Are there any inspired translations today?

[SavedByGrace]

The Hebrew scribes were meticulous while they copied down the OT, as if they noticed just one error/mistake, they trashed the book and started again!

so how does this prove that the Lord and NT Writers and the Apostles did not use the original OT? There is so much nonsense speculation on here!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I am willing to "argue from silence" that Jesus did not have in HIs hands the Ten Commandments when He quoted from the stone tablets. I am also willing to "argue from silence" that Paul was not in possession of the original when he quoted Scripture. I simply do not believe that the original autographs existed during the first century. It does not make sense to me that they would.

That said, my argument itself has nothing to do with the existence of the original autographs. I believe I have pointed this out already. My argument would be the same if we knew Martin Luther had in his possession the original autographs when he translated Scripture into German. My argument would be the same if the original autographs we in an oak desk in a corner office at the SBC library in Nashville. My argument is that what is inspired is not the exact words but the Word that those words communicate and therefore inspiration transcends translation.

Problem is that the inspiration used was verbal plenary type!

 

[JonC]

exactly who said this? I have been studying textual criticism for over 35 years, and have never seen this before. Nor have I found any such evidence. Further, on the "dictation" issue, did you know that in 2 Peter 1:21, the Greek verb φέρω, is is a present passive participle, "carried" by the Holy Spirit? John Trapp has commented on this correctly, "As they were moved] φερομενοι. Forcibly moved, acted, carried out of themselves to say and do what God would have them." This is the force of the passive here.

I think I may have misunderstood your point with my earlier reply. Your comment does seem to be addressing the original writers whereas I was speaking of Scribes. But I do see your point.

I disagree not that God "moved" the writers to record Scripture, but that God determined the exact words that those being moved (actively) wrote. John, for example, wrote what he saw. I don't think that God said "Now..write 'I saw...'". While inspiration is always active on the part of God, I do not believe that the result is that we can consider each word to have been chosen by God to express what God was revealing.

 

[JonC]

Inspiration goes to only the Originals, and that is the viewpoint of a vast majority of Christians until KJVO arose!

Dude....you keep saying the same thing as if your opinion proves it.

We can disagree, but you have to stop saying stuff as if coming from your fingers makes it true.

 

[JonC]

Problem is that the inspiration used was verbal plenary type!

The problem is that the inspiration used was not verbal plenary type!

 

[JonC]

The Holy Spirit used each writer own unique vocabulary and sytle

Why?

 

[Yeshua1]

so how does this prove that the Lord and NT Writers and the Apostles did not use the original OT? There is so much nonsense speculation on here!

Not saying that they did not, just that when copying was done, was under very strict guidelines!

 

[Yeshua1]

Dude....you keep saying the same thing as if your opinion proves it.

We can disagree, but you have to stop saying stuff as if coming from your fingers makes it true.

I could quote MANY though who see this just as I do!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is that the inspiration used was not verbal plenary type!

Vast majority of Evangelical and Reformed would disagree with you on this!

 

[Yeshua1]

Why?

He did not dictate to them as robots is why!

 

[JonC]

I could quote MANY though who see this just as I do!

Then please provide someone who also believes that Jesus was not referring to the OT but was referring to gospels and epistles yet unpenned when He referred to Scripture.

It would not really matter because I did provide people who hold my view (Martin Luther, for example) and that is no real authority. But I am very interesting in reading how your idea is supported.

 

[JonC]

He did not dictate to them as robots is why!

Why not? If God chose the exact words that these men would use and they had nothing to do with the communication then why would God use their mannerisms?

 

[JonC]

Vast majority of Evangelical and Reformed would disagree with you on this!

No, I seriously doubt it. Most evangelicals (in my experience anyway....we really can't speak for the "most" part) seem to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This is true of the Reformed Church also. John Calvin and Martin Luther both viewed inspiration as God's revelation to man, but written by human's in their own words to communicate what was given.

Your view of inspiration is not, however, foreign to evangelical faith. It has become more popular due to liberal theology.

BUT your view that Jesus was speaking of Scripture yet to be recorded, and Paul was writing to Timothy of Scripture yet to be recorded, not only seems strange and invented but it is also foreign to Christian theology (Reformed and evangelical) as far as I know.

That idea of yours is the most interesting. Just provide ONE source stating that Paul was telling Timothy that all future Scripture is inspired but all past Scripture is just infallible.

 

[Larry the Logger]

I'm kinda sure if God can make a universe and hold it all together with a thought (Col 1:16-17), and do so much the more by delivering us, He can transmography "inspiration" and the intents and purposes of His Word throughout history regardless of scribal errors, scribal notes in margins added, translations, copying errors, to make the question kind of moot. I don't have any scientific proof of that but there's some pretty compelling evidence. Plus, as the Lord Jesus hands me my shoe shine kit because of missed opportunities instead of an overcomer reward at the judgment seat of Christ, I don't think a response of, "yeah but you didn't give me an 'inspired' translation," is going to fly.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not? If God chose the exact words that these men would use and they had nothing to do with the communication then why would God use their mannerisms?

Each one expressed themselves based upon their vocabulary and styles, as Luke wrote different fashion then Paul pr peter, but all were equally inspired by God!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I seriously doubt it. Most evangelicals (in my experience anyway....we really can't speak for the "most" part) seem to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This is true of the Reformed Church also. John Calvin and Martin Luther both viewed inspiration as God's revelation to man, but written by human's in their own words to communicate what was given.

Your view of inspiration is not, however, foreign to evangelical faith. It has become more popular due to liberal theology.

BUT your view that Jesus was speaking of Scripture yet to be recorded, and Paul was writing to Timothy of Scripture yet to be recorded, not only seems strange and invented but it is also foreign to Christian theology (Reformed and evangelical) as far as I know.

That idea of yours is the most interesting. Just provide ONE source stating that Paul was telling Timothy that all future Scripture is inspired but all past Scripture is just infallible.

You love to misquote, as my points were very clear here, in that ALL of the canon books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that He made sure that Each and every word in the originals were exactly as He saw fit!
Would you affirm this Baptist viewpoint on the Bible then?
The Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Bible | Moody Bible Institute

 

[JonC]

Each one expressed themselves based upon their vocabulary and styles, as Luke wrote different fashion then Paul pr peter, but all were equally inspired by God!

This is inconsistent. You first said that you affirm verbal plenary, but now you say the opposite (that each writer "expressed themselves based upon their vocabulary and styles".

Make up your mind, brother.

 

[JonC]

You love to misquote, as my points were very clear here, in that ALL of the canon books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that He made sure that Each and every word in the originals were exactly as He saw fit!
Would you affirm this Baptist viewpoint on the Bible then?
The Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Bible | Moody Bible Institute

I did not misquote you. This is what YOU posted and I quoted:

Jesus and the Apostles already accepted and knew that the OT canon was fully inspired, and he was telling us and them that their books to be written were on the same inspiration level as OT prophets, as same Holy Spirit would inspire their works!

Yet Paul and Jesus were not referencing yet unwritten Scripture. Granted, these are included.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is inconsistent. You first said that you affirm verbal plenary, but now you say the opposite (that each writer "expressed themselves based upon their vocabulary and styles".

Make up your mind, brother.

The Holy Spirit worked in and thru them to make sure wjat they wrote down was exactly as he had intended, but they were not mindless drones!

 

[Yeshua1]

I did not misquote you. This is what YOU posted and I quoted:



Yet Paul and Jesus were not referencing yet unwritten Scripture. Granted, these are included.

Jesus was telling them and us that His Apostles would be recording down the NT canon, and that they would have same inspiration as the OT writers had!