Featured Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?

It has been demonstrated in another thread that the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV was not inerrant.

No present edition of the KJV matches a 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV 100%.

 

Where have you proven that all the actual differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and one of the present varying editions of the KJV were the fault of the printers [besides those involving spelling]?

Are you perhaps merely speculating or assuming that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the printers and never the fault of the translators?

The difference between "LORD" or "GOD" [standing for the Hebrew name sometimes translated Jehovah] and "Lord" [standing for the Hebrew name Adonai] or "God" [standing for a different Hebrew name Elohim or El] could be considered a difference in text.

There were over 140 words added to a typical present KJV edition that are not found in the 1611 edition.

Over sixty times the number [singular/plural] of nouns or pronouns is changed between the 1611 edition and a typical present edition.

Differences in which words are in italics in different editions of the KJV can indicate a difference in text since words in italics sometimes suggest added words while words not in italics supposedly are renderings of some actual original language word.

 

Just curious as to how many years of Hebrew studies you have so for.

I know I can't make claims like this because I only have an inkling of Hebrew. Making this statement Sounds like you must be quite studied in the language?

 

Sorry, but according to your authority (http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words about three-fourths down the page with the heading of Grammatical analysis) the case is precisely the opposite as you state above --

Critics note that if the Hebrew were followed, the pronominal suffix to "preserve", translated as "them", in Psalm 12:7 should be in the third person masculine singular. Thus some translations such as the NASB say, "You will preserve him from this generation forever." While it is true that the Hebrew has a masculine singular pronoun, that is not the full story. The marginal note by the KJV translators says, "Heb. him. i. every one of them" (KJV 1611). The singular is used distributively in reference to a plurality. The translators clearly knew that the pronoun should be grammatically singular. ...​

The KJV translators' rendering of "them" is essentially a substitute for the literal singular Hebrew suffix "him". Actually, basic grammar would have the pronoun "him" referring to a singular antecedent. Therefore, the plural noun "words" is NOT in numerical agreement with the singular ending.

The linked article then goes on to argue that it is only through an irregular semantic situation that "them" could acceptably be used here against the standard numerical agreement. The article presented a completely different grammatical solution than what you stated above.

 

2 Samuel 22:28-31 [KJV] --

And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down.
For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness.
For by thee I have run through a troop: by my God have I leaped over a wall.
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. ​

Yes, as I originally stated it is not "buckler".

But what preceding clause do you think specifically described "them"?

 

Can any translation be inspired? No. Can any translation be infallible? No, seeing it's fallible man who translated it..............

 

It may be that Jordan doesn't even read his own primary sources, or that he simply doesn't believe in them, and if he doesn't even believe them, why should anyone else?

 

How about some perspective?

Do we have for our edification the inspired 'word' of God?

That depends on what meaning of the Hebrew or Greek word 'word' one considers.

A very common idea is that of "plenary, literal inspiration". That is, God inspired the entire text of the Bible from front to rear. Every single word was chosen by God. I don't agree. Were that so, then only the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words would be so inspired - and any translation in any language would be lacking inspiration.

That to me, is a sad and dreary proposition. Not to mention it puts Almighty God in the position of an incompetent planner. I reject that entirely, based on what I know of God.

Both the Hebrew word translated 'word' [דָּבָר - pronounced dah-VAR] and the Greek word so translated [λόγος - pronounced LAH-gahs] mean more than just a single unit of grammar. They both also refer to the totality of the message given. We use the term 'word' in English in the same manner; as 'Pass the word' or 'What's the word?' When one says this, one is not planning on the hearer speaking one single unit of language to another, or hearing a single unit of language.

Therefore, it is the MESSAGE that is inspired. The idea of God's nature, man's nature, man's rebellion and God's provision for man's redemption. All that information is intact and available.

I can say it is intact and available because God acts to preserve His message to us. To consider otherwise is to deny the Will of God for mankind to be redeemed and/or the Ability of God to preserve His message and purpose.

