Are there any inspired translations today?

[Yeshua1]

Know that those holding to Kjvo among us would state yes, but any other agree with that sentiment here?
Must we have inspiration to have a trustworthy translation?

 

[JonC]

No. God did not inspire individual translations.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. God did not inspire individual translations.

God did not inspire any translations period!

 

[Rippon2]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV)

The term God-breathed is more descriptive and accurate than 'inspired.' And in this verse it doesn't refer to Bible translations. All faithful translations are God's Word though.

 

[JonC]

God did not inspire any translations period!

That is what I said. God did not inspire translations.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is what I said. God did not inspire translations.

So we have now infallible translations, correct?

 

[JonC]

So we have now infallible translations, correct?

Translations always carry the possibility of inadequately communication. Take the word logos, for example. The English "word" is probably the best choice, but it is not necessarily as accurate as we would like.

We have the inspired Word of God.....not inspired translations.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Know that those holding to Kjvo among us would state yes, but any other agree with that sentiment here?
Must we have inspiration to have a trustworthy translation?

I disagree. I think KJVO is a wider and more diverse group than outsiders recognize. You cannot lump everything that any KJVO person says to all KJVO. Yes, there are people that fit the stereotypical KJVO, but there are at least as many that don't fit the stereotype.

I think words and phrases have become loaded beyond their original definitions.

 

[rlvaughn]

I disagree. I think KJVO is a wider and more diverse group than outsiders recognize. You cannot lump everything that any KJVO person says to all KJVO. Yes, there are people that fit the stereotypical KJVO, but there are at least as many that don't fit the stereotype.

I think words and phrases have become loaded beyond their original definitions.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It can be hard to discuss these issues in a profitable way. What most people seem to think of as KJVO are the views promulgated by Peter S. Ruckman & company, and in discussions KJV supporters are often painted with that brush. As you say, KJVO is a diverse group, and another thing that may not be realized is that over the years different people/groups have come to some sort of KJVO conclusion independently of others who have done so. Several associations in Kentucky became "KJVO" when the "Campbellites" came among them with their doctrine and their Bible. (I wrote a bit about it for the Spencer Historical Journal, which article was placed online HERE.) The Old Regular Baptists were, I believe, probably "KJVO" 50 or 60 years before anyone like Wilkinson or Ray had thought to write on the subject. They probably never even heard of "KJVO" until recent years. Of course, almost everyone has internet now and know a lot about what is going on in other places.

 

[Logos1560]

What most people seem to think of as KJVO are the views promulgated by Peter S. Ruckman & company, and in discussions KJV supporters are often painted with that brush. .

KJV-only advocates often claim that they are misrepresented when they may be more often the ones misrepresenting any believers who do not disagree with their unproven claims for the KJV. I have no where claimed that all KJV-only advocates agree in all their arguments and in all their claims. Some KJV-only advocates even in effect contradict some of their own arguments with other of their unproven claims.

KJV-only advocates paint others as being guilty of being a skeptic or unbeliever if they will not blindly accept a claim of inspiration or preservation for the KJV.

Those who claim to hold a balanced view and non-extreme form of KJV-only view are often just as extreme and harsh in some of their allegations against the NKJV and against non-KJV-only Bible believers as the followers of Ruckman are.

It is not only the followers of Peter Ruckman who are accurately described as being KJV-only.

 

[Logos1560]

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view. What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they also make any exclusive, only claims for this one English translation--the KJV. Someone can consult the Hebrew or Greek texts for clarification and study and still be KJV-only if they also make exclusive claims for only one English translation—the KJV. Someone can read and consult concordances, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries and still be KJV-only. Someone can read another English Bible in order to criticize it and still be KJV-only.

KJV-only defines and describes any person who makes any absolute exclusive only claim for one English translation—the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible could accurately be described as KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a form of KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would also qualify as being a KJV-only view since it involves accepting an exclusive, only claim for this one English translation.

On the other hand, this accurate term KJV-only does not suggest that every person who makes any KJV-only claims holds and accepts all the same ideas or uses identical arguments. Different individuals may use different arguments for their varying exclusive only claims for the KJV, and they may disagree with or even reject the arguments that others use for their exclusive only claims. Different individuals, groups, or camps can differ on some significant or important points and still be KJV-only. While the modern KJV-only movement may be diverse and multifaceted in some of its claims and teaching, it is united in making some type of exclusive only claim for the KJV. The varying claims and arguments of different camps result from the underlying exclusive only claims that constitute KJV-only reasoning. This definition and explanation of KJV-only or a similar one is what many believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning/teaching likely have in mind when they use this term. Since a definition of the accurate term KJV-only is so simple when the definition of KJV as an English Bible translation and the definition of “only” are considered and combined, some have probably assumed that it did not need to be defined.

 

[rlvaughn]

It is not only the followers of Peter Ruckman who are accurately described as being KJV-only.

Which is the primary point I made. I don't think one has to have been on the BB 15 or 20 years to realize many of the responses about "KJVO" are not directed to the view of the person holding them but to a strawman devised from what whoever psoting generally thinks is KJVO. If it does not apply to you, then your own responses will stand the test.

Since a definition of the accurate term KJV-only is so simple when the definition of KJV as an English Bible translation and the definition of “only” are considered and combined, some have probably assumed that it did not need to be defined.

However true this may or may not be, the BB has given guidelines to help the discussions along.

When making a point, discussing an aspect of this position or debating an issue, PLEASE use the correct KJVO "number". It is WRONG to lump a very slight leaning to the KJVO position (#1-2) with the mainstream KJVO (#3-4) or with the extreme KJVO (#5).

