TRUSTING GOD IN A TRANSLATION...

Some Christians worry about the translation of the Bible they use.  Thus, they try to become experts in the history of the version they use, the theology of the men who translated it and then, get involved in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they are based on.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A TRANSLATION?

We think very few would argue that the point of a translation is for the person reading it to understand it.  Although this may seem obvious, it at times eludes many.  So it makes sense to translate it not in the language of King James II of 500 years ago, but in the contemporary language of the people today of no matter what country.  This was the apostolic pattern in choosing Koine Greek (meaning "common" or "street" Greek) and not Classical Biblical Hebrew (the traditional language of the Jews, which many had forgotten by the time of Christ) or Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (which was the language Jesus spoke in during his lifetime) in which to write the New Testament.  The Greek would have had the greatest audience, being the language of business and spoken by both Gentiles and Jews in Palestine.  This is not meant to denigrate the King James version and its lofty language.  Many of us have learned our scriptures in its tongue and value the power of it.

Of course, some believe that there is a grand plot to alter a translation to promote some view or doctrine.  This is true to some extent in all things that men do.  There is no complete objectivity in any human pursuit.  The question however, is whether this bias shows up in a translation where it tries to change a vital teaching of the christian faith.  The answer to that is no.  Why?  Because the bible is a supernatural book.  It was directed by a sovereign God who controls all things that come to pass.  The Bible came from a God who guides His people precisely in the paths he has for each one of them.

If one believes this truth, then one knows that the Bible is a unified whole.  The truths of the gospel are found everywhere in the Bible, the connections between passages is not by chance.  These connections are too vast, too subtle, too intertwined to be eliminated by men or devils.

But if one believes that God's will can be thwarted by men or devils, that God can be frustrated in His ultimate purpose, then he should fear that men or devils can alter His word to a point that the children of God would be deceived to their eternal doom.

This does not mean that there are not better translations than others.  Of course there are. Some translations aim to do what is called a formal equivalence  while others aim for dynamic equivalence. Should believers support the better translations?  Of course they should, assuming they are qualified to judge which is the better one.  But if they do not feel up to this task, then they should know that the sheep of Jesus hear his voice when he calls them. (John 10:27-28)

Since it requires according to the Bible a spiritual mind, a renewed mind, the mind of Jesus dwelling inside us to understand the word of God, it is not possible for those who possess a natural mind to see all the interconnections and change those connections through a translation.  We do not claim to know the motivations of those brethren who get into intense fights and debates over the which translation is best.  We can only say that their underlying assumptions are Arminian and therefore in error.  They, whether consciously or not, aid Satan in trying to confuse the children of God and make it appear that the Bible they hold in their hands is not to be trusted.  Who gets the glory from this assertion?  Does it glorify Jesus?  Is god's power magnified in this assertion?

What thy are saying, in essence, is that men or devils can overcome the God who opened the Red Sea, who resurrected from the death and in whom we are complete in a translation.  

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.  (Col. 2:11-15; italics are mine)

Some may say that the translation of a certain passage obscures some gospel truth.  They may be right in this assertion.  But if a certain gospel teaching depends on particular translation of a particular passage, then we are of all men most miserable, because our faith and doctrine depends not on the bedrock foundation of the Spirit of God, but on the science of translation.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS A SCIENCE NOT A SPIRITUAL PURSUIT

Textual criticism is a science.  It is not a spiritual pursuit requiring the Spirit of God.  All sciences can be done by the natural mind.  That does not mean that their studies and discoveries will be in accord with the World of God.  And it does not matter if they are, because the children of God have, thank God, a much more firmer foundation than this!

Textual Criticism, like all sciences is tentative and open to change.  The theory that is popular now may be ridiculed and rejected in few years.  This is the purpose of all scientific endeavors which seek to progress in understanding their field.  Those involved in these pursuits do not look at this aspect of science as a weakness.  It is foundational to the nature of modern science.  

Since it is connected to the academic world of colleges and universities, it also affected by the egos of the leading professors who control the armies of students under them.  There are continual debates on whether we have the original text of the Bible accurately preserved or not.  To depend on these scientific arguments, to build a foundation on sand.  They are scientific debates, they will change over time.

For instance, there was and still exists a lively debate going on as to who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran caves.  For years after their discovery, many scholars complained of lack of access to the scrolls.  Today, there is still is no clear consensus as to who wrote them.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS

The earliest copies we have of the New Testament are from the 125 AD.  The latest copies we have of the Old Testaments are from around 200 BC.  We should not imagine that these are copies of the entire Testaments.  They are fragments.  We find this statement concerning the New Testament manuscripts:

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the P52 papyrus, oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.

