It is the final culmination. The completion of accuracy. Therefore, the KJB should be the final authority for Bible translators and revisers on determining accuracy and purity of God's words into receptor languages (Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, Polish, etc).

However, because of the complications that arise when trying to determine how to accurately translate some words from one language to another, I DO NOT BELIEVE that the translator is wrong for consulting other sources outside of the KJV. I believe the translator is well in his right to consult other TR-based Bibles in other languages. And what better sources to consult than the Received Texts in the original languages themselves, of which I would recommend the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text for Hebrew, and Scrivener's text for Greek since his is the only edition of the Greek TR text that was produced to match up with the KJV word for word. Contrary to the opinion of some on this thread, this can be done without compromising the KJB as the final authority.

Now the problem that I have with some you guys, though I respect all of you for your faithful stand on the KJB and your different approaches to this subject, is that some of you act as if those of us who believe the Received Texts can be used by today's Bible translators and revisers are somehow less of a Bible-believer than you. Somehow we're compromisers or something. But really you're just manifesting your ignorance to the nature of languages in general. The KJV translators themselves used many sources for their work. I would think that Bible Believers who know the history of how their KJB came about would understand from the example set by the King James translators the importance of consulting several sources FOR LINGUISTIC PURPOSES in the process of translating. But "the brethren" never cease to amaze me.

And another thing...

Though I appreciate Bibleprotecter's stand for the KJB, he remains guilty of twisting scripture to formulate private interpretations. The Great Commission is not introducing "Anglo-phone Protestant culture" (whatever that is) to the world and to force everyone to learn English. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel (which according to 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is the message of Christ's atoning death and resurrection, not the word of God which Bibleprotecter tried to define the Gospel as earlier in this thread). Not only that, but as Bro. Dan Haifley pointed out (Bro. Haifley, you and I have never met but we have mutual friends in the ministry and I salute you in the Lord. Thank you for your ministry, your stand for the KJB, and for what you do for the cause of worldwide evangelism) the example of the Apostles themselves in the book of Acts demonstrate that God's way of getting the Gospel to the world is in the language of the people. That is the Bible way. That is God's way. Bibleprotecter's way and God's way doesn't match. I'll stick with God.

God bless.

[Brother Tim]

Brother Manny and others who serve as missionaries, I honor your commitments to do all that you are enabled to do in ministering to those to whom God has sent you. I fully recognize the desire and drive that you have to get the message out through every means possible.

Respectfully, I would ask you these questions:

Brother Manny, you use the New Testament missionaries as evidence that the Gospel was put into the language of the people. Is there evidence in the NT that the Scriptures were translated into these many languages? Can a missionary learn and use the language so that communication is possible while at the same time train individuals in the English language? Is it possible that Matthew's way and God's way are not mutually exclusive?

I would ask any of those who would emphasize translation over English-training:

Let us consider a missionary going to a location where English was not known. The missionary faces a difficult challenge. Which is better? Learn the language to a level sufficient to accurately translate the Scriptures into this new language, or develop the English skills of the people. Yes, there is a middle ground, but for the purpose of discussion, I am dealing with the emphasis of translation over training or the reverse.

I would readily admit that either approach is a daunting task, and should be undertaken only through much prayer. There are advantages and disadvantages to either path. For the translation path, accuracy is paramount. The translator must not only be very skilled in the denotation of the vocabulary, but its connotation as well. Additionally, the receptor language must be robust enough to handle the deeper message of the Scriptures. Finally, most language groups that are not already exposed to English are not themselves either written languages or the population is predominately illiterate.

For the English-training route, the learning-the-language barrier must still be conquered. Some have said that English is difficult to learn. I have also heard the opposite. The fact remains that English is global, and is increasing in its influence. Given the fact that training and learning any language can be a challenge, what advantage does this path have over the first. I would say that there are several.
1 ) The people are not dependent on everything being presented in their language. The non-English reader is limited to only the material (Scriptures and other) that has been translated. He cannot listen to the massive amount of preaching/teaching available in English. He cannot take advantage of printed reference materials (dictionaries, etc). He is dependent on those who can speak and write in his language.
2 ) Because English has a global influence, the people receive a greater advantage in many aspects.

