Quote from Forum Archives on June 24, 2004, 4:43 pm

Posted by: ba <ba@...>

Forthright Magazine
www.forthright.net
Straight to the Cross

----
Wow! The Editors were asleep at the keyboard
today. Please ignore the earlier posting!
Should have been:
Life is Lumpy by Mike Benson
Concerning Translations by Mitchell Skelton
----

COLUMN: Fidelity

Life is Lumpy
by Mike Benson

Robert Fulghum, in one of his more recent books
wrote,

"One of life's best coping mechanisms is to know
the difference between an inconvenience and a
problem. If you break your neck, if you having
nothing to eat, if your house is on fire -- then
you've got a problem. Everything else is an
inconvenience. Life is inconvenient. Life is
lumpy. A lump in the oatmeal, a lump in the
throat, and a lump in the breast are not the same
kind of lump. One needs to learn the difference."

What I hear Mr. Fulghum saying is that we need to
learn perspective. I believe he is correct. The
Bible says, "For our LIGHT AFFLICTION, which is
but for a moment, is working for us a far more
exceeding and eternal weight of glory. While we
do not look at the things which are seen, but at
the things which are not seen" (2 Corinthians
4:17,18).

Was that problem you had today really a problem,
or was it just an inconvenience (Hebrews 12:2,3)?
Think about it.

----
Read this article online, tell us what you think,
see who's commenting, click here:
forthright.antville.org/stories/823077/
----

COLUMN: The X-File

Concerning Translations
by Mitchell Skelton

It seems that recently much ado is being made
about Bible translations or versions. It is sad
to see brothers and sisters in the Lord dividing
over the issue of which version of the word of God
one should use. Some brethren insist that the
King James Version is the only version we should
use, while others are adamant about using any
version but the King James. It is in light of
this controversy that I would like to offer some
suggestions regarding translations.

Keep the issue of translations in perspective.

If everyone would be honest with themselves, I
think we all could agree that anyone can be saved
reading just about any translation. (There are a
few exceptions, the New World Translation, for
example.) Even more important is the logical
progression of insisting on only one translation.
If we insist that only one translation is
acceptable, then are we also saying that the type
of Bible one uses is an issue of salvation? I
think it quite proper to suggest that God did not
call us to convert people to a translation or to
dispute with brethren about translations, but to
save the lost and build up his church.

Be flexible concerning which translation you use.

When doing personal work or one-on-one evangelism,
it is always best, if possible, to allow the
person you are studying with to use his or her own
translation.

Every translation is imperfect.

Few would argue that any one translation is
without fault. The real issue that remains is,
What version best expresses the original language
in this particular verse? Each translation is a
work of man and thus is subject to the limitations
of man's knowledge and biases. Each translation
is also subject to the "subjective science" of
textual criticism, meaning simply which Greek text
should be used when there is a variant.

Consider the source when someone criticizes a
particular version.

The ultimate test of a translation is whether it
faithfully represents the original, not whether it
agrees with a favorite translation or a particular
interpretation. The great majority of those who
discuss translations are not qualified to judge
for themselves the relative merits of differing
Greek texts. To do so would require them to
examine and judge the relative merits of the
manuscripts on which the different Greek texts are
based. Even if one had the ability to complete
such an endeavor, it is questionable whether to do
so would be an efficient use of a minister's time.

Evaluate a translation on the basis of the
translator's purpose and methods.

Any student of the Word should read the foreword
or introduction of any translation he is thinking
about using. Some examples: The Amplified Bible
was never intended to be read in public. Today's
English Version is in simplified English for a
purpose and that is why it is so different. A
paraphrase should be judged and used as a
paraphrase, not as a literal translation. The
difference between the New International Version
and the King James Version is largely a matter of
a difference in translation theory and practice.

There is safety in numbers.

All else being equal, in translation there is
"safety in numbers." Translations by committees
are more likely to be trustworthy in their
entirety than those by individuals. However, in
particular verses, the best rendering may be from
a translation by an individual.

Why not just translate word for word?

A literal translation is not always the best
translation, for two reasons: (1) It will most
likely be hard to read. (2) A word-for-word
translation may not best express the meaning of
the original language. There remains value in a
more literal translation since it leaves less room
for interpretation on the part of the translators
and thus gives less opportunity for their biases
to become part of the translation. However, there
may also be value in a freer translation in that
it may better get across the original idea
although in different words.

Every translator has biases.

The reader should watch for certain biases to show
up in the translation. However, the translator's
biases will not necessarily be reflected in the
translation. People often assume that liberal
translators will offer corrupt translations. This
is not necessarily true, for two reasons: (1) The
highest value of scholarship is to be honest and
deal fairly with the evidence; liberal scholars in
general embrace this value. (2) Liberal scholars
(defined as those who do not believe the Bible is
inspired) have no reason to offer a corrupt
translation because they do not believe in the
Bible anyway.

For study use more than one translation.

It has been said that the best translation is a
variety of translations. Comparing and
contrasting various versions is often helpful in
understanding a passage. One should avoid the
tendency, however, to search through two dozen
translations to find one that suits one's
predetermined understanding of what a word or
verse means.

Don't force people to stop using the King James
Version.

Many people have used the King James for more
years than many of us have been alive. It is not
necessary nor wise to force these people to quit
using it. However, if this version is used, the
meaning of antiquated words and difficult passages
must be explained. Furthermore, the minister
needs to find a way to help people understand that
what really matters is the original text of which
the King James Version is a translation.

Don't force people to use the King James Version.

In my opinion, it is unwise to ask children or
people who have never read the Bible to begin
their study of Scripture by using the King James
Version. To do so places an unnecessary stumbling
block in their way. They must learn to read a
different language with strange words before they
can begin to understand what the Lord would have
them do to be saved. There is no evidence that
the Lord wanted the language of Scripture to be
hard to read.
__________
Much material for this article comes from Coy
Roper, Notes on the New Testament.

----
Read this article online, tell us what you think,
see who's commenting, click here:
forthright.antville.org/stories/829138/
----

You can help us get the word out. Here's how:
forthright.antville.org/stories/340415/