Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Bible preaching from the pulpit of Choice Hills Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina
Well, we are going to pick up right where we left off last week.
Just a brief review before we pray.
We're going to be looking at several verses today that deal with the Bible, our Bible.
So just by way of review, we started looking at the three primary reasons that we hold to exclusively using the King James Bible. The first one deals with the
text upon which it is based. The second one deals with the translation of the text. And the third
one deals with practical matters. And we are on the translation section of that. We saw how last
week I've been reading to you the Translators to the Reader,
which is basically the preface to the King James Bible as it was originally translated in 1611.
And it gives us...
Yes, sir?
I only have one copy, but I can get you one for next week.
But in the Translators to the the reader, the translators explain, not in great detail,
but in some detail, why they did what they did and what their methodology was.
And one of the things we saw was that how they said openly that their purpose was to make good works,
good translations that were prior to the King James, better.
good works, good translations that were prior to the King James better. So they, in other words,
they kind of tipped their hat to those that had put the work in in translating the scriptures before them and not as if they were mavericks and they were the, you know, what's so amazing to me
is, you know, and I don't want to put too much emphasis on this point, but it is notable to me that it seems like so many versions of Scripture
that have been translated recently, and I say it recently, last 50 years,
always have the word standard attached to it.
Standard. It's self-named standard.
In other words, which is to indicate this is the one and final kind of, you know.
But the King James translators did not say that at all.
In fact, they said the reverse.
They said there were translations before ours that put work into it,
and we tip our hat to them.
And we already saw that Tyndale, who's the first one to translate the Bible,
especially the New Testament, from Greek, he did so. And his
translation was so faithful that the King James translators kept about 84% of it word for word.
And so it wasn't like they were trying to make something brand new. They said that wasn't their
point at all, but to improve upon the good work that went before them. And so you have the seven translations in order that all were translated from the Greek and Hebrew originally.
You have Tyndale in 1525, Coverdale in 1535, Matthew's Bible in 1537, the Great Bible in 1540, Geneva in 1560, the Bishop's Bible in 1568, and then the King James Bible in 1611.
And so we go in, moving on now, we saw the concept, and we've covered this before when we
were talking about the texts, the concept that newer is always better. And that is a concept that has infiltrated our
thinking as modern Americans. It seems like we just hasten faster and faster and faster toward,
I don't know, probably a cliff of some kind. But, you know, in other words, technology and knowledge
is increasing, it seems, exponentially.
And so this idea that we believe is that everything that is newer is better.
And all the new technology, all the new knowledge, all the new methods, all the new ideas.
And it seems that in our society, which kind of percolates down into our thinking as well,
kind of percolates down into our thinking as well, we've lost the principle and the truth that things that are tried and tested, there's something to things that are tried and tested. And so that's
the translators in the translators to the reader did address that to some degree.
The translation was undertaken at the high point in both faith and
scholarship. In other words, the translators themselves did not have any problem with the
doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. They believed that what they were translating was God's Word,
which is significant. If you're translating the Bible, that should matter, right? And in this way,
the Scriptures as a work of literature, because it is, the scriptures as a work of literature, because it is the scriptures as a work of literature is different than every other work of literature in in in as much as its importance.
But also the fact that you have God himself involved in this process.
It's not just Shakespeare or the Iliad and the Odyssey or any other ancient work of
literature. The Lord, I don't think he's too interested in that, but he is definitely interested
in his word. And so there is a divine element at work that we can't just dismiss, and sometimes I'm
afraid that's happened. But it also was at a period of peak scholarship in English history. In many cases,
the translators were aware of alternative readings in the translations, but decided against them.
They mentioned that in the translators to the reader. And one of the primary strengths of the translator's method was that they were reluctant to change a previous translation's reading
unless there was a strong need to do so.
If it was already good, they weren't out trying to be mavericks,
trying to make something new.
They were just trying to be faithful to what they were translating. And so that's, so they defaulted to leaving it as it was.
Okay, so what we're going to go into now a little bit more is the method of translation. Okay, so
let's pray together. And then we will, we'll look at a few passages in the translators to the reader,
as well as some several verses. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the Bible, not only the
scriptures that you gave to your apostles and prophets, but also as they have descended down to
us through preservation, through translation of those men who you gave knowledge to translate
the scriptures that we might understand them in our own language. Thank you for that. Lord, I pray
that the scriptures would be precious to us, that you would increase and build our faith in them, and that, Lord, the scriptures
would have a more prominent place in our lives, because we know that the scriptures are the very
words of God that you've given to us. We desire to know them, and by them know you. And so guide our study this morning.
