Only the Originals Are Inspired

[SGO]

When we compare NT quotes of OT Scripture we find differences.
An exact translation process from Hebrew to Greek (or any other language) is impossible, and yet these inexact translations were still able to communicate the message God intended.

The conclusion is that faithful translations can be made despite the small changes that occurred over time.

God is faithful and will preserve his Word in order to communicate his message to all humankind.

Rob

Couldn't there be another explanation such as the authors who did the quoting changed the wording of the quotes under guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[SGO]

When we compare NT quotes of OT Scripture we find differences.
An exact translation process from Hebrew to Greek (or any other language) is impossible, and yet these inexact translations were still able to communicate the message God intended.

The conclusion is that faithful translations can be made despite the small changes that occurred over time.

God is faithful and will preserve his Word in order to communicate his message to all humankind.

Rob

Are you attributing the hand of God to the translators?

Then we have nothing at all to worry about.

Like this from canadyjd in post #5:
"When deviations occur, scholars must/should attempt to determine what the originals said."

 

[John of Japan]

OK. How about the Old Testament books/scrolls that were read in the synagogues during Jesus', the apostles, and other disciples, time on earth? Were they the "Originals"?

If they were not, and only copies, (in Hebrew or Greek?) then why did Jesus, the apostles, and other New Testament writers, refer to them as scripture?

Matthew 21:42, 22;29, 26:54, :56
Mark 12:10, :24, 14:49
Luke 4:21, 24:27, :32, :45
John 5:39, 7:38, 10:35, 13:18, 17;12, 19:24, :28, :36, :37, 20:9,
Acts 1:16, 8:32, :35, 17:2, :11, 18:24, :28
Romans 1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, 15:4, 16:26
1 Corinthians 15:3, :4
Galatians 3:8, :22, 4:30
1 Timothy 5:18
2 Timothy 3:15
James 2:8, :23, 4:5
1 Peter 2:6
2 Peter 1:20, 3:16

Oh, just copies, not inspired.

My position is that the original language documents were inspired to the exact extent that they . They were "given by inspiration."

Just like today when we refer to ANY English/other language bible as scripture?
All the arguments that say one English version is better than another?
If inspiration refers to the ORIGINALS ONLY what is the problem which version?

Oh, that's right, mine is closer to the ORIGINALS than yours.

Now you have come to the meat of the question. I say that any original language mss, and any translation is God's inerrant Word to the exact extent that it mirrors the original.

Now, if you believe that the KJV is the only inspired English version, let me ask: how did you figure that out from Scripture (the KJV itself, maybe)? And how do I figure out which Japanese version (or Chinese or any other language) is the one and only version for that language?? (English is not special in the mind of God, you know. The Bible never even mentions English.)

 

[SGO]

My position is that the original language documents were inspired to the exact extent that they . They were "given by inspiration."


Now you have come to the meat of the question. I say that any original language mss, and any translation is God's inerrant Word to the exact extent that it mirrors the original.

Now, if you believe that the KJV is the only inspired English version, let me ask: how did you figure that out from Scripture (the KJV itself, maybe)? And how do I figure out which Japanese version (or Chinese or any other language) is the one and only version for that language?? (English is not special in the mind of God, you know. The Bible never even mentions English.)

I didn't figure it out.

The KJV is the one for me at this time but I don't really know why because it was not from study.
In fact, I strongly disliked the KJV and had read the NIV for over 35 years and especially enjoyed the 2011 model.

Now I am trying to understand why so many of us rely on the authority of men.

Oh, but the KJV is the work of the men that translated.

Do I think they were inspired?
Not from themselves and the KJB preface would seem to say that they were only scholarly men commissioned by the King.

So if the KJV is not the English inspired or even illuminated version it really doesn't matter to anyone but me.

Still two things really bother me:

Why many believe the Septuagint is legitimate.

Why it is held so strongly that "only the originals are inspired" while Jesus called copies scripture, quoted from them, and "seemingly" thought the copies were the word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

My position is that the original language documents were inspired to the exact extent that they . They were "given by inspiration."


Now you have come to the meat of the question. I say that any original language mss, and any translation is God's inerrant Word to the exact extent that it mirrors the original.

Now, if you believe that the KJV is the only inspired English version, let me ask: how did you figure that out from Scripture (the KJV itself, maybe)? And how do I figure out which Japanese version (or Chinese or any other language) is the one and only version for that language?? (English is not special in the mind of God, you know. The Bible never even mentions English.)

When they state that you should use the Kjv as the translation base, and not Hebrew/Greek texts, is that not stating that the Kjv is the final authority?

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't figure it out.

The KJV is the one for me at this time but I don't really know why because it was not from study.
In fact, I strongly disliked the KJV and had read the NIV for over 35 years and especially enjoyed the 2011 model.

Now I am trying to understand why so many of us rely on the authority of men.

Oh, but the KJV is the work of the men that translated.

Do I think they were inspired?
Not from themselves and the KJB preface would seem to say that they were only scholarly men commissioned by the King.

