Are translations inspired?

I think it is more a case of loose teaching rather than loose terminology.

The Word of God is inspired and to hold up a faithful translation of it and calling it inspired is perfectly legitimate. However, the words of that translation are not inspired. The Word of God is the message that is communicated not the words currently used to express it. The only words to which divine inspiration applies to are the ones in the originals.

 

I think Scottj said it well

 

No it is not;Paul was making reference to the Scripture Timothy had read.How can it be a process?? Splain.. </font>[/QUOTE]Better question... How can it be the KJV since Paul wrote 1500+ years before the KJV translators translated?

 

Because I have the KJB now;I do not have Timothy's copy,it is long gone.

 

AV Defender said:

Translations are not inspired. Translations are just that: Translations.[/QUOTE]I disagree.Lets look at Moses' and Pharoah's conversation;it was in Egyptian,but in every Hebrew manuscript,it is in Hebrew.

Does the Bible say that the conversation between Moses and Pharaoh was inspired? No. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that Scripture, and only Scripture, is theopneustos - "God-breathed." It doesn't say any such thing about the oral conversations so transcribed.

Moreover, 2 Pet. 1:21 says that the authors of Scripture were moved to write by the Holy Spirit. It makes no such claim about translations of their God-breathed words into English or any other language.

 

No, not God's Word. I said translations. Can you show me in the Bible where it teaches that we should expect any translation to be perfect, without a single error or misleading reading?

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]If God's word is not in the King James Bible then where is it?

 

if the translations of conversations and letters contained in scripture are truly inspired, then they must perfectly give the sense the originals, otherwise the bible would contain errors in it's historical narratives.

you have to accept the reality of perfect translations, or concede that the bible contains errors of fact in it's historical narratives.

 

timothy 1769 said:

you have to accept the reality of perfect translations, or concede that the bible contains errors of fact in it's historical narratives.

This is a complete non sequitur. The Word of God is not bound by human fallibility.

 

A: the bible contains translations of historical conversations, speeches, letters

B: the bible is without error

therefore,

C: the bible contains translations of historical conversations, speeches, and letters that are without error.

you have to admit C if you admit A and B. obviously if you admit C, you admit the existence of perfect translations.

A can't be denied. the only way out is to deny B, the inerrancy of the bible.

 

Because I have the KJB now;I do not have Timothy's copy,it is long gone. </font>[/QUOTE]So you acknowledge that the KJV Bible you have now is not the scriptures that Timothy had? Very interesting response.

What language do you think Timothy's scripture was in? You know his father was Greek and he wasn't circumcised until after his salvation so he may not have even known Hebrew... and he certainly didn't know KJV English.

 

Nope. "A" can be denied. In fact, "A" as you have written it is patently false. The Bible contains inspired accounts of conversations, speeches, letters, etc.

Translations are the works of men necessitated by God's curse at the tower of Babel due to man's sin. God the Holy Spirit has no need of translations to accurately inspire scripture.

 

No one, including Andy, has said that the KJV is not the Word of God.

Once again, you come full circle to the basic error of KJVOnlyism. You want to limit God's Word to one set of English words when there is no basis for such a limitation and many proofs against the notion.

 

Where was it before 1611?

Here we go again, an argumentative question based upon a fallacy.

Fallacy: This fallacy is illustrated by the simple fact that there is more than one KJV - 1611 to 1769, there are several, all different. Things which are different are not the same.

Then there is the Oxford vs the Cambridge differences.

Since things different are not the same one (perhaps) of the several must be "the real thing".

So, before you ask the question " If God's word is not in the King James Bible then where is it?" you need to specify which revision of the KJV and which publisher, etc.

For instance, The 1769 Oxford Edition of the KJV which has several hundred differences (many of which have been posted) some of which are substantive between itself and the original 1611 edition. Which btw has been lost so we can never determine from the "original" which MIGHT be the correct reading.

I repeat, your basic premise is a fallacy because you cannot (or will not) tell us which edition of the KJV is the "perfect" Word of God.

When you do this then we can start looking at the differences and go from there.

Until then my answer to your question " If God's word is not in the King James Bible then where is it?"

The same place it was before 1611.

HankD

 

Now you are just being silly.The Bible Timothy was reading from was Scripture according to Paul;the Bible I read from says,according to Paul,it is the Scriptures.Timothy's Bible was no more the originals than my KJB is;therefore,the passage makes no reference to the originals.Why dont you quit playing games? Why do you insist on trying to play head games with the Bible beleivers? Just because you dont think we have the Scriptures today does not mean that everybody else should.

 

We have always had the Scriptures in the Traditional Texts of the Old and New Testaments, Hebrew and Greek, the same before as well as after 1611.

HankD

 

Nope. "A" can be denied. In fact, "A" as you have written it is patently false. The Bible contains inspired accounts of conversations, speeches, letters, etc.</font>[/QUOTE]then you are saying those accounts do not perfectly reflect the historical conversations, speeches, and letters. you are saying the bible has errors, and is not reliable in its history.

 

Now you are just being silly.The Bible Timothy was reading from was Scripture according to Paul;the Bible I read from says,according to Paul,it is the Scriptures.Timothy's Bible was no more the originals than my KJB is;therefore,the passage makes no reference to the originals.Why dont you quit playing games? Why do you insist on trying to play head games with the Bible beleivers? Just because you dont think we have the Scriptures today does not mean that everybody else should. </font>[/QUOTE]You have missed the obvious: What Timothy had was 1) not the originals and 2) not the KJV. Therefore, we have Bible proof that something other than the KJV is the Word of God. This shows your position to completely false.

 

Now you are just being silly.</font>[/QUOTE] No more silly than the post that you put in here that have cause more than one of us to suspect that you are a non-KJVO playing the fool.

In any and every sense that the KJV can be the "Scripture according to Paul" MV's can be "Scripture according to Paul". You have yet to cite even one reason to believe that the KJV is a perfectly worded translation of what Paul called scripture.

Nor does it say anything about the KJV, perfect translations, or the preservation of exact wording. Therefore, you cannot cite it as proof for KJVOnlyism by your own rule.

I simply joined the game you were already playing to try to show you how false your position is. When will you stop playing games with God's Word by condemning godly translations and misapplying/abusing scripture to support your doctrinal error.

Maybe because the playing field is empty?

Seriously, I am just turning your type of arguments on you. Except when I do, you cannot answer nor escape the truth if you actually think about it... so you refuse to think about it and evade.

I do think we have the scriptures today (Why do you keep playing games by posting Red Herrings?).

I also think they had the scriptures in 1600, 1500, 1400,... and since those versions of scripture were NOT the KJV, other versions can be the Word of God without having the words of the KJV as their text.

Just because you think that God denied His perfect Word to mankind for 5600 years of history does not mean that everyone else should.