Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?

[John of Japan]

My source for John's familiarity - or lack thereof - with the Greek language is other Bible scholars. So I cannot cite any specific examples; in fact I confess I know very little about the language, other than the meaning of certain words I have studied.

Then I'll tell you plainly that the Apostle John made no grammatical errors, and anyone who says he did does not know what they are talking about. And there were no punctuation or spelling errors in the original either, because they had no punctuation and there was no standardized spelling. For the record, I'm a missionary Bible translator and Greek teacher (among other things).

 

[Yeshua1]

You're apparently reading my posts casually, with no effort at understanding and interacting with what I've actually said. Here is what I said in post #55:


Now, when you were saying the originals were not inerrant, you said John made grammatical mistakes in his Greek. I'll ask you again: can you give me one instance of that?

God said that His word was perfect, that it was flawless, jesus promised that his Apsotles would have the Spirit to aid them to make sure ALl was recorded down perfectly, just as the oT prophets were without error in message, either spoken/written, same way NT Apostles!

Its absurd to think the originals had some mistakes, while the Kjv doesn't!

 

[John of Japan]

God said that His word was perfect, that it was flawless, jesus promised that his Apsotles would have the Spirit to aid them to make sure ALl was recorded down perfectly, just as the oT prophets were without error in message, either spoken/written, same way NT Apostles!

Its absurd to think the originals had some mistakes, while the Kjv doesn't!

I still haven't figured out if Archie is a theological liberal or a KJVO man! The idea that the originals are full of errors is a liberal idea, but if he thinks the KJB corrects the originals and the authority is in the KJB, that idea comes from super radical KJVO Ruckman!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I still haven't figured out if Archie is a theological liberal or a KJVO man! The idea that the originals are full of errors is a liberal idea, but if he thinks the KJB corrects the originals and the authority is in the KJB, that idea comes from super radical KJVO Ruckman!

The KJV does not correct the Greek!

That is heresy and an insult to God's promise of Preservation.

the KJV is however a faithful translation of the Original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek!

 

[Rippon]

the KJV is however a faithful translation of the Original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek!

Since 1611 have there been any other faithful translations of the original languages into English?

 

[John of Japan]

The KJV does not correct the Greek!

That is heresy and an insult to God's promise of Preservation.

the KJV is however a faithful translation of the Original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek!

We are in agreement here. In English when on furlough I only preach from and use the KJV.

Glad to know you don't follow Ruckman's heresy. :type:

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Since 1611 have there been any other faithful translations of the original languages into English?

No there has not to my knowledge.

 

[Rippon]

No there has not to my knowledge.

Well then, you need to expand your knowledge. There have been many faithful Bible translations into English in the past 403 years. (For the moment not speaking of the many versions before 1611).

Did God have anything to do with the KJV? Has He had anything to do with the many other English translations since that time? (Not considering the many of foreign language Bibles).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Well then, you need to expand your knowledge. There have been many faithful Bible translations into English in the past 403 years. (For the moment not speaking of the many versions before 1611).

Did God have anyting to do with the KJV? Has He had anything to do with the many other English translations since that time? (Not considering the many of foreign language Bibles).

There have not been any faithful English translations of the correct Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Text.

The Nestle Alland Critical text is horribly corrupt and it doesn't matter how many faithful translations there have been since they are translated from unfaithful texts.

 

[Rippon]

There have not been any faithful English translations of the correct Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Text.

The Nestle Aland Critical text is horribly corrupt and it doesn't matter how many faithful translations there have been since they are translated from unfaithful texts.

"Horribly corrupt" huh? What authors have you been reading?

There have been a few dozen TRs. Which one is as pure as the driven snow?

 

[Logos1560]

There have not been any faithful English translations of the correct Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Text.

There have been English translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts on which the KJV is based that are as faithful overall to those same texts as the KJV.

The 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and other believers, the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the Literal Translation by Jay Green, and the KJ2000 by Robert Couric are some examples.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Rippon, don't get worked up.

Rippon, you are correct, of course. There are a number of faithful translations of the Bible both before and after the KJV. However, you are spinning your wheels there. No KJV adherent will bother with facts, they are wholly devoted to KJV and that dedication is the basis of their righteousness. Think Pharisees and legalism. So don't waste your time, friend.

The good news is, if they have a relationship with Jesus as Lord, they are in Christ and therefore will be okay in Eternity. Once they get over the shock of finding people like you and me there, that is.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

"Horribly corrupt" huh? What authors have you been reading?

There have been a few dozen TRs. Which one is as pure as the driven snow?

They are all basically the same text and and they are all much more pure than the CT.