So if the KJV is not the English inspired or even illuminated version it really doesn't matter to anyone but me.

Still two things really bother me:

Why many believe the Septuagint is legitimate.

Why it is held so strongly that "only the originals are inspired" while Jesus called copies scripture, quoted from them, and "seemingly" thought the copies were the word of God.

The Septuagint seems to be a standard text used by the early Christians, especially for those who were saved Gentiles, as they knew the Greek, but the Hebrew text was the inspired one...
And Jesus and Apostles saw that even the copied scrolls and texts were infallible witness to and for God!

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't figure it out.

The KJV is the one for me at this time but I don't really know why because it was not from study.
In fact, I strongly disliked the KJV and had read the NIV for over 35 years and especially enjoyed the 2011 model.

Now I am trying to understand why so many of us rely on the authority of men.

Oh, but the KJV is the work of the men that translated.

Do I think they were inspired?
Not from themselves and the KJB preface would seem to say that they were only scholarly men commissioned by the King.

So if the KJV is not the English inspired or even illuminated version it really doesn't matter to anyone but me.

I read and study and teach and preach from the KJV. In translating the Greek NT into Japanese, I compared the Greek NT to the KJV NT, and found it to be an incredibly accurate translation. The fact that it is in beautiful English seals the deal for me: it's the best English translation ever. However, as a linguist, I know for a fact that a perfect translation is impossible without a miracle--and even KJVO folk do not claim a miracle to get a perfect KJV--or if they do, they mix up the definitions of a miracle and Providence.

Still two things really bother me:

Why many believe the Septuagint is legitimate.

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." To me, the only "illegitimate" translations are paraphrases (which should not be called "translations") and translations with an agenda, like the "Cotton Patch Bible" or the JW's New World Translation. However, there are many translations that are mistaken in their translation philosophy.

The Septuagint (LXX) is mixed up in its renderings. Sometimes it has lousy renderings, and other times it is excellent. Sometimes in the NT the human authors of Scripture, writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to re-translate where the LXX got it wrong. So the Holy Spirit superintended the choice of every single word in the original languages of the Bible.

Why it is held so strongly that "only the originals are inspired" while Jesus called copies scripture, quoted from them, and "seemingly" thought the copies were the word of God.

The Japanese Bible used by almost all conservative and fundamental missionaries & pastors in Japan is along the line of the NASB. When I first went to Japan, I met an older missionary who was KJV Only, but told me, "Never tell your people you don't have the Word of God as you preach. You will destroy their confidence in their Bible."

Now, my question to the KJVO advocate who asks triumphantly about the location of the original manuscripts is, "Where are the original manuscripts of the KJV 1611?" No one knows. But they were handwritten, just like the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ones. So any argument about the original manuscripts of the Bible as given by God are moot.

 

[George Antonios]

• Bible verses saying that only the original autographs were given by inspiration: NONE.

• Bible verses referring to translated copies as given by inspiration: Proverbs 25:1, Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:19-20.

Read the references in context before disagreeing.

 

[SGO]

I read and study and teach and preach from the KJV. In translating the Greek NT into Japanese, I compared the Greek NT to the KJV NT, and found it to be an incredibly accurate translation. The fact that it is in beautiful English seals the deal for me: it's the best English translation ever. However, as a linguist, I know for a fact that a perfect translation is impossible without a miracle--and even KJVO folk do not claim a miracle to get a perfect KJV--or if they do, they mix up the definitions of a miracle and Providence.

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." To me, the only "illegitimate" translations are paraphrases (which should not be called "translations") and translations with an agenda, like the "Cotton Patch Bible" or the JW's New World Translation. However, there are many translations that are mistaken in their translation philosophy.

The Septuagint (LXX) is mixed up in its renderings. Sometimes it has lousy renderings, and other times it is excellent. Sometimes in the NT the human authors of Scripture, writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to re-translate where the LXX got it wrong. So the Holy Spirit superintended the choice of every single word in the original languages of the Bible.


The Japanese Bible used by almost all conservative and fundamental missionaries & pastors in Japan is along the line of the NASB. When I first went to Japan, I met an older missionary who was KJV Only, but told me, "Never tell your people you don't have the Word of God as you preach. You will destroy their confidence in their Bible."

Now, my question to the KJVO advocate who asks triumphantly about the location of the original manuscripts is, "Where are the original manuscripts of the KJV 1611?" No one knows. But they were handwritten, just like the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ones. So any argument about the original manuscripts of the Bible as given by God are moot.

John of Japan,

It was interesting to read of your experience and pleasantly surprising to read of your use of the KJV.

"Never tell your people you don't have the Word of God as you preach. You will destroy their confidence in their Bible."

This is what I think has happened to many people here in the US.
Can you hold your whatever version in your hand and say (even to yourself),
"This is the word of God, every word is pure."?

Yet we say we believe in Jesus through the word of God. (And that part is true.)

All the pastors I've had have never said ANY version is THE word of God from the pulpit and I have trusted the majority of them.
Mostly it has been, "Only the originals are inspired" never having to prove such a statement because, of course, we don't have the originals.

