Quote
tartanarmy said:
The original "autographs" certainly were accurate, but that is not quite the same as saying the current translations are the exact same thing.
Mark,

This is so true. A translation is not the same as the original manuscripts. And neither are the extant copies of those manuscripts the same either. However, centuries of textual criticism have shown that the copies we have are incredibly consistent and accurate thus we are confident that what we have today is indeed the very Word of God written. But translations of those copies are a totally different matter. Most modern translations, so-called are hardly accurate when compared to the manuscript copies. And because we have had several threads on this subject here in the past I'll just mention it in passing. There are basically two methods of translation used: 1) Formal Equivalence and 2) Dynamic Equivalence. The former is what was used in the past and from which came such versions as the KJV, ASV, NASB and the latest ESV. The latter, "Dynamic Equivalence" is what most all modern translators use. At the risk of being overly simplistic, Dynamic Equivalence begins with the presupposition that the individual words are not as important as the meaning of those words. Of course, this is illogical since "meaning" can only be derived from words. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

As I pressed one of my former profs who was on the translation committee for the NIV; To the degree that one embraces Dynamic Equivalence one denies verbal plenary inspiration.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]