When it comes to the Old Testament we have these facts:

The Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE) and Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 CE) were the oldest Hebrew language manuscripts of the Tanakh. In 1947 CE the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumranpushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back a millennium from the two earliest complete codices. Before this discovery, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Old Testament were in Greek in manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Out of the roughly 800 manuscripts found at Qumran, 220 are from the Tanakh. Every book of the Tanakh is represented except for the Book of Esther; however, most are fragmentary. Notably, there are two scrolls of the Book of Isaiah, one complete (1QIsa), and one around 75% complete (1QIsb). These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE to 70 CE.[1]

Does this sound like things the children of God need to be informed about in detail?  Is any of this information recommended in the New Testament by Jesus?  Hardly.  So here is a plain fact.  We do not have available, any of the original manuscripts that were inspired.  Let us be clear brethren.  Read the familiar text of II Timothy 3:14-17:

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Archbishop Langton

This passage could not have applied to Bible as we have it today, because, in its present form, it did not exist.  The Bible as we have it today, with its list of books, chapters and verses did not exist in Paul's time.  The English Bible as we have it today, did not come about until 1227 with the verses and chapter added by Archbishop of Canterbury Langton.  The first English Bible to contain these verses and chapter divisions was the Wycliffe Bible of 1382.  The earliest mention historians think exists of the accepted books of the New Testament occurs in a letter written in Latin called the Muratorian fragment.  Although the letter is late written around 600 AD, it is believe4d to be a copy of an earlier Greek letter written anywhere from 170-300 AD.  Most historians think that the books to be included in the Bible had not been universally decided until 367AD through a letter written by Athanasius, in which he lists the 27 books of the New Testament and the 33 books of the Old, which still took several hundred years to be universally agreed to.  The Bible is the product of a long process.  

All this reverence toward the words of God comes through the "faith which is in Jesus Christ", not some logical reasoning or scientific study of the manuscripts.  The text does not say that the copies of these manuscripts were god-breathed.  What is says is that all the writings which have the quality of being scripture are god-breathed (inspired).  How do we know that they are scripture?  How do distinguish them from forgeries?  Believers do it through the faith which is in Jesus Christ, like they do all other spiritual things.

But there is one more feature about languages in general and English in particular that helps the message of the gospel get carried despite variations in the different translations.  It is inherent tendency in English to be redundant.  We quote from a site on linguistics:

Normally, when people say the English language is redundant, they are speaking of the numerous synonyms which clutter our dictionaries. Redundancy in the sense of information theory is a measure of how efficiently the letters/symbols are used in the language. The fact that English is a redundant language is not necessarily bad. That our language is spoken as well as written brings in many issues besides efficiency. We want to be understood in a noisy room, we want the sound of words to correspond to their meaning, and we want to be able to pronounce words with ease. Information rates are only one small part of the analysis of the English language.

In essence, what the writer is saying that the same truths in any translations are said in different ways, thus preventing a single passage or phrase to eliminate important information from the message.

FAITH'S ROLE IN TRANSLATIONS
Think brethren.  Do you believe the things you do about the gospel because you carefully first evaluated the translation of the Bible you had or because the Spirit of God spoke to you?  Our sovereign God could have preserved the original manuscripts, just like he cold have preserved the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, and the tablets on which he wrote the ten commandments.  Why didn't He?  We cannot speak for the Lord, but we can guess.  Perhaps it was so men would not worship these items and turn them into idols.  Think brethren, with all the relics still venerated today by the Catholic and the Orthodox churches.  Do you not think that this would happen as well with these articles?  Would they not be venerated?  How much more then, would an authenticated copy of book of John, etc. be venerated and even worshipped?

So then we come to the crux of this whole matter.  God's children walk by faith not by sight.  The reason we believe the scriptures is because the Spirit speaks through it.  How do we know this?  By some scientific test?  By some appeal to the original manuscripts?  Let us pray it never be so!  We have the faith which the Son of God has given to us!  His faith in us.  We hear His voice.  This revelation is the foundation of our faith.  And how best for the Lord to make this point on us?  By hiding or destroying the original manuscripts so they would not be worshipped.  When you hear anything brethren, listen to the voice of your shepherd to see if it agrees.  This voice has proven itself through the scriptures which tell you that he does whatsoever he wills on earth and in heaven.  May Jesus receive all the glory by what is written here.