Bless our class.
Be our teacher.
But also we pray for the Sunday school class downstairs
that you would give grace to those kids and to the teacher, Lord,
that they would be strengthened and edified
and would grow in their understanding and knowledge of the Scriptures as well.
In Jesus' name, amen.
So the method of translation, I'm going to read several passages here.
First of all, in one passage here, these are all mainly from the same section.
The translators made it a point to translate the Bible from, not from Latin or other languages that were common for religious texts at the time,
but to go straight to the source. They used the term the fountain. And that's significant.
That is significant because, and I'll just read it here. He says this, in this confidence,
well, let me just skip it for time's sake. If you ask what they had before them,
truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,
the Greek of the New.
These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits,
where through the olive branches
empty themselves into the gold.
St. Augustine calleth them precedent or original tongue. St. Jerome fountains,
the same St. Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his decree,
that as the credit of the old books, the Old Testament, is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes,
so of the new by the Greek tongue. He meaneth by the original Greek.
If truth be to be tried by these tongues,
then when should a translation be made, but out of them?
These tongues, therefore, the scriptures we say in those tongues,
we set before us to translate,
being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his church
by his prophets and apostles. So it was a
point, it was a significant point that when they went to translate the Bible, they went to the source.
They went to the source. And that, because anytime you go from, I mean, you don't have to go into
another language. You just do the telephone game. How many of you played the telephone game? Yeah, you just go in a circle. You don't have to go very far, and that's in your native language.
So when you take an original document and you translate it into another language and then into a third, you're introducing ambiguity at each step, right? Because as an example, let me give you an example of this,
because this is an important point. I don't speak Spanish or any other languages, well, poquito,
right? But in Cambodian is a good example. If you take the word for the word
If you take the word hand in English, you're referring to this right here, right?
This.
But if I was to say the same thing in Cambodian, I would say dai, but dai refers to this from your shoulder down.
Well, is it right to say that word to refer to hand?
Absolutely.
It is right.
But by doing that, it introduces a little bit of ambiguity because it doesn't have the exact same meaning in every case.
So if you wanted, you could be more specific.
And you could say, well, this is the bat dai, right?
The palm of your hand.
Or klong dai, the back of your hand. Or your fingers. You could also use the word dai, right? The palm of your hand. Or klang dai, the back of your hand. Or your fingers.
You could also use the word dai, meriem dai. But see, each one of those is a separate word,
right? But the same is true in all languages. That some are more specific, some are more detailed,
some are less in certain circumstances. And so that's why all the reason I said that is to say
this. That's why it's important that you go to the source,
because that's where you're going to get it right.
And they did.
And that's one of the things in their method that makes it so profitable to us and makes it reliable.
So you have to understand that the reason that this is in this document here,
they made this point,
is because people were translating the Bible from
Latin, the Latin Vulgate, which was the Roman Catholic Bible at the time. Remember, up until
fairly recently, the Mass was done in Latin, right? They were using a Latin Bible, and around the
1600s is when the Douai Bible was translated into English,
the Catholic Bible was translated into English.
For a long time, it was just Latin.
It was just Latin.
And so people being in the tail end of the Dark Ages
started translating the Bible out of Latin into English,
which is better than not having a Bible at all,
but certainly not the same as going to the source.
And that's what we have in
the King James. That's actually what Tyndale did first with the New Testament. But there's another
thing. I'll read this passage because I want you to see this. These are just features of our Bible
that make it so useful to us and helpful to us. This passage says this, now if this happened in better times, let's see,
let's see, I want to make sure I get the right.
Okay, another thing we think good to admonish the monesty of, general reader, Okay. exact as they could in that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we
had translated before. If the word signified the same thing in both places, we were especially
careful and made a conscience according to our duty, but that we should express the same notion
in the same particular word. As for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by
purpose, never to call it intent.
If one were journeying, never traveling. If one were think, never suppose.
If one were pain, never ache.
If one were joy, never gladness.
Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom.
He says, for is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?
Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? Use one precisely when we may use another
no less fit as commodiously. What are we saying? What are we saying? All they're saying is when we
came across the word joy, we didn't always put joy when we put it in English.
Sometimes we put joy, sometimes we put gladness, and that's what you'll find in your Bible. The
same original word translated in multiple ways, accurately in every case. Now, why is that
important? I want to show you this in action, but they said this,
they said that they did this on purpose because, and the effect of that is it helps, well, it helps
our vocabulary for one, but it also, what you have to understand about when people read the Bible,
they get hung up on words, and people start to think that certain
words are attached to certain theology and then they get hung up on that theology instead of
letting the Bible say what it says about a certain word. For instance, how many of you have heard
this idea that there's a difference between happiness and joy. Happiness is circumstantial,
but joy is something that comes from the Lord
and you have it regardless of circumstance.
