Eleazar Lord 1858

A faithful translation of the Scriptures from the original text into another language, may, to the reader who correctly understands that language, have the same authority as the original had to those to whom that was vernacular. A faithful translation expresses the thoughts of the original in the words of the version. The translator must correctly conceive the inspired thoughts both in the words of the text and in the words of his version. To him, therefore, they will have the same authority in the one as in the other…If the translator is competent, and selects the proper words, they can not fail to express and convey the thoughts to the same effect and with the same authority as the original. If he fails to do this, or is charged with having failed, and controversy ensues, appeal is made to the original text, to determine whether in that he rightly conceived the inspired thought, or whether he misconceived it, and therefore failed to substitute the proper word to convey that thought in his translation. Inspiration is no more necessary to a faithful translator, than it was to a right understanding of the original text by those who were contemporary with the sacred writers and spoke the same language. The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, Eleazar Lord, 1858, pg 216-17

OUR English Bible is generally accounted the best version of the original texts that has ever been accomplished…The authors of the version in common use, not only had the advantage of the labors of several earlier English translations..No higher evidence could well exist of the ability and fidelity of their labors, than the fact that their version superseded those which preceded it, and that it has maintained its hold on the confidence and esteem of all classes and denominations of men of the Anglo-Saxon race for two hundred and fifty years. As a whole, and in respect to the essential qualities of a version, no unbiased and competent judge believes it susceptible of material improvement…The authors of that version so apprehended and received
the thoughts conveyed in the original words, as to conceive them in equivalent English words in corresponding collocations…The fact that the holiest men who have succeeded them, and who have most thoroughly compared their version with the originals, have, with one voice, borne testimony to the fidelity of the translation: insomuch, that while it might be easy in some cases to suggest in place of the words adopted by the translators, other words of equal, and in some instances of superior
fitness, every man competent to compare the originals with the English, may safely be challenged to point out any passage in which any important fact or doctrine is expressed, which would be materially improved by a substitution of new words. The instances in which improvement might appear to be most practicable, where any fact or doctrine is concerned, are not such as affect any denominational question between those who receive the Bible as the supreme rule of faith and practice…The language of the present version is so generally correct and perspicuous, so well adapted to the subjects, and so faithful a counterpart of the original, as absolutely to preclude the production and reception of a different version in Anglo-Saxon words…The slight amendments above mentioned, however, with reference to obsolete words, and words of which time has changed the significance or propriety, might be permitted not only without injury, but with advantage. They would involve no greater responsibility than marginal readings and explanatory notes.” pg 235-237

“Considering the version as established by its intrinsic excellence, and by the verdict of time… pg 237

“The Scriptures are the declared and authenticated testimony of the Omniscient Creator and Ruler of men, as to what is truth.” pg. 247

“If the Scriptures, which are designed and adapted to instruct all classes and descriptions of men, are not intelligible, authoritative, and conclusive, who can believe that the teachings, on moral subjects, of any of the phenomena of nature, even to the few who can pretend to study or understand them, are explicit, authoritative, and final? The Scriptures are complete. Nothing is to be added to them. No condition of things, no progress of events, no new ‘developments,’ no possible exigencies of the fallen race can occur for which they are not sufficient.” pg 248

“The popular objections to some things contained in the Scriptures, as being beneath the dignity of the Divine Being, being of little, and of mere temporary importance in themselves, or being inconsistent with refined and cultivated taste, proceed partly upon the assumption that our version of the original words conveys to us in every idiomatic and other particular, exactly the same impressions which the original words conveyed to those who were contemporary with the revelations, and whose habits, manners, tastes, modes of thought, education, governments, institutions, climates, employments, were widely different from ours; and partly upon the presumption that apart from the changes effected by time in the words of our version, the objectors are competent judges not only as to what words should be used in a revelation, but as to what thoughts, in a biography of fallen men, and in narratives of particular events, might be necessary and proper to be expressed.” pg 260-261

This entry was posted in Version Debate and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s