For My Friends, the Fundies (translation, Isaiah, genesis, America)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Genesis 1:28 says in the King James Version: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"
Just about every other translation, of which there are hundreds, says fill, not replenish.
Well I just went to Blue Letter Bible and the original Hebrew does indeed say fill, not replenish.
Fill: to fill, to satisfy, to fulfil, accomplish, complete
Replenish: fill something that had previously been emptied
Of course the word fill doesn't necessarily discard replenishing, but from the facts given it would be adding to the plain meaning of the verse to say that God commanded Adam & Eve to refill the earth, as opposed to just filling it. Some have used the KJV translation as Biblical proof that there were other man-like species that existed before, since God (in the KJV) said to replenish the earth. BUT, as we have just seen, the KJV translation is in error. A blow to the pre-Adamic race argument (but not a nail in the coffin).
However it does underscore a larger point (that I frequently try to make) about mistranslations in the Bible. This is a prime example of a translator adding to the obvious meaning.
And if you disagree with that, my fundamental Christian friend, then by default you agree with the notion that God may have been commanding A & E to replenish the earth, not just fill it.
So...what say you?
Last edited by jeffncandace; 08-02-2007 at 04:21 PM..
I don't really see your point here, Jeff. My New American Standard Version translated it "fill" as well as the New International Version and some others as well. So I don't see how you can classify this as a "mistranslation" just because King James Version employed a word that wasn't the best fit. Of course, translators are going to choose the word they think best fits.
I don't really see your point here, Jeff. My New American Standard Version translated it "fill" as well as the New International Version and some others as well. So I don't see how you can classify this as a "mistranslation" just because King James Version employed a word that wasn't the best fit. Of course, translators are going to choose the word they think best fits.
The meanings are different. One is fill, which just means...to fill. The other is (basically) refill, which insinuates that there was something previously that had filled the earth, and no longer existed, so they were to refill the earth.
Of course we know that the Hebrew said fill, not refill. But saying refill opens a whole new can of worms, since it would mean other humans or humanoids filled the earth before Adam & Eve.
My point is that the Bible is full of such errors, yet most Christians find it so hard to concede that, calling the Bible infallible. I believe it is God's word, but is it perfect?
At the time the King James Version (KJV) was translated they used the proper word for what it meant at that time period. During the time period KJV was being translated, "replenish" simply meant "to fill" not "fill again" as it does today. So it wasn't a mistranslation.
What happened is what happens with other words.. the meaning changed with time. That's why in "modern English" translations the word is now "fill" and not "replenish", because today replenish brings something altogether different to mind than what was intended.
<kudos to kawgpz550 for the article that pointed this answer out to me >
The meanings are different. One is fill, which just means...to fill. The other is (basically) refill, which insinuates that there was something previously that had filled the earth, and no longer existed, so they were to refill the earth.
Of course we know that the Hebrew said fill, not refill. But saying refill opens a whole new can of worms, since it would mean other humans or humanoids filled the earth before Adam & Eve.
My point is that the Bible is full of such errors, yet most Christians find it so hard to concede that, calling the Bible infallible. I believe it is God's word, but is it perfect?
Well,... I understand the difference in fill and replenish and yes, there may be other incidences of that. In this day and time there is no dirth of resources to look at the original languages and as I've pointed out before, brilliant Bible scholars abound. We have a lot of different translations available. Therefore, I suspect that we are certainly well able to tease out any nuances of difference in the Hebrew and Greek language. I think it points to the need to use whatever is considered the most accurate translation possible when we are doing in depth Bible study. Beyond that...??
I don't think the fact that yes, it has been translated by men makes it not "infallible" or less than God's Word. I assume that the most stringent literalist agree that some translations are more accurate to the original than others.
Ok...people are going to get sick of me using this place as a reference, but it has REALLY helped me!
Question: "How does the translation process impact the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible?"
Answer: This question deals with three very important issues: inspiration, preservation, and translation.
