Correct! But we can TRUST GOD to have given us His word exactly as HE chose for us to have it!
-
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!
Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
Correct! But we can TRUST GOD to have given us His word exactly as HE chose for us to have it!
Really? You don't actually believe that.
If so please tell me where I can get a copy of God's word with his EXACT words, with no errors or mistakes.
You people claim to believe in God's perfect word, but God's perfect word free of error to you is some imaginary non existent bible that nobody has in their possession.
Just be honest and admit that we do not have ALL of God's words perfectly preserved for us anywhere in any language.]]
Clearly you do NOT trust God to give us his word exactly has he chose for us to have it.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you could share where God has given us His abdolutely perfect word with no errors of any kind. For example, is 1 John 5.12 perfect in the 1611 or 1769 edition of the KJV? One is wrong. Which is it? Did God or did God not inspire those two little words 'of God' in that verse? Which is the EXACT word of God and which is a pretty close rendering?
Last edited by a moderator:
Where does the Bible say "yes" that a translation made after the end of the giving of revelation in the Scriptures or after the completion of the New Testament and thus after the end of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God can be inspired?
Does Will Kinney arrogantly presume to speak directly for God by putting the answer "yes" in His mouth?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Of course, that a translation made after the end of the giving of the reveled Scriptures by inspiration of God can be inspired is a completely different question than the one Mr. Kinney addressed at the link.
Mr. Kinney is quite keen; the first thing a debater desires is that the question is worded in his favor. Will Kinney likes to formulate a question so that he can easily knock it down, especially one that every one already knows the answer to (consequently he will appear to be 'right'), and/or a question that nobody is really asking. Another tactic to watch for is his equivocation (shifting or redefining the meaning of words to suit his purposes).
It is sad that so many Christians do not think critically enough to recognize the traps he sets and thus they get sucked into a false feeling that he has the answers they desperately want.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Yes, what is being referred to in this context of a 'translations debate' forum is men translating the original inspired words. We are not referring to a work of the Holy Spirit 'translating' from one language into an inspired written account.
But can we really know that the Holy Spirit actually translated words from a spoken foreign language into a written biblical language? I don't think we would describe as 'translation' what the Holy Spirit did on Pentecost (multiple foreigners heard the Gospel in their own tongue simultaneously). Each person was receiving a first-hand account of the Gospel; it seems it was not processed and output as a repeat presentation. The Holy Spirit knows all human languages. Does He 'think' in only one at a time? Couldn't the Holy Spirit have simply inspired the biblical writers to pen the ancient words He chose without going through a process of 'translation' occurring? I think He could. That would make Mr. Kinney's entire article surperfluous.
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
First, I'd like you to show me any kind of attack because I asked a question (foretold in my little satire on another thread)
No, there is no perfect translation without error.
Now it is your turn. Where has God preserved his PERFECT words without any mistakes of any sort? Is it the 1611 or the 1769 edition? Which one can I trust COMPLETELY? If I am going to trust an inspired translation it must be perfectly perfect.
Here's your chance. Sort me out. Tell me which edition doesn't have a single mistake of any kind so I can know which EXACT ONE God inspired.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would say the 1769 Cambridge is the preserved inerrent inspired word of God for english speaking people, Of course this is still the same text as the 1611 with printing errors corrected and spelling more standardized.
All the supposed "differences" between the 1611 and the 1769 are not what many would portray them to be. both editions are the same translation. Errors in printing do not constitute errors in translation any more than a scribe making an error in the production of a manuscript would make the original words in error.
Also I would say that the KJV is God's inspired words, preserved in the english language, I would not say the KJV was inspired itself. But it does retain and preserve the inspiration of the originals. There is a difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a complete different between updating spelling and correcting printing errors, and changing from The Textus Receptus to a Critical text as the modern translations have done.. It's not as if the KJV different editions are different translations. They are not.
Still the same translation.
Still the same translation.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
So I really can't find a perfectly inspired translation? I have to accept that no matter what God could not give me a perfect translation, only 99.9% pure.
If I am looking for a perfect translation is mostly perfect really good enough? Why would God allow his name to be left out of the perfect 1611 translation in 1 John 5.12?
Plus, how can I trust your authority to tell me which edition to trust?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes you can get a perfectly preserved inspired copy of the word of God in the current in print King James Bible.
The OP was can a translation be inspired and infallible. Not every single copy of the translation.
