Baptist Confessions and Similar Material Appear to Make No Hesitation in Employing the Word Inspiration for Copies or for Accurate Translations.

[Alan Dale Gross]

"On a concluding note, when this author made a cursory examination of Baptist Confessions and similar material, there appeared to be no hesitation in employing the word Inspiration for copies or for accurate Translations.

"For example:

“And no decrees of popes or councils, or writings of any person whatsoever, are of equal authority with the sacred scriptures. And by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue [the KJV, as is evident from both the time of the confession and the references and allusions to verses in the document], of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day. . . . all which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. (Article 37, An Orthodox Creed, 1678, quoted in Underhill, Confessions of Faith and Other Public Documents).

"The Charleston Association of Baptist Churches in their 1802 circular #9, “On the Duty of Churches to their Ministers” (cited in Furman, A History of the Charleston Association of Baptist Churches) wrote, “We conclude in the language of inspiration—“Live in love and peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Note that the “language of inspiration” is the KJV.

"There did not appear to be any confession that either denied that the Breath of God was in copies or accurate translations, or that made some sort of distinction between gramma and graphe in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

"Scripture teaches that Inspiration is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture.

"Since original language copies are properly considered Scripture, they are properly termed Inspired. Since, in a Derived sense, the Bible, when accurately Translated, is still properly termed Scripture, the Word accurately Translated is, in a Derived sense, properly termed Inspired.

"Therefore, it is proper to call the King James Version as well as other Translations Inspired, if they are an accurate Translation of the Greek and Hebrew Autographs Dictated once and for all by the Holy Ghost."

 

[Logos1560]

"On a concluding note, when this author made a cursory examination of Baptist Confessions and similar material, there appeared to be no hesitation in employing the word Inspiration for copies or for accurate Translations.

An Orthodox Creed, 1678, quoted in Underhill, Confessions of Faith and Other Public Documents).

The 1678 Orthodox Creed by a small group of General Baptists was not a typical Baptist Confession of Faith so this author clearly did not do a cursory examination of all the early Baptist Confessions of Faith including even all in Lumpkin's book BAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.
William Lumpkin wrote: 'The Creed is supposed to have been particularly the work of Thomas Monck, a farmer and a Messenger in Buckinghamshire" (Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 295). This farmer likely did not know Greek, and he ignored what other Baptist Confessions of Faith state.

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith by the Westminster Assembly (1643-1653), the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order by Congregationalists, the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists, and the 1680 Confession of Faith by Congregationalists in New England stated: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Walker, Creeds, p. 369; Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 251; Woods, Report on Congregationalism, p. 95; Dennison, Reformed Confessions, Vol. 4, pp. 236, 460, 534). John Lee also asserted concerning the Church of Scotland: “The doctrine of this National Church is well known to be, ‘That the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, are authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 186). The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism noted that “the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages” (Dennison, Reformed Confessions, Vol. 4, p. 340).

The Reformers, the early Bible translators including the KJV translators and translators into other languages, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other believers clearly regarded the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper authentic standard and the greater authority for making and trying or evaluating all Bible translations. Richard Brash pointed out that according to the Westminster Confession of faith “the doctrine of preservation applies to the ‘authentical’ Scriptures, which means those written in the original languages” (How God, p. 18).

These confessions of faith do not suggest that God failed to preserve the same words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that textual critics in the 1500’s had to restore or reconstruct some of them by translating from an edition of the imperfect Latin Vulgate of Jerome. These confessions of faith do not teach some of the claims of Confessional Bibliology concerning the Textus Receptus and the KJV. They do not suggest that the inconsistent textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators are what is authentical or that the word of God is bound to their textual criticism decisions. The Westminster Annotations and writings of some members of the Westminster Assembly do not support or advocate the claims that some attempt to derive from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators, and their note would suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles’ rendering at 2 Peter 1:1 was more accurate than the one in the KJV. As noted above, it is clear that at least some members of the Westminster Assembly which made the Westminster Confession of Faith had advocated revision and correction of the KJV. Therefore, it would seem to be clear that these confessions of faith are being misused or misrepresented when they are claimed to support a TR-only view or especially any form of a KJV-only view.

 

[Logos1560]

Baptist scholar John Gill (1697-1771) presented the Baptist view of Bible translation of that period that was in agreement with the view of the early Bible translators and the view in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists.

John Gill wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose” (Body of Divinity, p. 18). John Gill added: “To the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended; and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it could not be read and understood by all: so the papists, they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous” (Body of Divinity, p. 18).