I have quickly sketched out a few of my thoughts here. The issue is much deeper than can be covered in a post, but hopefully others can follow the ideas that I expressed.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brother Manny, you use the New Testament missionaries as evidence that the Gospel was put into the language of the people. Is there evidence in the NT that the Scriptures were translated into these many languages?

No there is no evidence that I am aware of in the NT that the Scriptures were translated into the languages that the disciples ministered to the people in at that time. And I've never implicated such.

Of course, the canon of the scriptures had not yet been completed and so Bible translation was not as much as a necessity during the Apostle's time. Besides, most people in those days were versed enough in the cognate languages of Hebrew as well as Greek and Latin that there was not a demand for the scriptures to yet be translated outside of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin during the beginning days of the church.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Can a missionary learn and use the language so that communication is possible while at the same time train individuals in the English language? Is it possible that Matthew's way and God's way are not mutually exclusive?

Brother Tim, please don't misunderstand my position. I never said that a Missionary could never teach their people English and therefore bypass the need for a Bible translation in the language of the people they minister to. There are some parts of the world where that may be a viable option. And if that is the most efficient way to reach those particular people with the word of God than I am all for it.

The problem I have with Matthew's way (or Bibleprotector) is that he insists that the Great Commission is to convert all cultures of the world to what he calls an Anglo-phone Protestant culture and thereby force everyone and there mother to learn English. He believes that this method is the fulfillment of verses in the Bible (some of which he has posted throughout this thread). But this is sheer nonsense. He is twisting scripture to promote his private interpretation. And he is out of touch with reality as to ministering to people of a different culture.

There are parts of this world in which they will never learn English. For these people, it would be much more efficient for the Missionary to learn the people's language and minister to them in THEIR language. True God-called Missionaries are many times gifted with the ability to learn the language of the people much faster and more more fluently and effectively. I have had the privilege to rub shoulders with many Missionaries from all over the world who have mastered the language of the people just as intimately as their own language of English. Missionaries CAN learn the language good enough to be able to provide God's pure words into those languages. You would be surprised with how much God can enable and equip a man of whom He has called once that man is fully yielded to the Spirit of God. 1 Tim. 1:12

There is a famous Missionary quote that says something to the effect: "The Bible in the mother tongue is the greatest Missionary. It needs no furlough and is never considered a foreigner."

Which do you believe will leave a more lasting impression and effect? The Missionary/English teacher who teaches a certain group English or the Missionary/Bible translator who provides that same group the word of God in their language? I say the latter because when the English teacher is dead and gone who will continue his "ministry"? But let the word of God loose and it can take of men's souls on its own, with or without the Missionary who translated it.

The example of church history and missions has proven that the latter has left the more lasting effect. How many great English teachers do you know who did a great work for God as opposed to how many great Missionaries who translated the Scriptures and did a great work for God? Bibleprotector tries to bring up Missionaries in the past who endeavored to teach English. Yet it is somewhat humorous that those same Missionaries are men who also translated the Bible into the language of the people they minister to. The efforts to provide God's words into the tongue of the people have outlasted their efforts to teach people English. The reality is that there is no great movement to convert the world to switch to English as Matthew insists there is and/or will be. The reality is that God has and is raising up Missionaries to translate the word of God into other languages. Whole ministries exist for that very cause today.

Again, I'm not saying that teaching people English so that they can simply resort to the KJB can never be a viable option. But the more realistic, efficient, and effective option in MOST cases is simply to provide the people God's words in their tongue. This has always been an important aspect of Mission work and always should be.

Is a Missionary at liberty to simply teach the people English? Sure, he could be. Who knoweth the mind of God for each individual? But even so, I think the time, energy, and resources spent to teach people English could have been spent more efficiently providing them God's words in their own language.

Our God is a multi-faceted God. He cannot be limited nor confined in a box. I'm for whatever way will work the most efficiently and effectively to save men's souls from eternal destruction. And though I do not exclude teaching people English as a viable option, I believe providing them God's words in their language is the better way, in most cases, and the way that matches what we see in the scriptures.

What I find interesting is that many times those who insist that we convert everyone to learn English are those who are not involved with ministering to non-English speaking people and are therefore out of touch with reality with the cultural obstacles that exist. You have never seen a more thankful individual than a native in a foreign land who is given God's words in their language. They will cherish that gift in a way that we spoiled rotten Americans have long since forgotten. (And Bible correctors think WE are the Bibliolaters! They ain't seen nothin.)

