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. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No. I am saying precisely and exclusively what I said. The Holy Spirit is not constrained by the limitations of human language. It was not necessary, much less historically true, for part of the Bible to be written in Egyptian then translated into Hebrew then translated into English in order for the Holy Spirit to "get it right".
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are translations inspired?
- Thread starter aefting
- Start date
timothy 1769
New Member
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. </font>[/QUOTE]No. I am saying precisely and exclusively what I said. The Holy Spirit is not constrained by the limitations of human language. It was not necessary, much less historically true, for part of the Bible to be written in Egyptian then translated into Hebrew then translated into English in order for the Holy Spirit to "get it right". [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]scott,
i'm not trying to prove the kjv is a perfect translation, just that perfect translations are possible since the bible itself includes translations and is perfect. these translations include jesus's words being translated into greek, and various parts of the old testament as well. if these translations are in any way deficient we cannot avoid the conclusion that the bible includes error.
timothy 1769 said:
you have to admit C if you admit A and B.
Really? Since you have resorted to syllogistic logic, please tell me what valid form of syllogism that was.
Furthermore, as someone else has pointed out, it is not true that A is undeniable. I can accept that the Bible contains summaries, abridgements, and paraphrases of conversations that occurred, rather than verbatim transcripts, without denying inerrancy.
But this does not answer the question of the thread: are translations inspired? Is any English translation of the Bible inspired and without error in the same sense as the autographs were? I submit to you that no such translations exists. I further submit that this premise does no harm whatsoever to the doctrine of inerrancy.
you have to admit C if you admit A and B.
Really? Since you have resorted to syllogistic logic, please tell me what valid form of syllogism that was.
Furthermore, as someone else has pointed out, it is not true that A is undeniable. I can accept that the Bible contains summaries, abridgements, and paraphrases of conversations that occurred, rather than verbatim transcripts, without denying inerrancy.
But this does not answer the question of the thread: are translations inspired? Is any English translation of the Bible inspired and without error in the same sense as the autographs were? I submit to you that no such translations exists. I further submit that this premise does no harm whatsoever to the doctrine of inerrancy.
And so far, your supposed proofs have fallen flat.
Nope. The Greek words were inspired, they weren't inspired then translated by inspiration. The inspiration into Greek was a direct action by the Holy Spirit.
But the fact you are missing is that these are not translations. They are words directly inspired in Greek by the Holy Spirit. They are not translations of inspired words. The originals are inspired words.
timothy 1769
New Member
i think you may be missing my point. let's the take the sermon on the mount:
Matthew 5:1
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
is this historical? did this really happen?
No. Your point is simply wrong.
Yes. And when Matthew wrote his account of this event, it was not a translation. It was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. Matthew didn't translate what he remembered from years before. If he had, his gospel would have been fully subject to his memory thus his sinful weakness and therefore could not have been inerrant. He wrote just as Moses did- as he was moved by the Holy Spirit.
timothy 1769
New Member
i think you may be missing my point. let's the take the sermon on the mount:
No. Your point is simply wrong.
scott, please treat me like a brother.
is this historical? did this really happen?
Yes. And when Matthew wrote his account of this event, it was not a translation.
do you think matthew, with the help of the holy spirit, wrote greek that without error communicated what jesus said in aramaic?
No. Your point is simply wrong.
scott, please treat me like a brother.
is this historical? did this really happen?
Yes. And when Matthew wrote his account of this event, it was not a translation.
do you think matthew, with the help of the holy spirit, wrote greek that without error communicated what jesus said in aramaic?
I didn't know I wasn't... but please do the same. I have answered this question once or twice already. Yes, it really happened then several years later Matthew was inspired to write an account of it. What you appear to be implying is that Matthew wasn't directly inspired but rather was inspired in translating what he saw and heard into Greek. That notion is incorrect.
No. I think the Holy Spirit used Matthew to write the an account of the event including what Jesus said without error. But you seem to want to continue down a road to nowhere. The Holy Spirit didn't have to translate anything. He knew exactly how to express in Greek the things that Jesus spoke in Aramaic... exactly. God spoke both times when Jesus said it and when Matthew recorded it... irrespective of human language.
timothy 1769
New Member
I didn't know I wasn't... but please do the same. I have answered this question once or twice already. Yes, it really happened then several years later Matthew was inspired to write an account of it. What you appear to be implying is that Matthew wasn't directly inspired but rather was inspired in translating what he saw and heard into Greek. That notion is incorrect.