 

[Dave G]

So we have now infallible translations, correct?

No.

Many believers today think that we have the infallible word of God in our hands... but the reality of it is, no one can agree on where, exactly, that it is.
So, if you want an infallible translation, find the original autographs, learn Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew, and perform a translation for yourself from those autographs into your own language...

But even then, it won't be infallible, because none of us are perfect.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

People with the worst translations often have the strongest churches. I used to think that is DESPITE the translation being a mess; now, I think it might be a BENEFIT of not trusting single verses enough to take them out of context when the big picture is saying something else.

 

[Dave G]

Know that those holding to Kjvo among us would state yes, but any other agree with that sentiment here?

As I said in my previous post ( and I will re-iterate to clarify a few things ), speaking from a position of strictly logic ( notice I said "logic" and not "faith" ), there are no inspired translations, nor are there any infallible translations.

Taking logic and human reasoning and elevating it above faith, the reason is simple...
Men are fallible;
Therefore, translations of God's word into any language, regardless of who God uses to perform them, are fallible ( subject to error ), aren't they?

Carrying this concept further, it can be said that anything written by the hands of men is fallible...
Isn't it?
How far do you want to go, Dave?
The entire distance?
OK...

That's every word we now have or think that we have in the existing manuscripts;
It was all written by men and preserved by men...
Making the only thing that God ever wrote by His own hand ( the second set of the ten commandments, as the first were broken by Moses ), the only infallible ( not subject to error ) words of God in existence;
And no one knows ( well, I do ) where those tablets are today .

So, based on the prevailing reasoning that I see on this board, I would say that people here seem to believe, by and large, that the Bible is neither infallible ( since no one can agree on where those infallible words actually are or what they consist of ), nor is it inspired ( or its original inspiration reflected ) in anything outside of the original autographs.

Wonderful.

Apparently, the foundation of God's immutable word is built on the sands of doubt, my friend;
and you know what I see as even more amazing?
This isn't the only Christian forum whose members appear to agree, overwhelmingly, with this line of thinking;
It's on all of them, to some extent.

That's what saddens me so much, that we are where we are today.



But then, we are in the last days, and doubts about God's word and opposition to it, are at an all-time high.
I'm not the least bit surprised that it's come to this.

 

[Dave G]

Must we have inspiration to have a trustworthy translation?

To me, that's an entirely different subject, Dave.

Inspiration ( God writing His actual words down using fallible men ) stopped with the original autographs.
Since we don't have those, then we don't have the actual, inspired words of God to look at...or do we?
Apparently not, if I'm reading people's comments on this subject correctly.


You can believe that God does not providentially preserve His words ( if you wish ), but then I would have to ask, "where is your faith?"

I've written the above based on what one has when they cast faith in God and His power aside in favor of "logic", and starts believing that God does not use fallible men to do things infallibly.
Men are fallible, yet God used them to write down His words ( 2 Timothy 3:16 ) for future generations ( Preservation, see Romans 15:4 ).
Men are fallible, yet God uses them to preserve His words through the centuries.

Now the only problem is, is where can we find them?


I already know your answer, and that's why I rarely reply to you on this subject;
But I did so for the benefit of the newer members here, so that they will know where I stand...

On the "Received Text" and the Authorized Version in the English;
and anything faithfully translated into any language from that collated Greek text and from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.


Good evening to you, sir.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only blind faith in the subjective opinions and traditions of men has not been demonstrated to be biblical faith in what God said. Perhaps it is KJV-only blind faith in the opinions of men that would in effect cast faith in God into the garbage can.

God does not say that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

 

[JonC]

People with the worst translations often have the strongest churches. I used to think that is DESPITE the translation being a mess; now, I think it might be a BENEFIT of not trusting single verses enough to take them out of context when the big picture is saying something else.

This is an interesting (and good) point.

 

[Dave G]

KJV-only blind faith in the subjective opinions and traditions of men has not been demonstrated to be biblical faith in what God said.

It's not blind, nor has it ever been.
Many of us have done the research and are not satisfied with the way things are "progressing".

Perhaps it is KJV-only blind faith in the opinions of men that would in effect cast faith in God into the garbage can.

Again, many of us have done the research and it's not blind faith.
It's the faith that what is happening today is not of God, but of Satan who is the author of confusion in the churches, and of men who are trying to make money ...and lots of it.

If it were about arriving at a better standard, that work would have ceased a long time ago and we would now have a new and better Bible in the English.
We don't...
We have a rather confused mess and it's getting worse by the decade.

God does not say that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

But He does promise that people who mishandle His words will pay for it.

 

[Logos1560]

It's not blind, nor has it ever been.
Many of us have done the research and are not satisfied with the way things are "progressing".

Again, many of us have done the research and it's not blind faith.

You have demonstrated blind faith in human, non-scriptural opinions of men. You believe opinions that have not been proven to be true and have not been proven to be scriptural, which would be blind faith. Do you merely assume your opinions concerning the KJV to be supposedly true by use of fallacies such as begging the question since you do not prove them to be true?

You have presented no sound, scriptural case solely from the Scriptures for your opinions.

You have not demonstrated that you have done the research, applying the exact same measures/standards consistently and justly. I have read most of so-called KJV-only research, and it has not proven a modern, man-made KJV-only theory to be true nor scriptural.

KJV-only assertions and allegations are based on use of unjust divers measures/standards, which are an abomination to the LORD.

The same exact measures/standards are not applied to the making of one English Bible translation [the KJV] that are applied to other English Bible translations.