I hope I've covered you question, Brother Tim.

[Brother Tim]

Manny, would you agree that translating the entire Bible is not necessary?

[Brother Tim]

Would you also agree that not teaching English limits the individual to only that material which is translated into his tongue?

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Manny, would you agree that translating the entire Bible is not necessary?

If I understand the question correctly I don't think I could agree with that. Mat. 4:4 says that man cannot live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. So I believe it is important to accurately translate every word of God into the receptor language.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Would you also agree that not teaching English limits the individual to only that material which is translated into his tongue?

Well the answer to that is pretty obvious. But if I understand where you're going with this I should say that I personally believe that every word of God can be accurately translated into a foreign language in such a way that the native in the foreign land can receive everything they need to spiritually grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. I disagree with those who say that it is impossible to translate a Bible into a foreign tongue that can provide everything the KJB provides for the English-speaking people. Some of my good friends disagree with me on that but I just believe that the same God that existed in 1611 exists today. Jesus Christ was not an Englishman. We ought not to limit the Holy One of Israel.

ps - I might not be able to come back to this thread for a while as I am about to hit the road again and I don't know when I'll have Internet access again. So please don't be offended if I don't get to answer any further questions any time soon. God bless.

[George]

Your quote:

"I believe that if an English speaking person is going to translate the Bible into another language that he should use the KJV as the standard. It is the undisputable standard for the English language. Interestingly enough every other translation (that I know of) tries to compare itself to the KJV in its introduction."

Aloha brother Daniel,

From your statement above, I believe we are on the "same page" (or close to it). My concern has not been whether translations should or should not be made, my concern has always been - when a translation is made into a foreign language, WHAT was used as the exemplar (FINAL AUTHORITY) in determining which words to translate.

Your example of the baskets demonstrates that it isn't always simple or easy when trying to translate exactly, and I can see the difficulty in the example you cited.

However, if you went to the South Seas where the Natives had never seen snow (for instance), I believe that it would be better to leave the English word in your translation, rather than seek an equivalent native word (of which there would be NO SATISFACTORY EQUIVALENT). For those words where there would be no satisfactory equivalent, it would be far better to leave the English word (that can be explained in preaching and teaching) than to ADD some foreign word which would not be accurate.

The King James Bible translators "transliterated" the Greek word - "Nicolaitans" {Revelation 2:6 & 15], and I can see no problem doing that (in English) if a satisfactory equivalent word cannot be found.

If you read my Posts, I believe that you will see that I never objected to anyone translating the Bible into another language, as long as the translator understood the definition of the Bible {A Book you can hold in your hands), and as long as the translator knows WHICH BIBLE to translate from.

I would never presume to tell someone that they cannot translate the Bible or that they shouldn't. Who am I to know what God is leading someone else to do? [Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.] My only concern has been that those who undertake this task be FAITHFUL to the text of The Holy Bible; which by your testimony, I believe you will be.

Brother Manny Rodriguez is a good brother in the Lord, who is undertaking a daunting task. I commend both him and you for your labors in the Lord, and pray that God will bless your efforts.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

One cannot distract Brandon. Sorry.

You can freely download SwordSearcher to evaluate for 30 days.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/download.html

God is good brother, problem has been solved

Grace and peace to all

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi Tony. You may or may not already know about this site, but it is a great source for numerous foreign language Bibles. You can find the 1649 Diodati and the 1545 Luther translation there. If you do not know how to read German or any other language, just copy the words you want to have translated and take them over to a free translation site like Babel Fish. The Louis Segond is not a good bible, but the French Martin 1744 is quite good and the French Ostervald 1996 is also pretty good.

MANY Bibles both English and foreign language can be seen here:

http://unbound.biola.edu/

Here are a couple of free translation sites:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

and this one is very good:

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/enfo...al/translation

All of grace,
Will Kinney

Thanks Will, I've bookmarked the sites. I once owned a leather over wood bound Martin Luther Bible printed in 1769.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Tony asked:
I do not know Spanish, but from what I have read, the RV has gone through a number of revisions (not just editions) over the years, some improving and other corrupting.

That's true. Luther's Bible had Theodotian's corrupt "...son of the gods" (bar elahin) in Daniel 3:25 and did not include the Johannine Comma in the editions that came out while he was alive.

Grace and peace

Tony