Baptist pastor Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) wrote: “The Word of God is the doctrine and revelation of God’s will, the sense and meaning, not barely or strictly the words, letters, and syllables. This is contained exactly and most purely in the originals, and in all translations so far as they agree therewith. Now, some translations may be more appropriate, or render the sense of the originals better. But in general the translations, even the most imperfect that we know of—express so much of the mind, will, and counsel of God as is sufficient, by the blessing of God upon a conscientious reading of them, to acquaint a man with the mysteries of salvation, to work in him a true faith, and to bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this present world, and to salvation in the next” (Divine Authority, p. 30). Benjamin Keach asked: “Now, if we consider how many men of different persuasions have translated the Bible and harmoniously agree in all significant things, is it possible to imagine they should all combine, so impertinently as well as wickedly, to deceive mankind?” (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

Underhill,

Over 60 years before 1678, S. H. Ford observed that Leonard Busher, a Baptist, in 1613/14 in his A Plea for Liberty of Conscience stated that there were "certain false translations" in the KJV, but he lacked the means and money to print and publish them (Origin of the Baptists, p. 20). J. M. Cramp noted that Busher's unpublished tract was entitled: "A Declaration of Certain False Translations in the New Testament" (Baptist History, p. 292). In a book that includes a reprint of Busher's Plea, Edward Underhill observed that Busher was zealous for "the truthful translation of the word of God" (Tracts, p. 6).

In a treatise presented to King James in 1614, Leonard Busher, a Baptist who was a member of a church pastored by Thomas Helwys, stated: "Those bishops which persuade the king and Parliament to burn, banish, and imprison for difference of religion are bloodsuckers and manslayers" (Goadby, Bye-Paths, p. 57; Underhill, Tracts, pp. 38-39). Leonard Busher also wrote: "They cannot be Christ's bishops and preachers that persuade princes and peoples to such antichristian tyranny and cruelty" (Plea, p. 27; Cramp, Baptist History, p. 293; Underhill, Tracts, p. 60). Leonard Busher added that the bishops showed clearly by their persecutions that "their doctrine is not good, and that they want [lack] the word and Spirit of God" (Cramp, p. 293). Busher noted that "persecution for religion is to force the conscience; and to force and constrain men and women's consciences to a religion against their wills, is to tyrannize over the soul, as well as over the body" (Tracts, p. 34). Busher maintained that "the bishops in forcing men and women's consciences do therein play the antichrist, as well as the popes" (Ibid., p. 35).

 

[Logos1560]

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, Bishop Thomas Bilson, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill maintained that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1733, John Currie asserted: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36).

In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows: "We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is the genuine signification of the Greek word, cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out,
the words, 'by election'" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 351).

 

[Logos1560]

"There did not appear to be any confession that either denied that the Breath of God was in copies or accurate translations,

You did not prove this assertion to be true. All Baptist confessions of faith do not assert that the Breath of God is in accurate Bible translations.

The 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists stated: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 251).

Baptists clearly regarded the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper authentic standard and the greater authority for making and trying or evaluating all Bible translations.

 

[Logos1560]

"Scripture teaches that Inspiration is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture.

You do not clearly demonstrate that is what Scripture teaches. You may be reading your opinions into verses that do not teach what you claim. In seeming agreement with Peter Ruckman, do you try to assert that an English noun "inspiration" that is part of a five word translation ["given by inspiration of God"] for a Greek adjective is the definition for Scripture? Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural.

The term Scripture would refer to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition. According to its usage and meaning in the Scriptures, the noun Scripture does not include all words that ever have been written. Words can be written without them being Scripture. Words can even be written in or added to a copy of the Scriptures without them being Scripture. Marginal notes or commentary can be added to a copy of the Scriptures without the added words being Scripture. According to truths suggested in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19), would words added by men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture? Would any errors written by imperfect men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture according to a correct definition of it? Would any actual errors introduced by printers in a printed edition of Scripture become Scripture according to its correct definition? The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of giving by inspiration is not its definition? The term inspiration or God-breathed for how God gave the words to the prophets and apostles is not actually the definition of Scripture.

Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated “Scripture”? While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that single adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. David Croteau observed: “A central maxim to proper interpretation is that description does not equal prescription” (Urban Legends, p. 114). In the Bible, the Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate or describe its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition.

 

[Silverhair]

"On a concluding note, when this author made a cursory examination of Baptist Confessions and similar material, there appeared to be no hesitation in employing the word Inspiration for copies or for accurate Translations.

"For example:

“And no decrees of popes or councils, or writings of any person whatsoever, are of equal authority with the sacred scriptures. And by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue [the KJV, as is evident from both the time of the confession and the references and allusions to verses in the document], of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day. . . . all which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. (Article 37, An Orthodox Creed, 1678, quoted in Underhill, Confessions of Faith and Other Public Documents).