I'm sure you've heard that.
You know what that is?
That's a theological quirk of the word joy,
but it's not really found in the Bible.
No, I messed up somebody's theology,
so hang with me a minute, right?
What is joy though?
It's happiness.
So you can say happiness,
as long as your source is the Lord,
that's what makes the difference.
Not the word joy, you see.
Because the problem is, here's the problem.
When we get hung up on words like that,
we go to the Bible and then we find a verse that uses joy in a circumstantial way, right?
Like for joy that a man child is born into the world, referring to having a baby.
Well, that's circumstantial.
That's not in the Lord.
Well, that messes up our theology, does it not?
The Bible has a great way of messing up our theology, does it not?
You just read it long enough, and it'll mess up everything you thought was true.
And it'll get us all centered back where it needs to be.
But the translators say, we didn't do that.
We didn't just always put that same word because they wanted a variety.
Because it broadens our understanding of it.
A few examples, 1 Corinthians chapter 16.
Look at there if you would.
1 Corinthians chapter 16.
Verse number 14.
This is in the same chapter within 10 verses of one another. 1 Corinthians 16 verse 14 says this,
Let all your things be done with charity.
You know the word that's translated charity?
You know what that word is?
No.
No, in Greek.
Greek doesn't have the word love. The famous agape, right? That's what it is,
right? Agape, agape. I don't know. My wife told me when she was growing up at the churches she grew
up in, it was like the preacher would preach on agape, agape, agape, everything agape, you know.
It just means love. And it also occurs in kind of unusual ways that you don't expect. It's God's love.
It just means love, right?
Look at verse 24, though.
My love be with you all in Christ Jesus.
Amen.
You know what words translated love there?
Same word.
Why did they put one charity in verse 14 and one in verse 24 as love?
You know why?
Because they mean the same thing.
That's why. They told you why. They said it. They told you why. It means the same thing. It means love. All right. Look at another example, verse 6.
What's interesting is these verses, these two verses are only five verses apart,
same author, same book, same chapter within five verses.
And so certainly Paul knew what he was writing.
He was repeating himself.
In fact, he's talking about the same thing in both verses.
Verse 6 says this, 10, 6. Now these things were our examples to the intent we should not lust
after evil things as they also lusted. And drop down to verse 11. Now all these things happened unto them for
in samples. It's the same word put in two different ways.
But you know how that helps you?
It helps you then because you know what an example is
unless you be confused with the word in sample,
which is not a commonly used word anymore.
Because they're used so close and referring to the same thing,
when you see the word in sample in other places,
you automatically know what it means.
So it actually helps you
understand the Bible better. It would not have helped you understand it if in every case we put
example, example, example. You say, well, why use an older word? Well, why do we use the word matrimony
when we have a wedding? Or trough. You know, in other words, words, in selective cases,
and I'll cover this later,
but in selective cases, we don't mind older words,
but somehow in the Bible, we're like,
no, we must have,
Ruby's getting attacked,
or Liberty's getting attacked by a bug.
Somehow in the Bible, we hate older words.
The dirty little secret is
that even words that seem to us as new are actually old.
We just still use them, but I digress a little bit.
All right, let's look at Acts chapter 1 and Acts chapter 3.
Acts chapter 1 and Acts chapter 3.
Acts 1 verse 3 says this,
To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Now here's one issue.
Look, I feel like I have to cover this
because you have to cover the elephant in the room.
You can't cover a subject and ignore the big thing.
And the big thing is that our Bible is 400 and something years old.
Did that surprise anybody, right? Our Bible is 400 plus years old.
And with that comes a change in our language for 400 years. So it's not surprising to us that we're
going to find some words that have changed in meaning or aren't used anymore. And this word
passion is one of them. What does the word passion mean
as we understand it now? It means zeal, fervency, right? But here it just means suffering.
Just like in chapter three, verse number 18. Look at there. Same exact word put as verse 18.
But those things which God before has showed by the mouth of all his prophets
that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
Why don't they just take out that word passion and put the word suffer?
Well, you could do that.
The translators made a decision not to, to keep it, right?
That is one of the great benefits of the Bible. There is a
movement in Bible translation to standardize the language so that it always says the same thing in
every occurrence, but you lose something when you do that. You lose something, all right? I won't
belabor this any longer, but there is another example, 1 Peter 3, 11,
combined with Psalm 34, 14, the word ensue versus pursue. But I won't go any further on that
because I want to cover a few other things. Another method of the translation that's significant is the use of names. The use of names. Let's look at Numbers 13.
