Are translations inspired?

So since the originals are gone, so is God’s pure word, right?

So I guess Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc., where not humans?

Older MSS are not necessarily better.

 

Yeah, neither does it say Greek or Hebrew. Give me a break, God knew that the main language for today would be English.

Not adding nothing BTW, just common sense.

 

No. The inspired (pure) words are gone but we very much have the pure Word.

I agree with you here. I lean toward the majority text position myself but even so every one of the mss in that family differ from all the others. Additionally, the TR and thus the KJV are not synonomous with the majority text. There are some reading in both of them that are short on Greek evidence from any tradition.

I use the KJV as a primary Bible myself. However, it is not honored by those who deny its weaknesses and enshrine it as an idol. Only God or those things directly produced/inspired by God are perfect. All else is tainted by man's sin.

 

Yeah, neither does it say Greek or Hebrew. Give me a break, God knew that the main language for today would be English. </font>[/QUOTE] That doesn't change the fact that God inspired His Word in Greek and Hebrew, not English.

It is adding regardless of the source. BTW, man's "common sense" is a very poor guide for reading between the lines of scripture.

 

Homebound: So I guess Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc., where not humans?

Homebound,

You will never hear me say that the origional authors of our scriptures were not inspired, or that their words were anything but god breathed, inspired and without error. I wish we had the actual origional letters that they wrote (or thier scribes), alas we dont.

Does that make our bible (I like the NIV myself) any less inspired? Absolutely not, but in order to understand better what they said we have to look at what words meant in the origional languages. To not do so is an injustice to the text, and to the inspired word of God.

 

So the final answer is?

Can translations be inspired? Yes. Faithful translations are the inspired Word of God.

Is the real question one of derived inspiration vs. primary inspiration?

Jason

 

My answer would be inspired yes, innerant only in the origional autographs

 

First the KJB has no weaknesses and second, I don't hold it as an idol, but as the infallible, inerrant, PURE word of God.

So what you are saying is that the word of God that we have today in tainted and therefore cannot be trusted?

 

HomeBound said:

Yeah, neither does it say Greek or Hebrew.

And yet those were the words in which the Scriptures were penned by men moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).

Give me a break, God knew that the main language for today would be English.

True but irrelevant. Where does Scripture promise an inspired translation in the "language for today," and where does it say it will be the King James Version?

Don't add to the Word of God.

 

Refreshed asked:

So the final answer is?

That the KJV-onlyists are no closer to establishing their fictitious doctrine than they were before.

 

All that it takes is one error or mistake for this statement to be disproven. The translation of unicorn for re'em is enough for me to show that the KJV is not infallible nor inerrant.

 

Again I 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.

God has promised to preserve his word. Do you deny this? Where is that preserved word today? BTW, I’m not adding nothing to it.

 

All that it takes is one error or mistake for this statement to be disproven. The translation of unicorn for re'em is enough for me to show that the KJV is not infallible nor inerrant. </font>[/QUOTE]And were did you get this piece of info? Why not believe the Bible instead of disproving it?

 

First the KJB has no weaknesses and second, I don't hold it as an idol, but as the infallible, inerrant, PURE word of God. </font>[/QUOTE] Yes, it does and many of them have been documented here. As much as you wish it were not true, the KJV is a product of men, Anglican men, some of whom were probably unsaved.

A short list of weaknesses: 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, the last 7 vss of Revelation, 1 John 3:1, the phrase "God forbid" throughout Romans,...

So what you are saying is that the word of God that we have today in tainted and therefore cannot be trusted? </font>[/QUOTE]No. If that had been what I said then that is what I would have been telling you... but since you obviously cannot deal with the substance of what I said, it is not surprising that you again try to evade by twisting my words.

We do not have the words of God, the ones He actually inspired the original writers to write. We have the words recorded by copyists not operating under inspiration and we have translations of texts derived from those copies.

Can what we have be trusted? If several foreign detectives working independently on a case with over 5000 direct witnesses and 24,000+ written documents of support recreated the text of a lost document then those documents were translated by honest, trustworthy men into English with no essential parts in conflict, only a fool would not trust the results.


This is exactly what we have with the various texts and versions of the Bible. Anyone who reads and follows the KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc. will have sound doctrine and practice.

 

HomeBound said:

Again I quote Psalms 12:6

And what will this accomplish except going around in circles? Again I point out that Psalm 12:6 does not promise anything about the King James Version or any perfect Bible in the English language.

This is a brute fact you seem unwilling or unable to accept. Running and hiding under the skirts of Psalm 12:6 won't help you.

 

it's quite basic. Do a search of the word "unicorn" at blueletterbible.org. Look at the Hebrew, and you'll see the Hebrew word "re'em." The word "re'em" is a type of bull, not a unicorn.

I believe the Bible, just not the KJV. They're two different things, really. And it's not about me disproving it - it disproves itself.

 

webster's 1828

U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros

 

Sorry, but they were saved.

A short list of weaknesses: NIV, NASB, NASV, NKJV, ....

So you deny that God preserves his pure word throughout each generation.?

You can the KJB. If not, what can?

Not when they disagree with each other.

 

Sorry, but God said, Psalm 12:7 ...thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. BTW, I'll run and hide under God's word any day.

 

HomeBound said:

Sorry, but God said, Psalm 12:7 ...thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. BTW, I'll run and hide under God's word any day.

Except that Psalm 12:7 has nothing to do with preserving God's Word; rather it is a promise that God will preserve his people "from this [wicked] generation forever."

Again the proper exegesis of this Psalm has been shown to the KJV-onlyists many times over. It has even been shown conclusively to be the intent of the KJV translators themselves. And yet the KJV-onlyists continue to ignore the truth and cling to their false and out of context interpretation because it is the best (yea, only "Biblical" defense of KJV-onlyism they have.

Oh well. If anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant still (1 Cor 14:38).

But let's suppose that Psa. 12 is about Word preservation instead of people preservation. Does this Psalm say God has preserved his word for us today in the English language? If so, why does it say he preserves it from this generation?