Replies

Which brings up another good point. In any translation of a text, it is often good to know the leanings of the translators. For instance, I used to know a gentleman who was translating the LXX into English as a hobby. He had no real intention of ever doing much with it, but enjoyed the work. His version was different than what many of the other English versions are, which wasn't a big deal because it was more of an act of devotion that anything else.

My point is, in the KJV, NIV, NAB, ESV, DRV, etc, the point of view of the translators works its way into the translated text by the nature of how such work is down. Some words and phrases can not be "machine translated" and make much sense (which is how the Luther Bible controversy got to funny). You can't really make a word for word linear translation and get something readable. Which is why it is often good to get a couple different translations from different teams together and compare.

Certainly, a human element plays a part.

For me, with an English translation, what is key is how one approached Scripture.

Did one do so with the intent of doing, as best as one possibly could, a word-for-word translation of the Greek. Or was one's intent to make it more relevant to today (literal verses dynamic). The former approach has less subjectivity than the latter. Which is one reason why I like the NASB better than the NIV by far.

Our claim to inerrancy of the Word of God is in the original texts, not translations.

There have been scribal errors, printing errors, and yes, some translation errors throughout the ages because you have someone, a human being, with their hands on the process. By faith, we believe that such errors were not committed when the texts were originally written down. Of course, we don't have the originals. However, God has promised to preserve His word and with the care the Hebrew Scribes took to get the OT right, one would assume that the same God would make sure that the NT is intact as well.

I don't believe it is overstating that when one takes the Bible as a whole, no major doctrine (Christian essential) is lacking due to any of the so-called errors in the translations (even in some of the worse translations like NIV).

And let's not forget that the very authors of the original KJV specifically state in the beginning of the book that their work is not inspired. How can we then treat it as such? No existing known version of the Bible is inspired, as far as I know, not one. Yet we treat them as something God etched in stone.

Of all the Bible in the English speaking world, the KJV has been elevated to the status of the "most reliable," the "official," etc. Clearly, the authors of KJV didn't think so. They were humble enough to admit that theirs is a work of men.