A good friend of mine at school has a KJV that goes from Proverbs 31 on one page and then the next page jumps back to Psalm 122 and Goes all the way to the end. So it has Psalm 122-Proverbs 31 in it twice.
That does not mean the translation itself was with error. Which is what we are talking about. From time to time you may get a bible with a printing error. Guess you'll just have to pray and ask God for one without any printing errors and trust him.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
You nailed it. Since none of us can be totally certain that we have a 100% perfectly inspired and totally preserved Bible translation (or edition) in every single word we pray and trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Which is just what I do when I read my NKJV.
[1] What makes the King James inspired and preserved, but no others? That's what I don't understand. Why is the Tyndale, Geneva, Holman, and NASB equal to the King James in your opinion?
[2] We've talked about preservation before, Jordan, and I asked if you would consider that Psalm 12 not talking about preserving God's Words, but preserving His people against the wicked? You never answered me.
"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said,
With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him
in safety from him that puffeth at him.The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."
This whole chapter is about the evil men do with their words, the oppression of the poor and sighing of the needy because of evil tongues. These evil people have even claimed that all power is in THEIR tongues and declared that no one is lord over them.
God compares His words with the words of the wicked - His being as pure and as we can understand the meaning of the word pure.
What is to be preserved are the poor and needy against that evil generation - not the Bible in the King James translation.
that is one of many verses that teach preservation.
I agree with the following statement from:http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words
The syntax justifies interpreting "them" in verse 7 as referring to "the words of the LORD". The "words of the LORD" or its simile, the "silver", is the nearest noun and can be presumed to be the antecedent. The "poor" or the "needy" are more distant and therefore less likely to be the antecedent.
Wesley said:Thou shalt keep them - Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.
no, for the ONLY perfect text ever recorded down were the originals!
Good news is that we just need the bible to be infallible in all it states, NOT perfect in all its states
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Just two quick examples (with "them" and "word") indicating the weakness of an argument presented in a post above.
Note the word "them" in verse 31 (I have included the three preceding verses for context) of 2 Samuel 22:28-31 [KJV] --
Note again the word "them" in verse 5 (I have supplied the verse before and after to show the context) of Proverbs 30:4-6 [KJV] --
Note the word "them" in verse 31 (I have included the three preceding verses for context) of 2 Samuel 22:28-31 [KJV] --
And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down.
For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness.
For by thee I have run through a troop: by my God have I leaped over a wall.
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
To what or whom does "them" in verse 31 refer to? Certainly, it is not "buckler". The next nearest noun is "word" or more completely the word of the Lord. But 'a buckler to all the word of the Lord that trust in him' does not make any sense. Therefore, the next nearest noun is not necessarily the correct antecedent. A possible antecedent may be "the afflicted people" back in verse 28.For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness.
For by thee I have run through a troop: by my God have I leaped over a wall.
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
Note again the word "them" in verse 5 (I have supplied the verse before and after to show the context) of Proverbs 30:4-6 [KJV] --
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
To what or whom does "them" refer to? Obviously, it is not "shield". The next closest noun is "word" or more specifically every word of God. But 'a shield unto every word of God that put their trust in him' does not make good sense here. Again, the next nearest noun is not necessarily the correct antecedent. Proverbs are brief, and I find no clear antecedent in the immediate context. In this case, I think an antecedent must be supplied by the reader.Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never maintained that words could not be the object of the preservation, since some commentators have held that view, but it seems the preponderance is against the possibility. You appeal to Wesley, but you can find many others who disagree, such as John Gill, a noted Hebraist, who said;
Calvin is too long to quote here, but consider his exposition:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xviii.iv.html?bcb=right
This is not to have a duel of authorities, simply to point out that commentators have disagreed on the exact meaning of the verse; it is not a "slam dunk" that the verses say what you take them to mean.
Aside from all that, I cannot see how those verses, even if I grant that your interpretation is correct, support the KJV as being the only preserved word of God in English.
Calvin is too long to quote here, but consider his exposition:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xviii.iv.html?bcb=right
This is not to have a duel of authorities, simply to point out that commentators have disagreed on the exact meaning of the verse; it is not a "slam dunk" that the verses say what you take them to mean.
Aside from all that, I cannot see how those verses, even if I grant that your interpretation is correct, support the KJV as being the only preserved word of God in English.