No. I think the Holy Spirit used Matthew to write the an account of the event including what Jesus said without error. But you seem to want to continue down a road to nowhere. The Holy Spirit didn't have to translate anything. He knew exactly how to express in Greek the things that Jesus spoke in Aramaic... exactly. God spoke both times when Jesus said it and when Matthew recorded it... irrespective of human language. </font>[/QUOTE]scott, sorry i wasn't trying to ask you again, my quoting style was confusing. i was just trying to show what we've already said.
"He knew exactly how to express in Greek the things that Jesus spoke in Aramaic... exactly."
this is all i've been trying to say. it's possible to express the exact same thing in 2 different languages. we know this because that's exactly what has happened when many of the books of our our bible were inspired, as those books perfectly record the actual historical letters, speeches, etc. in a language different from the original.
now the kjvo extension is this - if it happened once, it can happen again.
ps - i guess we could argue the semantics of what a translation is, but i think it's fair to say that when the EXACT same message is expressed in two different languages, those two expressions are in effect translations of each other.
But when it happened the first time, the penmen were under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. Those words were God-breathed through human instruments. And we have explicit Bible explaining all this.
Now, for the KJV or any other version, there is no direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the translators keeping them from error. Nor does the Bible hint at any such process. I've been accused of denying the Bible but what I really deny is extra-Biblical wishful thinking.
Andy
timothy 1769
New Member
andy,
sure. i'm just trying to demonstrate that it's possible.
sure. i'm just trying to demonstrate that it's possible.
Except that without evidence or a Biblical statement, it is still wishful thinking that any particular translation of the Bible is supernaturally inspired more than the others, or has some special divine blessing that the others lack. "It could have been, therefore it was" is ridiculous non-reason.
Then you should also concede that it is possible to express the same thing in two different versions of the Bible in a single language- such as the KJV and NKJV, NASB, WEB, etc.
This is all many of us have been trying to say for a very, very long time. There are no lost doctrines in MV's- that is a deceptive myth created by those desperately seeking to underpin a false doctrine with something that looks credible.
I believe the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are redundantly taught in different passages to ensure that doctrines would not be lost by omissions nor conflated/confused by additions.
And the non-KJVO extension would be that if it can happen again, it can happen yet again.
With this I would strongly disagree. As others have stated, there is no scripture nor historical evidence that copies or translations were the result of direct inspiration. Even if it were supported, such inspiration would be the death blow to KJVOnlyism. The KJV translators were persecutors of Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and Puritans. They believed things we would rightly call heresy such as infant baptism, prelacy, state-church union as the earthly manifestation of God's kingdom, baptismal regeneration, and that the Lord's supper is salvific.
Timothy,
Sorry to jump in in the middle of a thread, but your argument is the same one that some Mormon coworkers us on me when trying to convince me that their "scriptures" are inspired. That theirs is a "newer" revelation. You are in essence saying that the origional TRASLATORS of the KJV bible were inspired themselves. Words they translated/changed were inspired by their "newer" revelation. Fir example the word translated by the KJV translators as servant in the case of Phoebe, is elsewhere translated as deacon!
Your doctrine of inspiration is dangerous, I think it can lead to more Joseph Smiths, David Koreshes and Jim Jones.
Sorry to jump in in the middle of a thread, but your argument is the same one that some Mormon coworkers us on me when trying to convince me that their "scriptures" are inspired. That theirs is a "newer" revelation. You are in essence saying that the origional TRASLATORS of the KJV bible were inspired themselves. Words they translated/changed were inspired by their "newer" revelation. Fir example the word translated by the KJV translators as servant in the case of Phoebe, is elsewhere translated as deacon!
Your doctrine of inspiration is dangerous, I think it can lead to more Joseph Smiths, David Koreshes and Jim Jones.
RaptureReady
New Member
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. </font>[/QUOTE]Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Pure means free from defects, perfect. If not the King James Bible, where is this perfect, without defects word of God?
The words of God were breathed out in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Where in the Bible does it teach that any complete translation of those words would be free from all error or misleading reading? I'm still waiting for the answer to that question.
Or you could just apologize for calling me a Bible denier.
Andy
RaptureReady
New Member
There is no verse that says the KJB, NASB, CEV, NASV, NKJV, NIV, etc, etc, etc are God’s word. Is that what you wanted to hear? Now, you tell me where is God’s pure word?
God's pure words were those that were written by the origional authors, i.e. the origional autographs. the amazing thing about the scriptures that we have is that the scribes who laboriously copied the origional texts that our Bibles are based on did so as accurately as they did. The hand of God was truly with them, but because they are human small changes did occur, and in a few instances verses were added.
This is why when a translation of the scriptures is done, they use several for comparison purposes, and the more ancient the better.
This is why when a translation of the scriptures is done, they use several for comparison purposes, and the more ancient the better.