Are there any inspired translations today?

[Logos1560]

Many of us have done the research .

You do not present reliable research that can be checked and verified and that would back up KJV-only claims.

 

[Image of the Cross]

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.[/QUOTE

I am KJV--Preferred and I agree with you.

 

[Ziggy]

One could rightly also paraphrase Logos' comment as a turnaround rebuke to the critical text position:

"Critical text advocates are men who are using their human reason and who lean on their own understanding to reach their non-scriptural critical text conclusions that are not stated in the Scriptures....

The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of German-based critics in the 21st century. "

 

[Image of the Cross]

Sorry folks, my earlier post didn't make it. I was just agreeing with Logos1560 that as a KJV preferred I know that all KJV-only advocates can't be lumped into one group.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

That was the Originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

All KJVO hold that the Kjv is a perfect translation though, and that the TR is the best greek text!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

All KJVO despise the Nkjv as being a worthless translation!

 

[JonC]

That was the Originals!

I have no idea what you are saying was the originals. Your declaration does not match my post.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Do we need to have a perfect translation to have the word of God to us in English?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

One can be KJVP, but no logic nor bible to support KJVO!

 

[rlvaughn]

All KJVO hold that the Kjv is a perfect translation though, and that the TR is the best greek text!

All KJVO despise the Nkjv as being a worthless translation!

You probably should review the BB Definitions of KJV-Only. According to this and even White in his book, the label covers a wide range of thinking.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Do you hold that the Kjv is a perfect copy of the originals that were inspired by God?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no idea what you are saying was the originals. Your declaration does not match my post.

You stated that scriptures were inspired, and I agreed that they were in the Originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

What a ridiculous generalization of traditionalism!

The Bible cautions us to seek the counsel of our elders.

That is why many have found Confessions helpful to summarize biblical truths and doctrines!

 

[JonC]

You stated that scriptures were inspired, and I agreed that they were in the Originals!

Yes, the originals were inspired. As Paul says, so were the 1st century Scriptures (which were not the Originals but copies and translations).

God's Word is not as superficial as you seem to think.

 

[Yeshua1]

very much so! Any Bible tgranslation that is faithful to the textual evidence that we have, and hold the Word of God in the Highest regard, is "Infallible", and therefore "Trustworthy" in ALL that it says. For those who do not hold to the Bible translations like the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, YLT, etc, as being "Infallible", are saying that the Bible that we have today, is "fallible", which means, "capable of errors"! This means that when we read in 2 Timothy 3:16, where Paul says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness", this does not apply to our "translations" but only to the Original Autographs. If, as this verse says, that the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, in the Original Autographs, are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness", then does this apply to our translations as well? How can we believe and apply this text to our Bible Versions, while holding to a "fallible" Bible, when it clearly says that the Bible is "profitable for correction", when it has "errors"? There are "copysist errors" in the translations that we have, which account for about 2% of the entire Bible. However, when comparing the textual evidence, it is possible to reduce this to under 1%. If the remainder 99% is as the Original Autographs, then this must mean that this is "infallible", which the dictionary defines as, "incapable of error, not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint, incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals" (Webster), all of which is true even in the faithful translations. If we abandon the Infallibility of the Versions of the Bible, some of which I have noted above, then we have the problem that the Christian Faith is based on unreliable, untrustworthy, and errors, that are in these Versions. Do we only accept "partial Infallibility", like when it says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1),? Or, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)? Is what our translation says about the Creation of the universe, completely true and trustworthy, and the same about the Lord Jesus Christ as being Himself God? Or, do we say that it is possible that passages like these are "Infallible" in what they teach? Who decides which parts of the Bible are, or not, The Infallible Word of God?

Some seem to equate though that cannot have infallibility without inspiration, but very few equated the two in regards to translations until KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

All,
This will be my final reply in this thread.

I firmly believe that when I hold the "King James" version in my hands, I hold the inspired word of God, in my own native language, in my hands.
When I hold anything that is a product of faithful and careful translating performed using the "Textus Receptus" such as the Louis Segond of 1874 or the Reina-Valera of 1909 in French and Spanish respectively, I am holding the inspired word of God in my hands.
I also firmly believe that when I hold anything that is a product of translating the "Critical Text" in my hands, I am holding something that has been mishandled by men and therefore, does not warrant my trust.

If any of you feel that people like me should be attacked, ridiculed, made to look in any way inferior to others that profess Christ as Saviour and Lord, or should be treated in any way other than respectfully, then to me you have a heart problem;
There is no excuse for treating anyone badly for any reason among Christians...

Believers do not persecute people;
Rather, we are the persecuted.

If any of you think that I'm in error, try correcting me in love instead of what I've been seeing so far in many of the threads on this site in the time that I've been here...
Which has been, in many cases, uncharitable and disreputable from my perpsective.
I for one would very much appreciate seeing actual Christian charity being practiced on this forum on many subjects, and not what has been allowed to exist thus far.

Admittedly, I have my own problems in the flesh...
I get perturbed, I sometimes reply without thinking or considering how my words may be taken by those who read them, etc.
and there is ample proof of my thoughtlessness in some of my replies.

For that I ask your forgiveness.


With that said,
May each of you be persuaded in your own minds on this subject, and may we all remember the Lord's commands in places like Romans 12, to be patient and to requite blessing for cursing and as much as lies within us to be at peace with all men.

Did Jesus that the Spirit would inspire just His Apostles, or translators also much later?

 

[Yeshua1]

Your view of the King James Version is blind trust.

Not saying his view, but some KJVOv views border on Idolatry!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, the originals were inspired. As Paul says, so were the 1st century Scriptures (which were not the Originals but copies and translations).

God's Word is not as superficial as you seem to think.

Where does it state translations will have inspiration then?

 

[JonC]

I firmly believe that when I hold the "King James" version in my hands, I hold the inspired word of God, in my own native language, in my hands.

When you hold the Bible in your hands you do hold the inspired Word of God.