The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible teaches that scripture is “God-breathed”; that is, God personally superintended the writing process, guiding the human authors so that His complete message was recorded for us. The Bible is truly God’s Word. During the writing process, the personality and writing style of each author was allowed expression; however, God so directed the writers that the 66 books they produced were free of error and were exactly what God wanted us to have. See 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.
Of course, when we speak of “inspiration,” we are referring only to process by which the original documents were composed. After that, the doctrine of the preservation of the Bible takes over. If God went to such great lengths to give us His Word, surely He would also take steps to preserve that Word unchanged. What we see in history is that God did exactly that.
The Old Testament Hebrew scriptures were painstakingly copied by Jewish scribes. Groups such as the Sopherim, the Zugoth, the Tannaim, and the Masoretes had a deep reverence for the texts they were copying. Their reverence was coupled with strict rules governing their work: the type of parchment used, the size of the columns, the kind of ink, and the spacing of words were all prescribed. Writing anything from memory was expressly forbidden, and the lines, words, and even the individual letters were methodically counted as a means of double-checking accuracy. The result of all this was that the words written by Isaiah’s pen are still available today. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls clearly confirms the precision of the Hebrew text.
The same is true for the New Testament Greek text. Thousands of Greek texts, some dating back to nearly A.D. 117, are available. The slight variations among the texts—not one of which affects an article of faith—are easily reconciled. Scholars have concluded that the New Testament we have at present is virtually unchanged from the original writings. Textual scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon said about the Bible, “It is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved. . . . This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
This brings us to the translation of the Bible. Translation is an interpretative process, to some extent. When translating from one language to another, choices must be made. Should it be the more exact word, even if the meaning of that word is unclear to the modern reader? Or should it be a corresponding thought, at the expense of a more literal reading?
As an example, in Colossians 3:12, Paul says we are to put on “bowels of mercies” (KJV). The Greek word for “bowels,” which is literally “intestines,” comes from a root word meaning “spleen.” The KJV translators chose a literal translation of the word. The translators of the NASB chose “heart of compassion”—the “heart” being what today’s reader thinks of as the seat of emotions. The Amplified Bible has it as “tenderhearted pity and mercy.” The NIV simply puts “compassion.”
So, the KJV is the most literal in the above example, but the other translations certainly do justice to the verse. The core meaning of the command is to have compassionate feelings.
Most translations of the Bible are done by committee. This helps to guarantee that no individual prejudice or theology will affect the decisions of word choice, etc. Of course, the committee itself may have a particular agenda or bias (such as those producing the current “gender-neutral” mistranslations). But there is still plenty of good scholarship being done, and many good translations are available.
Having a good, honest translation of the Bible is important. A good translating team will have done its homework and will let the Bible speak for itself.
As a general rule, the more literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, ASB and NASB, have less “interpretative” work. The “freer” translations, such as the NIV, NLT, and CEV, by necessity do more “interpretation” of the text, but are generally more readable. Then there are the paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible, which are not really translations at all but one person’s retelling of the Bible.
So, with all that in view, are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.
At the time the King James Version (KJV) was translated they used the proper word for what it meant at that time period. During the time period KJV was being translated, "replenish" simply meant "to fill" not "fill again" as it does today. So it wasn't a mistranslation.
What happened is what happens with other words.. the meaning changed with time. That's why in "modern English" translations the word is now "fill" and not "replenish", because today replenish brings something altogether different to mind than what was intended.
<kudos to kawgpz550 for the article that pointed this answer out to me >
I'm sorry, but from what I have seen this is completely incorrect. The prefix re means: back, again. In the 1600's, this was still true.
The word plenish was a Middle English word from the Scottish word plenyssen and meant to fill up. As is true now and was true then, the prefex re was/is a qualifier for the word and thus changed the meaning to refill, not to fill.
In other words, the word fill was around then, but someone chose to use refill instead.
Ok...people are going to get sick of me using this place as a reference, but it has REALLY helped me!
Question: "How does the translation process impact the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible?"