Numbers chapter 13.
Now here's the issue.
Now, here's the issue.
What you're going to find, as an example, we won't turn there, but when you get to Matthew chapter 24,
in fact, we were covering it on Wednesday, there's a mention of Noah, right? But the name is spelled N-O-E, Noah, right?
Why didn't they just put Noah? Why did they put Noe? Is it referring to another person or is it referring to Noah? If it's referring to Noah, why not just put Noah?
Well, the thing is in 1 Peter and 2 Peter, they did. They put Noah, referring to the same person.
Why use one in one place and one in the other?
The reason they put noe in O-E
is because they actually took the Greek letters,
there's three Greek letters in that name,
and they translated it letter by letter.
But then in other places, they put Noah.
But by comparing the two, in other words, there's a benefit in seeing that
because they're bringing it straight out of the original language into English,
but they're not losing who the person is.
And really, they have precedent in it, and they mention it.
And here, look at Numbers 13, verse 8.
You know who Joshua is, right?
Joshua led the battle of Jericho, right? Joshua led the battle of Jericho, right?
Joshua fought the battle of Jericho.
13 verse number eight says this,
of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshia, the son of Nun.
Nun.
Oshia, who's that?
It's Joshua.
Why didn't he put Joshua?
Listen, this is what God said.
This is the translation of the name, right?
Why didn't they just put Joshua?
Because the text doesn't say Joshua, it says Oshia, all right?
Look at verse number 16 as well.
Same passage, same block.
He says this.
These are the names of the men which Moses sent out to spy out
the land. And Moses called Oshia, the son of Nun, Jehoshua. Well, that's not Joshua, that's Jehoshua.
And then, of course, we know Joshua is also found in the Bible. So there's at least three, probably
four different names for Joshua. So why wouldn't there be two different names for
Noah or Elijah? You say, why don't you just put the same thing? Not Elias, put Elijah.
What's wrong with putting Elias? Yes, sir.
I was actually going to turn to there right now. So let's go there.
Hebrews chapter 4, look at that.
This kind of thing I think is great.
In Hebrews chapter 4, if you would look at verse number eight. Now, the context of verse number eight of Hebrews four is the Lord is
referring to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, all right? They're going into the land of Canaan.
Joshua is their leader. Once they get into Canaan, they conquer the land, they'll have rest. That's the analogy being referred to here.
Chapter 4, verse 8. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day? Why does it say Jesus? Why did, okay, let's clarify a couple things.
In verse eight, the Jesus in verse eight
is referring to Joshua.
In the context, it is clear.
Why then did they not put Joshua?
It's very simple.
First of all, it wasn't an accident.
You can't look at it and say, well, that's a mistake.
No, it's not.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
They put Jesus, because the Greek word is Jesus,
the same as every other part of the New Testament.
Imagine that.
They translate the Bible as it's stated, right? As it's written.
But it's referring to Joshua. And see, here's the thing. If we had put the word Joshua there,
if the translators had put the word Joshua there, you would have lost a connection that you see here.
Because the connection is this, that the New Testament name Jesus is equivalent to the name,
the Old Testament Joshua. And by leaving it like that,
you make that connection. And by making that connection, you're able to make a connection
doctrinally with Joshua as a type of Christ, giving his people rest, because it's actually the same name. It's the same name.
So by doing that, again, we could standardize it,
and we could say, well, just put Joshua there,
and it'll make everything clear.
Maybe, but you also lose something by doing that,
which is that connection.
So you want to know why they did that?
That's the reason.
And they knew exactly what they were doing.
All right, let me ask, is there any questions so far? I know we've kind of been in the wheeze a
little bit. Uh-oh. Huh? And in the Cambodian Bible, it's also Joshua. Now, is that true?
Is it in every translation of the Spanish Bible, is it Joshua?
That would be the next one to research.
But the Greek word that is translated there is the same word as Jesus Christ.
It's the same word Jesus.
That's the point.
Any other questions?
Any other clarity?
All right.
All right.
We got a few minutes.
The last thing I want to show you, go to John chapter 3.
I could go into other things that we could look at,
but let's just go to John chapter 3 and cover this last one.
So just to review, in the method of translation, the translation was done out of the original Hebrew and Greek. The translators intentionally chose not to use
uniformity of phrasing or word choice. Translators chose to use a variety of names.
Translators chose to use a variety of names.
I didn't cover this, but it's in here too.
Translators chose to use older ecclesiastical words like bishop, like church.
