Featured Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?

The problem is one of consistency. If God inspired a translation He must have the power to preserve not only the translators but the editors, the type setters, and the printers.

God's perfectly inspired, preserved, and infallible word could not have a single error. It could I not have grammar, spelling, or even punctuation errors. If it had any mistake at all it would not be perfect. It would be nearly perfect, with only few little mistakes.

The theory that a perfect God perfectly preserves His perfect word in a perfect translation requires that it be perfect in every regard. Not one 'jot or tittle' could be out of place. The question of 'which edition of the KJV is that completely perfect edition?' is a fair one.

I love my KJV. THe most common criticism of my moderating is that I favour the KJV side and 'let them get away with murder.' But claiming that God inspires translations is simply not accurate because all translations differ. God doesn't differ.

 

Can a Translation be Inspired and Infallible? is an incomplete question with no context. It could mean almost anything. A translation of what can be inspired and infallible what? Do you mean a translation of the Tokyo phone directory into inspired Braille poem? A translation of a Mel Gibson movie dialog into infallible English subtitles? Of analog dolphin calls into digital avant garde music?

Now if the question is Can a translation of human language recorded within a biblical narrative be inspired and infallible scripture? then the answer certainly is YES. The response to the that question is obvious, and Will Kinney knew he could beat the answer loudly over and over like a drum. Casting the question as he has done makes those so-called seminarians and bible agnostics look so very foolish.

Of course, in addition Whom are you going to believe, God or unbelieving men?? is an effective slander as it implies that the debate is not between your human interpretation and your opponents views but substitute the prospect of Omniscient God for your position and then label your opponents ignorant pagans, or the like.

But nobody here is asking your question. Mr. Kinney's article is just a "straw man" argument.

Your question is completely irrelevant in the context of a "translations issue" debate forum, such as this one. I suspect that Will Kinney knew the real inquiry behind those words but ignored the genuine substance of the probe. I think the wording of the question above is simply an abbreviated form of a robust question which should have been clearly understood in it's original setting.

But allow me to reconstitute a facsimile question for you: Can a translation of biblical text from it's ancient original language (like Koine Greek) into a modern language (like English) be inspired and infallible? Do you understand what the question is now?

Tilting at windmills will be not be acceptable. Please, just answer the question. Thanks.

 

So God's perfectly inspired translation still needed men to fix the mistakes? Is the 1769 free from all mistakes now?

 

Could you explain the omission (or addition) of the words 'of God' in the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV in 1 John 5.13?

 

Your OP premise is faulty my friend, as NO translation can claim inspiration from God in their finished product, as THAT was eserved for just the Originals!

And God preserved his originals to us in the compiled texts of BHS/CT/MT/TR/Bzt/etc are all seen as being the word of God in original languages tous, just some are closer than others to originals!

The Christian can be assured that versions such as Kjv/nasb/Niv/Esv/NKJV are ALL in english our word of the Lord!

 

the Apsotles wrote inspired texts, but they worshiped the risen Jesus, NOT the books they had written!

This is why God kep the originasl from us, as we would have a shrine unto them. and bow down to them!

 

Hello Jordan, here's some thoughts on the article you quoted from Will.

Who did the translating? God. The translated words are originally inspired words.

Agree. The words are what are inspired or God breathed.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharaoh and speaks with him face to face. Pharaoh does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.[/quote]As above, the "inspired translation" was the original inspired words of God. It's sad that will would compare man translating words to God translating. Not even close.

Key, God did it. the entire book of Acts comes from God. Every word is originally inspired by God.


If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament?[/quote]

God translated the words.

which makes the translation originally inspired words.

of course, anyone who knows anything about translating would understand that languages cannot be always translated word for word. There are many differences other than just different words.

It's God's book, of course He can do that. The translations here are originally inspired words. The canon wasn't close. God was still writing the Bible.

Timothy had the words where are Scripture. no one would say that we don't have the Scripture today, so I'm not really sure why anyone ever brings this up.

No transation (that is done by men not through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) can be inspired. Will knows this of course, but he chooses to deceive anyway. No one would say that God cannot translation his words. What is ALWAYS being referred to men translating the original inspired words, not God translating originally inspired words to another originally inspired words.

 

I would be interested in your thoughts about my comments as well.

Thanks in advance.

 

In order to fully answer a question like Can a translation of biblical text from it's ancient original language (like Koine Greek) into a modern language (like English) be inspired and infallible? a person needs have firm understanding of the doctrine of "inspiration".

Notice that in 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV that the verb used in the first phrase "is given". Interestingly, there is no corresponding verb here in the Greek (TR or otherwise). If the Holy Spirit wanted the verb included there are several Greek words that can mean "to give". ["Given" probably should have been italicized like "is" in the verse.] The eight KJV English words are drawn from only three Greek words. The first Greek word (pas Strong's #3956) has meaning ranging 'all', 'any', 'each' or 'every'; the second Greek word, a noun (graphe Strong's #1124) literally means a 'writing' but is the reserved term employed by New Testament authors to designate the Hebrew 'Scriptures'; the third Greek word here is compound (theopneustos Strong's #2315) and combines the concepts of divine 'God' with 'breathe' or 'blow' (as wind).

So, the raw Greek simply states that God breathed all Scripture. I would say He breathed 'out' (expired) the Scriptures for these two reasons: humanly we think of words coming out from the mind, and air must pass over the larynx and out through the mouth in order to create spoken words (try to talk while simultaneously inhaling). I know, God doesn't need to breath in or out but He is communicating with us something supernatural. I understand this verse to mean that the Scriptures are generated from God; or put another way, that the Scriptures were in their origin put forth by God.

The essential truth here is that God is the only source of all Scripture. I don't think we can insist that this verse explicitly teaches that "inspiration" extends to translations or even copies; however, it may be safe to infer that His breath extends to the words beyond the moments of conception.

Again, Mr. Kinney is ambiguous with terms as much as possible so he can redefine them. He doesn't actually identify what he means by "the originals", but it can be taken he means the autograph manuscripts. But I don't believe that God expired manuscripts; I believe He expired words. When I think of "the originals" I am visualizing His original choice of words (not papyrus or parchments with ink). And not only each word by itself, but all the words intact in their original context and in their proper relationship to all the other expired words. The original ancient materials may be gone, but the original ancient words remain known to us.

Therefore, I disagree with Mr. Kinney that Timothy did not have "the originals". Timothy most certainly DID have the original words. It should be noted that some of Timothy's copies of the inspired scriptures were probably even written in the original tongues.

And Mr. Kinney's was likely only narrowly thinking of the OT "Scriptures" when he asserted that in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only". But an epistle (referring to the original) mentioned in Colossians 4:16 KJV seems to be just such a case of reading Paul's autograph --

And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. ​

 

The doctrine of inspiration has the divine and human element involved, as the Apostles themselves had inspiration upon them to write down, same as OT prophets had to speak forth word of the Lord, so would say inspiration ended with Apostles recording sacred texts down!

then after that point, God was into preservation of theose words to us...