Answer: This question deals with three very important issues: inspiration, preservation, and translation.
The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible teaches that scripture is “God-breathed”; that is, God personally superintended the writing process, guiding the human authors so that His complete message was recorded for us. The Bible is truly God’s Word. During the writing process, the personality and writing style of each author was allowed expression; however, God so directed the writers that the 66 books they produced were free of error and were exactly what God wanted us to have. See 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.
Of course, when we speak of “inspiration,” we are referring only to process by which the original documents were composed. After that, the doctrine of the preservation of the Bible takes over. If God went to such great lengths to give us His Word, surely He would also take steps to preserve that Word unchanged. What we see in history is that God did exactly that.
The Old Testament Hebrew scriptures were painstakingly copied by Jewish scribes. Groups such as the Sopherim, the Zugoth, the Tannaim, and the Masoretes had a deep reverence for the texts they were copying. Their reverence was coupled with strict rules governing their work: the type of parchment used, the size of the columns, the kind of ink, and the spacing of words were all prescribed. Writing anything from memory was expressly forbidden, and the lines, words, and even the individual letters were methodically counted as a means of double-checking accuracy. The result of all this was that the words written by Isaiah’s pen are still available today. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls clearly confirms the precision of the Hebrew text.
The same is true for the New Testament Greek text. Thousands of Greek texts, some dating back to nearly A.D. 117, are available. The slight variations among the texts—not one of which affects an article of faith—are easily reconciled. Scholars have concluded that the New Testament we have at present is virtually unchanged from the original writings. Textual scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon said about the Bible, “It is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved. . . . This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
This brings us to the translation of the Bible. Translation is an interpretative process, to some extent. When translating from one language to another, choices must be made. Should it be the more exact word, even if the meaning of that word is unclear to the modern reader? Or should it be a corresponding thought, at the expense of a more literal reading?
As an example, in Colossians 3:12, Paul says we are to put on “bowels of mercies” (KJV). The Greek word for “bowels,” which is literally “intestines,” comes from a root word meaning “spleen.” The KJV translators chose a literal translation of the word. The translators of the NASB chose “heart of compassion”—the “heart” being what today’s reader thinks of as the seat of emotions. The Amplified Bible has it as “tenderhearted pity and mercy.” The NIV simply puts “compassion.”
So, the KJV is the most literal in the above example, but the other translations certainly do justice to the verse. The core meaning of the command is to have compassionate feelings.
Most translations of the Bible are done by committee. This helps to guarantee that no individual prejudice or theology will affect the decisions of word choice, etc. Of course, the committee itself may have a particular agenda or bias (such as those producing the current “gender-neutral” mistranslations). But there is still plenty of good scholarship being done, and many good translations are available.
Having a good, honest translation of the Bible is important. A good translating team will have done its homework and will let the Bible speak for itself.
As a general rule, the more literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, ASB and NASB, have less “interpretative” work. The “freer” translations, such as the NIV, NLT, and CEV, by necessity do more “interpretation” of the text, but are generally more readable. Then there are the paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible, which are not really translations at all but one person’s retelling of the Bible.
So, with all that in view, are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.
All of this completely glosses over the fact that most Bible translations in use today, with some exceptions but INCLUDING the KJV, were not translated from the original Greek and Latin, but from Jerom's Latin Vulgate. It is a fact that 4 out of 6 schools of Christianity in the early church days were Universalists and ALL OF THEM read strictly out of the Greek and Hebrew. 1 Church taught annihalationism, and the church in Rome--WHO USED THE LATIN TEXT--believed in eternal punishment. Here is lengthy article to read sometime that goes into the whole thing in detail: Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years
So while I agree strongly with some of your last paragraph, I find it prudent to point out that alot of what you are saying above that simply isn't factual.
Congratulations Mr. Non-Moderator. I know you will sleep better at night.
LOL...I think?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, translators are going to choose the word they think best fits.
Not a mistranslation at all....