"The Charleston Association of Baptist Churches in their 1802 circular #9, “On the Duty of Churches to their Ministers” (cited in Furman, A History of the Charleston Association of Baptist Churches) wrote, “We conclude in the language of inspiration—“Live in love and peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Note that the “language of inspiration” is the KJV.

"There did not appear to be any confession that either denied that the Breath of God was in copies or accurate translations, or that made some sort of distinction between gramma and graphe in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

"Scripture teaches that Inspiration is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture.

"Since original language copies are properly considered Scripture, they are properly termed Inspired. Since, in a Derived sense, the Bible, when accurately Translated, is still properly termed Scripture, the Word accurately Translated is, in a Derived sense, properly termed Inspired.

"Therefore, it is proper to call the King James Version as well as other Translations Inspired, if they are an accurate Translation of the Greek and Hebrew Autographs Dictated once and for all by the Holy Ghost."

I would be more inclined to call all translations just that translations of the inspired word of God.

The original autographs were inspired not the translations. The translations no matter how accurately done still contain errors as the KJV's various editions will attest to.

I think we have been able to reproduce much of the original text but even then because the Greek and Hebrew words can be translated via different English words we have various English translations let alone the number of different languages into which the bible has been translated.

Do we have accurate translations, yes I would say we are very close to the original meaning of God's inspired word.

 

[Ascetic X]

So some translations of the Bible are more inspired/accurate than other translations.

Each person has to try to determine which versions are the most inspired/accurate: KJV, ESV, NASB, RV, etc.

 

[Logos1560]

Many claimed inspiration for the old Greek Septuagint, many claimed inspiration for Jerome's Latin Vulgate, many claimed the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Bible to be inspired, and many may claim inspiration for other Bible translations, but such inconsistent claims were not and have not proven to be taught and confirmed by the Scriptures.

 

[Logos1560]

, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue [the KJV, as is evident from both the time of the confession and the references and allusions to verses in the document],

In 1678, there were some churches and many individual believers still using some edition of the 1560 Geneva Bible, making it possible that this statement could refer to it.

The Westminster Assembly employed Theodore Haak (1605-1690) to translate this 1637 Dutch Version [which some consider to be inspired] and its annotations into English, which were published in 1657. That 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible would have been available in 1678. The 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Bible was commissioned by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), and it was translated into English in 1657.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

this author clearly did not do a cursory examination of all the early Baptist Confessions of Faith

Generally, "this author clearly did not do a cursory examination of" Specifically "all the early Baptist Confessions of Faith", because that was clearly not what he claimed or intended to do.

The Reformers, the early Bible translators including the KJV translators and translators into other languages, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other believers clearly regarded the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper authentic standard and the greater authority for making and trying or evaluating all Bible translations.

As they certainly should.

Richard Brash pointed out that according to the Westminster Confession of faith “the doctrine of preservation applies to the ‘authentical’ Scriptures, which means those written in the original languages” (How God, p. 18).

Absolutely. You both get an 'A' for the day.

These confessions of faith do not suggest that God failed to preserve the same words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that textual critics in the 1500’s had to restore or reconstruct some of them by translating from an edition of the imperfect Latin Vulgate of Jerome. These confessions of faith do not teach some of the claims of Confessional Bibliology concerning the Textus Receptus and the KJV. They do not suggest that the inconsistent textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators are what is authentical or that the word of God is bound to their textual criticism decisions. The Westminster Annotations and writings of some members of the Westminster Assembly do not support or advocate the claims that some attempt to derive from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators, and their note would suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles’ rendering at 2 Peter 1:1 was more accurate than the one in the KJV. As noted above, it is clear that at least some members of the Westminster Assembly which made the Westminster Confession of Faith had advocated revision and correction of the KJV. Therefore, it would seem to be clear that these confessions of faith are being misused or misrepresented when they are claimed to support a TR-only view or especially any form of a KJV-only view.

No one's talking about "These confessions of faith do not suggest that God failed to preserve the same words that He gave by inspiration", or that these Confessions of Faith are or aren't "being misused or misrepresented when they are claimed to support a TR-only view or especially any form of a KJV-only view".

The topic is about whether the Confessions divorce the Product of Translation from the usage of the term 'Inspiration'.

the 1680 Confession of Faith by Congregationalists in New England stated: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Walker, Creeds, p. 369; Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 251; Woods, Report on Congregationalism, p. 95; Dennison, Reformed Confessions, Vol. 4, pp. 236, 460, 534).

There is more of an expression of commonality between the expressions "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God," and "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages,", in fact concluding by equating them and saying both of them "are therefore authentical", than there is of any hint of any demarcation in the Miraculous substance shared between the two.