Is the Bible infallible? It is in the sense of meaning just exactly what God wants us to read or hear. I'll except the odd intentional mis-translation of the Bible from this; but somehow, God sees to it those mis-translations are identified and publicized; so those who desire the actual message of God are protected from fraud. (Think New World Translation.)

Is the Bible infallible in the sense of correct grammar, spelling and punctuation? Not so much. A common illustration is the New Testament author Paul (Saul) of Tarsus was a well educated man who wrote flowing and elegant Greek prose. On the other hand, John the Revelator was a commercial fisherman who wrote Greek, but haltingly and - so I'm told - almost painful to read in the Koine Greek of the time. If John had been in school, he would not have received an "A" for his grammar.

I speak English and Spanish, and I'm sort of working on Biblical Hebrew. I can say without hesitation that 'translation' is a lot more difficult and far more entailed than simply replacing 'words' (ink-stains on paper) from one language to another. Translation simply does not work that way.

Enough for now.

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

First of all, the correct term is verbal-plenary inspiration. Secondly, verbal-plenary ("plenary-verbal" in some writers) inspiration does apply to the originals. This was universally taught by conservative theologians until the 1970s when the disputes over the King James Bible began.

You have made several errors here. First of all, the Hebrew word dabar often means individual words and not the totality of the message, as in Gen. 24:30 where it refers to the words (plural) of Rebekah. The same thing can be said of the Greek word logos, which can mean message or it can mean individual words, such as in Matt. 26:44, where Jesus prayed the exact same words again.

You are here mixing up the doctrines of special revelation (which refers to the truths given to us through the Bible) and inspiration, which refers to how the revelations were given.

I can read a TR, Byzantine Textform Greek NT, or Majority Greek NT and get the same revelatory truths.

I pretty much agree here, except that I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant in the originals in every respect.

First of all, the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts did not have punctuation, which was added centuries later. As for spelling, sometimes that differs from writer to writer (the spelling of "Moses" in the NT, for example), but who is to say these were not regional differences rather than errors? They didn't have handy dictionaries or spelling bees in the first century. They did not think as we do of right and wrong in spelling.

Secondly, I don't think John used any incorrect grammar. He did use some unusual constructions, but who are modern grammarians to say that John used incorrect grammar? We only have a limited number of ancient documents to study. Can you give me an example of a grammatical error John made?

As far as Paul goes, I'd much rather read John than Paul, because Paul often wrote extremely long and involved sentences lasting several verses. He was very hard to understand, as Peter noted in 2 Peter 3:16-17.

Study hard! :thumbsup:

 

No. .......

 

Greetings John of Japan

I'll take your word on it.

No, not an error. The words (individual units) can mean both (and more) determined by context. For instance, in John 1:1 Vv the 'word' was God. In many passages regarding the prophets, the 'word of the Lord' does not mean individual units of grammar.

You have missed the point.

That means what? Are you suggesting the 'really important' factor is the word choice? Or is the 'really important' factor the message?

I have looked through the translation to English from the Syriac Bible; aside from some minor word choice 'differences' the message is the same. That to me indicates God has an active role in preserving His 'word' in dissemination.

That is the 'traditional' view. You are certainly not alone in that thought.

 

I have to ask a question:

If no translation can be inspired and infallible; how can anyone who doesn't read the original language manuscripts - and perhaps the autographs - know they are getting the real scoop? Does this mean most of us cannot really trust what we read and think we understand?

Okay, that was two questions.

 

You would't know; and knowing would have no bearing on whether the translation is inspired & infallible, or not. Your knowledge of any thing does not change the substance of the thing.

 

Yes, the individual Greek and Hebrew words for "word" that you mentioned can mean both a single lexical unit (not a grammatical unit) or a message. However, your argument was predicated on the "word as message" argument. So that's what I answered.

Actually, I understood your point quite well, but apparently my rejoinder was not clear. Let me explain.