There was at this time in the 1600s and 1500s, there was a big debate over whether you should put church or congregation or bishop or overseer
because all of those words had theological baggage that were attached to it.
For instance, when you read the word bishop, you thought it was talking about an Anglican bishop,
and it wasn't. I had a guy yesterday we was talking to, I got to hurry, see you guys are,
you're stopping me up again, talking to a guy yesterday, and he was a Catholic man.
me up again. Talking to a guy yesterday, and he was a Catholic man. He had converted to Catholicism.
And so, honestly, and I think he was honest in this, when he was referring to the church,
he didn't think church. He thought only Catholic church, Catholic religion. When he heard Christianity, he only thought Catholic church. Like there was no
distinction made, notwithstanding the words. And that's part of the reason is the word church had
become attached to that when in reality it wasn't, right? He didn't like it when I told him that
it wasn't Christianity and yeah, he didn't like that. So anyway, that's the use of older
ecclesiastical words. And the last one I want to cover here is they retained the second person
pronouns and the verb endings, the these and thous, the these and thous, the worst part of the Bible in some people's opinion.
Why don't, you know, some people would pose this question.
Well, if the King James is so dated now, why not just translate the Bible from the right texts again
and just update the language and that kind of thing?
Here's why.
Because the very first thing that they would throw out are the these and those.
Listen, folks.
The these and those are not in the Bible to make it sound biblical.
It's not to make you feel religious as you quote the verse.
There's a reason they're there.
The these and those, although there is a little bit of a learning curve,
the these and thous preserve number in the pronouns.
Anytime you see thee, thou, thy, or thine, it is always referring to a single person, singular.
Anytime you see you, ye, or your, it is plural.
Okay? It's that simple.
English does not have this distinction in modern times.
You have to go out of your way to specify it.
They retained it because they were translating the Bible
and they wanted it to be clear.
I'll give you an example where it matters.
John 3, verse number 7.
Jesus is having a two-way conversation, Jesus and Nicodemus.
And in verse 7, he says this, John 3, verse 7.
Marvel not that I said unto, what does it say?
The, who's he talking to? Nicodemus, a single individual.
Ye must be born again. Now, the second part of the verse, he's not talking just to Nicodemus.
He's talking to a broader group, most likely in the context referring to the rulers of Israel,
which he mentions earlier. So, in other words, Jesus is not making a statement to Nicodemus as an individual,
although he's speaking to him.
He's making a statement concerning the religious leaders of his day.
We would say, all y'all.
That's what he's saying.
All y'all, that's what he's saying.
All y'all need to be born again is what he's saying.
If you were reading a modern translation, it would say something like, don't
be amazed that I said to you, you must be born again. And that is lost. We say it doesn't really
matter. Well, singular and plural matters. Singular and plural matters. Is there a learning curve?
Well, yeah, there is a little bit of a learning curve. I give you another example.
Luke 22, 31 says this,
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, talking to Peter,
Behold, Satan hath desire to have you.
He's not just talking to Peter.
We always think Satan wants to sift Peter.
That's not what Jesus says.
Satan hath desire to have you that he may sift you as wheat.
He's referring to all the disciples. And when the temptation that night came in the garden,
Satan sifted all of those disciples, not just Peter, all of them. That's lost unless you have
a distinction in the pronouns. But I have prayed for thee, Jesus says, referring only to Peter now,
But I have prayed for thee, Jesus says, referring only to Peter now,
that thy faith fail not.
And when thou, Peter, art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
So, one of the main issues, in other words, one of the primary reasons people dislike the Bible, the King James Bible,
is because of the these and the
thous and the ests. But those are put there on purpose. And here's what's an interesting
note. I'll say this to close. Remember I told you that the Westcott and Hort compilation,
text of Greek text of scripture, came out in 1881. And I told you that the first translation,
we'll say first American translation of that
was the American Standard Version in 1901.
What's interesting is the American Standard Version
kept the these and nows.
kept the these and nows. 200 years after the King James, they're translating the Bible again. Now,
the problem is it's from a different text, but they retained it, which is to say they also saw the value of it. Now, nobody sees any value. In fact, there was one Bible I heard of that,
you know, one of these multiplied translations that actually always put you like we would,
but as a superscript beside it would put a one or a two to indicate its number.
Why not just leave thee and thou, right? Instead of having to do all that.
So this is one of the main reasons that these things are beneficial to us.
And if you read the scripture and you pay attention to these things,
it will help you understand the Bible better.
And they're left on purpose.
It's not just nice sounding Bible language.
It has a purpose, right?
So let's pray together.