How a translation can be without error The claim has…
How a translation can be without error
The claim has been made that it is impossible to produce a fully accurate translation from one language into an other and therefore that it is impossible for a Bible translation to be without error. This in turn would make it necessary to understand the original languages in order to be able to access Biblical truth.
While it is true that languages don’t always have direct translations of specific words and the words and word order of expressions in different languages are not always the same, that doesn’t mean that errorless translation is impossible.
First of all in order for a translation to be in error it must be shown to communicate something other than what is expressed in the parent language and/or that it does not sufficiently convey the full meaning expressed in the parent language.
On the other hand the thing you need for a translation to be without error is for it to convey the full meaning of the parent language that can be ascertained from the context, by which also any incorrect assumption of the meaning of the message in the parent language is able to be rejected.
One example where it is supposed that the English cannot fully express the meaning of the Greek is with the words “agape” and “phileo” it is presumed that “agape” is the highest and purest form of love having no negative qualities whereas “phileo” is said to simply be brotherly love, however the scriptures reveal that these are unfounded notions for 2 Timothy 4:10 says that Demas forsook Paul having loved (agape) this present world. And John 5:20 says the Father loves (phileo) the Son. We see here that the word phileo is used for God the Father’s love for his Son. We also see from John 21:17 saying that Jesus asked Peter if he loved him a third time with “phileo” love, though before Jesus had twice asked him if he loved him with “agape” love showing that the words “agape” and “phileo” are really interchangeable and both have as general of a meaning as our English word for “love”.
And even if these words did have more precise meanings a solution to the problem would still exist, the word “charity” is used in the King James Bible in 1Corinthians 13 so as to distinguish it as the purest form of love, for love of money, the love of self or the love of sin are not forms of love that charity is capable of, thus biblically the English word “charity” has the exclusive meaning that the Greek word “agape” is presumed to have. Now the King James Bible also italicizes the words that are not found in the original languages but are necessary to properly convey the meaning of the original text. When the King James Bible italicizes these words it provides more information about the original text than modern versions since that way we are allowed not only to understand the meaning of the original text but also what the specific words being used in the original text are. Now if the word “agape” and “phileo” had the meanings ascribed to them by modern scholars, it could be accurately translated by using italicized words. For example Luke 21:15, which is commonly used to suggest the idea that these two words have different meanings could read (I use asterisks here to denote italicized words since Facebook doesn’t allow for italics in posts):
“…Simon, *son* of Jonas, lovest thou me *charitably*? He saith unto him,
Yea, Lord thou knowest that I love thee *brotherly*….”
Here we would know that the words “charitably” and “brotherly” were not in the original text but were added to convey the supposed true meaning of the text and we would have a fully accurate translation, supposing these words actually did have these different meanings.
But the final nail in the coffin for anyone who claims to believe in biblical inerrancy and also suppose that errorless translations are impossible, which by the way is imposing limitations on God, is the fact that the originals themselves contained translations. Paul for example delivered a whole speech in Hebrew in Acts 22 but Luke translated those words into Greek, so if errorless translations are impossible then not even the original scriptures were inerrant.
God is not concerned with the original languages. When he delivered his message to the Gentiles he saw fit to use the common language of the pagan nations he was reaching out to. So why would he not use the most widely used language of today? Gods word never makes any such claim that it would be preserved only in the original languages or in fact that it would be preserved in the original languages at all, just that it would be preserved. We have established that errorless translations are possible so it is necessary to consider the possibility, and the fact that God used the Greek language to deliver his message to a Greek speaking people, probability that Gods word is preserved in the most commonly spoken language in the world today.
But it is contended that the scriptures nowhere say that God would use the King James Bible to preserve his word, but that’s like saying that the scriptures nowhere indicate that a man named Jesus would be the Messiah, so you cannot discount the KJV as God’s unadulterated word on that basis.
So how do we know God’s unadulterated word is the King James Bible? Because God said he would preserve his word and it is the only possible candidate for an entirely inerrant Bible, it’s the only Bible that is accepted by any of God’s people as as inerrant and has proved itself for four hundred years so that the established reformation text of 1611 has been preserved to this day. After 400 years this book is still on the shelves of countless Christians everywhere. No other Bible has achieved what God has achieved through the King James Bible.