Think of the Translators as not being among those Blessed with any such Inspiration as the Writers of the Old Testament and New Testament, who had the Instantaneous, Supernatural, Miraculous Gift of the Ability to Wright Inspired Scripture, and yet their Product, by Virtue of its Eternally Divine Author, still being Supernaturally and Miraculously Gifted to be Quick and Powerful and Sharper than any two-edged sword, with the meaning of 'Quick' being that they are Alive.

Jesus Himself said that the Words that He Spoke were Spirit and they were Life and that they would Judge us at the Last Day.

He didn't say that the Words He knew would be Written Down and Preserved for us, to this day, where 'dead' and only the Original Autographs were "Quick", nor that He would only Employ the Original Autographs on the Day of Judgment.

He Knew. Because He's God. And Jesus Knows His Bible.

John Lee also asserted concerning the Church of Scotland: “The doctrine of this National Church is well known to be, ‘That the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, are authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 186).

Absolutely.

The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism noted that “the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages” (Dennison, Reformed Confessions, Vol. 4, p. 340).

Absolutely.

Here's several dozen Baptist Confessions, and Catechisms, and Creeds.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose” (Body of Divinity, p. 18).

It is under no circumstances necessary to suppose "that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating", since the process of Translation is a Natural Act, however, the Product of Translation is Inherently Miraculous in its Overall Spiritual Reality.

We don't have the Instantaneous, Supernatural Miraculous Gifts of Healing, but that doesn't stop the Great Physician from Healing the sick, in Conjunction with our Spiritual Prayers and He can even Raise the dead. The dead Natural activity in Translation, with respect to the Humans involved, even when in Prayer Invoking the Lord's Help, doesn't mean the Almighty Power of God is ever separated from the Product of Translation , which are the Words of God. The Words in our Bibles are not the Words of men.

Whatever the Tablets of Stone Read like, in whatever Language God Wrote them with His Own Finger, when it is Translated, "thou shalt not kill" is no less Inspired and Effectual than me yelling out, "don't murder" in English, or any other Language.

If it is, you tell me from the way God Sees it, what serious concern He would Determine is a problem with it, if not.

John Gill added: “To the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended; and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by;

But we do, by the Process of Comparison with the Manuscript evidence extant, which is the Way God Planned it.

for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it could not be read and understood by all:

The only 'contest' is between the Original Language Manuscripts known to Mankind and the resulting Translation, regardless of the Language.

so the papists, they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous” (Body of Divinity, p. 18).

So, others plead absurd and ridiculous Translation philosophies, which must be viewed with abhorrence and indignation.

Accurate Translations take place as a Superintended Act of God by which certain limits and Boundaries, Known Only Perfectly to Him, TRANSPIRE, NO DIFFERENT THAN WHEN GOD PUTS A LIMIT ON THE OCEANS OF THE WORLD FROM ENCROACHING ONTO THE LAND ONLY AS FAR AS GOD HAS DERTERMINED BY HIS FOREKNOWLEGDE AND DIVINE COUNSIL.

"Let not now any be uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because they are not upon an equality with the original text, and especially about our own; for as it has been the will of God, and appears absolutely necessary that so it should be, that the Bible should be translated into different languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may receive benefit by it; he has taken care, in his providence, to raise up men capable of such a performance, in various nations, and particularly in ours; for whenever a set of men have been engaged in this work, as were in our nation, men well skilled in the languages, and partakers of the grace of God; of sound principles, and of integrity and faithfulness, having the fear of God before their eyes; they have never failed of producing a translation worthy of acceptation; and in which, though they have mistook some words and phrases, and erred in some lesser and lighter matters; yet not so as to affect any momentous article of faith or practice; and therefore such translations as ours may be regarded as the rule of faith. And if any scruple should remain on the minds of any on this account, it will be sufficient to remove it, when it is observed, that the Scriptures, in our English translation, have been blessed of God, either by reading them in it, or by explaining them according to it, for the conversion, comfort, and edification of thousands and thousands. And the same may be said of all others, so far as they agree with the original, that they are the rule of faith and practice, and alike useful."

Translations "are not upon an equality with the original text", in the most ridged, absolute, impeccable, univocal sense, but neither are our actions as Humans to be said to be in Total Godliness and Holiness at all times, even though we have the Holy Spirit in us.

We are Commanded to Contend for the Faith once Delivered to the saints, as Br. Gill knew and knows Full Well now, and we have the Inspired Full Body of Faith, the Counsel of God, the Oracles of God, the Word of God, He has Spoken by the Mouth of His Breath with which to do just that.