Revelation is the doctrine that God reveals Himself and His truth to humans. It may be through the Bible (special revelation) or through nature (natural revelation). Special revelation is the communication of truth, but truth must evenually be communicated through words. Grammar forms meaning only as far as the individual words (lexical units) have meaning. This is why Lewis Carroll's "Jaberwocky" is meaningless: "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe." The grammar is flawless, but the words are meaningless and so no communication takes place.

Now, as I said to you, truth is given through revelation, but inspiration deals with how that truth is given, not simply the truth itself. The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:16 that "All scripture is given by inspiration," as you must know. So inspiration is the process of giving the revelation. That process involves "holy men of old" writing down God's revelation with words in grammatical construction. The individual words have meaning, but by themselves do not communicate. They must be put in a grammatical construction (a sentence) with proper syntax (sentence construction) communicates truth, God's truth.

Because of all of this, inspiration must be verbal, since it is the words which provide meaning in the grammatical construction. Verbal inspiration is Biblical. "Thought inspiration" is not.

I agree that God has an active role in preserving His word (message) through the words (individual, meaningful lexical units), in particular in translation. A translation is inspired to the direct extent that it preserves the original. However, the authority must be in the original, not the translation.

The Potsdam Declaration was written in English, but the Japanese misunderstood it and refused to surrender. The result was that the US dropped the atomic bomb and Japan was devastated. Do you think for a moment that the Allies thought, "Okay, let's not drop the bomb, because the Japanese didn't seem to understand our Potsdam Declaration"? No, the obligation was on the Japanese to respect and understand the original English declaration.

This is always true in diplomacy, when considering treaties between governments. Why should Christians be less careful about the originals than lost politicians?

You certainly have that right! But it's not only the traditional view it's the Biblical view.

 

The whole key is in the word "original." In translation theory the original language is called the "source language," or "the language in which the original author of a message formulated it, and the point of departure for translation" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, p. 206). If this is true (and it is, one of my rare agreements with Nida), then it is the source language that holds the authority. We must always go back to the original documents (if not the original manuscripts) when we are doing translation.

If I were hired to do a translation of the famous Bubishi, a document about karate in classical Japanese from Okinawa, my employer wouldn't care about my opinion of the anonymous author's art ability in drawing the figures in the book, he would simply want to know if my translation of the text under the drawings was true to the original. Surely then, Almighty God wants us to go to the original documents of the Word of God for our authority.

 

Original...

So anyone who doesn't read and comprehend Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek cannot possibly know what the Bible - God - means ?

All of those who are so limited are forced to accept the word of those who can, right?

 

You're apparently reading my posts casually, with no effort at understanding and interacting with what I've actually said. Here is what I said in post #55:

Now, when you were saying the originals were not inerrant, you said John made grammatical mistakes in his Greek. I'll ask you again: can you give me one instance of that?

 

John, you are ducking my question which indicates you fear the answer. Silly attitude. I choose not to deal with people who hide from truth while claiming a total monopoly of it.

My source for John's familiarity - or lack thereof - with the Greek language is other Bible scholars. So I cannot cite any specific examples; in fact I confess I know very little about the language, other than the meaning of certain words I have studied.

 

I'm not sure which question you mean. You've ducked several of mine. I fear no answer and I certainly don't fear truth.

Is this the question you feel I ducked? It doesn't really speak to my position--you're putting words in my mouth. But hey, I'll work with you.

I thought I answered it clearly with my statement about inspiration (which you have not responded to). Let me try again. The authority is in the originals, so we must always go back to them. A translation gives God's revelation insofar as it is an accurate translation of the original. Therefore if you have an accurate translation you have God's word and don't need to know Hebrew and Greek to know God's truth and His moral will. Those Christians who need to know Hebrew and/or Greek are the pastors and scholars and translators.

Is this a good enough answer for you? If it isn't, please clarify your question, because I'm not understanding it.

I don't hide from truth and I certainly have not claimed a total monopoly on it. But since you feel this way, let's try again. Ask any direct question you want and I will directly answer it as far as I am able.