 

[Rippon]

They are all basically the same text

"Basically" means that they differ in some degree. Things that are different are not the same.

and and they are all much more pure than the CT.

"Much more pure" means that they are not 100% pure. So the RT of your choice is not therefore perfect in your estimation --just very good.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

There have been English translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts on which the KJV is based that are as faithful overall to those same texts as the KJV.

The 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and other believers, the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the Literal Translation by Jay Green, and the KJ2000 by Robert Couric are some examples.

"The King James 2000 will provide a version which has been, to some extent, verbally composed already. Many pastors and other Bible readers have already exchanged "show" for "shew," "you" for "ye," and "know" for "wot" in their private and public readings. Some of these "corrections" have already appeared in the various KJV printings. The King James 2000 will make these common exchanges "official.""

The KJ2000 replaces the correct albeit archaic pronoun ye with you. Pronouns are changed in almost every update to the KJB, and those changes eliminate the distinction between singular and plural that you have in the KJB.

Also here's a serious problem with the MKJV

KJB
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

MKJV
He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

 

[Rippon]

KJB
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

MKJV
He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

Do you think that king Nebuchadnezzar had a perfect understanding of the Deity of God? Of course not. He didn't give an orthodox rendering that was suitable for you.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Do you think that king Nebuchadnezzar had a perfect understading of the Deity of God? Of course not. He didn't give an orthodox rendering that was suitable for you.

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the King James Bible 1611, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, Webster's translation 1833, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.", the Douay of 1950, Green's interlinear 2000, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the NKJV of 1982. It is also the reading of the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew)." It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy I have which is translated as "the forth is like the Son of God."

The Aramaic used does not lend itself to the readings in the modern versions. Dr. Thomas Strouse has explained the situation well in the space of one paragraph:

Grammatically, the Aramaic words for son ( var or bar) and God

(elahin) form a word pair. When the second word of a word pair is definite ("God"), then the first word is definite ("the Son").

Dr. Strouse states in a footnote that, "Modern translations fail to state this common Hebrew/Aramaic grammatical idiom. Translations such as the NIV’s "a son of the gods" "are wrongheaded, grammatically and theologically".

So much for retaining the "poetic language" of the "time honoured" KJV. So much for "vigorously adhering to the original languages". So much for the "scholarship" that is tainted with modernism.

The words of the NIV in Daniel 3:25 are defined -not by the rules of grammar, but by the warped theology of the translators. To be fair, the NIV translation committee did not have the intellectual rigor of the KJB translators. They have been weighed in the balances for well over a quarter of a century and have been found woefully wanting; both intellectually and spiritually." (end of comments by Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar )

 

[Rippon]

Jordon,here's a portion of the NET Note: "But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase 'like a son of the gods' is equivalent to 'like a divine being.' "

 

[Yeshua1]

There have not been any faithful English translations of the correct Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Text.

The Nestle Alland Critical text is horribly corrupt and it doesn't matter how many faithful translations there have been since they are translated from unfaithful texts.

the Kjv of 1611 was revised in 1769, and the Church of england revised that in 1881 as revised edition, was that a faithful translation then, as it was authorized same fashion 1611 was?

 

[Yeshua1]

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the King James Bible 1611, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, Webster's translation 1833, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.", the Douay of 1950, Green's interlinear 2000, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the NKJV of 1982. It is also the reading of the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew)." It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy I have which is translated as "the forth is like the Son of God."

The Aramaic used does not lend itself to the readings in the modern versions. Dr. Thomas Strouse has explained the situation well in the space of one paragraph:

Grammatically, the Aramaic words for son ( var or bar) and God

(elahin) form a word pair. When the second word of a word pair is definite ("God"), then the first word is definite ("the Son").

Dr. Strouse states in a footnote that, "Modern translations fail to state this common Hebrew/Aramaic grammatical idiom. Translations such as the NIV’s "a son of the gods" "are wrongheaded, grammatically and theologically".

So much for retaining the "poetic language" of the "time honoured" KJV. So much for "vigorously adhering to the original languages". So much for the "scholarship" that is tainted with modernism.

The words of the NIV in Daniel 3:25 are defined -not by the rules of grammar, but by the warped theology of the translators. To be fair, the NIV translation committee did not have the intellectual rigor of the KJB translators. They have been weighed in the balances for well over a quarter of a century and have been found woefully wanting; both intellectually and spiritually." (end of comments by Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar )

have you figurd out yet while the Nasb/Niv correctly translate gread God and saviour jesus Christ, the Kjv version failed to so such though?
So those "inferior versions" based upon 'corrupred texts' supported jesus as God better than Kjv did?