Not even some sort of proof that the "only" statement is true. Just repetition from many sources makes it true.

The KJV's notes might be in a trunk in someone's attic.

"So any argument about the original manuscripts of the Bible as given by God are moot."

Can you say that about the copies?
That is, can the copies be the word of God?

That boils it down to a lot of what so many of these discussions are about.

 

[Yeshua1]

I read and study and teach and preach from the KJV. In translating the Greek NT into Japanese, I compared the Greek NT to the KJV NT, and found it to be an incredibly accurate translation. The fact that it is in beautiful English seals the deal for me: it's the best English translation ever. However, as a linguist, I know for a fact that a perfect translation is impossible without a miracle--and even KJVO folk do not claim a miracle to get a perfect KJV--or if they do, they mix up the definitions of a miracle and Providence.

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." To me, the only "illegitimate" translations are paraphrases (which should not be called "translations") and translations with an agenda, like the "Cotton Patch Bible" or the JW's New World Translation. However, there are many translations that are mistaken in their translation philosophy.

The Septuagint (LXX) is mixed up in its renderings. Sometimes it has lousy renderings, and other times it is excellent. Sometimes in the NT the human authors of Scripture, writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to re-translate where the LXX got it wrong. So the Holy Spirit superintended the choice of every single word in the original languages of the Bible.


The Japanese Bible used by almost all conservative and fundamental missionaries & pastors in Japan is along the line of the NASB. When I first went to Japan, I met an older missionary who was KJV Only, but told me, "Never tell your people you don't have the Word of God as you preach. You will destroy their confidence in their Bible."

Now, my question to the KJVO advocate who asks triumphantly about the location of the original manuscripts is, "Where are the original manuscripts of the KJV 1611?" No one knows. But they were handwritten, just like the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ones. So any argument about the original manuscripts of the Bible as given by God are moot.

The Nkjv is growing on me, as it seems to be more accurate then the Kjv, and easier to read with understanding!

 

[SGO]

• Bible verses saying that only the original autographs were given by inspiration: NONE.

• Bible verses referring to translated copies as given by inspiration: Proverbs 25:1, Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:19-20.

Read the references in context before disagreeing.

Good, good!

 

[SGO]

The Septuagint seems to be a standard text used by the early Christians, especially for those who were saved Gentiles, as they knew the Greek, but the Hebrew text was the inspired one...
And Jesus and Apostles saw that even the copied scrolls and texts were infallible witness to and for God!

What is your proof of "... a standard text used by early Christians" ?

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

It was interesting to read of your experience and pleasantly surprising to read of your use of the KJV.

"Never tell your people you don't have the Word of God as you preach. You will destroy their confidence in their Bible."

This is what I think has happened to many people here in the US.

I deplore the multiplicity of modern translations, but for a far different reason than most who take that view. My view is that there are far too many English versions when there are still over 3,000 languages in this world with not even a single verse translated into them. There are many people groups waiting and hoping and praying for someone to translate the Bible for them. I know of a people group in Papua New Guinea which is mostly Christian now, but still have no Bible. Yet some scholar in America pops up and says, "We need a new Bible in English," or, "We need to do a revision of the translation we did five years ago." I believe God is not pleased by this!

Can you hold your whatever version in your hand and say (even to yourself),
"This is the word of God, every word is pure."?

Yet we say we believe in Jesus through the word of God. (And that part is true.)

No, not "whatever version." Not until I can compare it with the original language Biblre God gave us. No translation--including the effort I led to get a TR translation into Japanese--is the Word of God except as it accurately translates the original.

All the pastors I've had have never said ANY version is THE word of God from the pulpit and I have trusted the majority of them.
Mostly it has been, "Only the originals are inspired" never having to prove such a statement because, of course, we don't have the originals.

I say the original language OT and NT are inspired to the exact extent that they reflect the original manuscripts. God preserves His Word in the original languages. That is very clear from Scripture. For example, in Gal. 3:16 Paul wrote, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Paul was clearly putting the authority in the Hebrew OT there.

Again, in various passages you have the Hebrew or Aramaic quoted, then a translation given. This shows me that in the Bible itself, the wording of the original languages is vital. Here are two examples from Revelation:

Rev. 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Rev. 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Not even some sort of proof that the "only" statement is true. Just repetition from many sources makes it true.

Not sure what you mean here.

The KJV's notes might be in a trunk in someone's attic.

They have not been discovered in 400 years. Pretty sure they don't exist.

"So any argument about the original manuscripts of the Bible as given by God are moot."

Can you say that about the copies?
That is, can the copies be the word of God?

Absolutely.

That boils it down to a lot of what so many of these discussions are about.

So many of these discussions make big claims without using the Word of God itself to get there. Many years ago I decided to go to the Bible itself for answers, and did a systematic study of my own, and that's where my bibliology comes from--the Bible.

 

[George Antonios]

God preserves His Word in the original languages. That is very clear from Scripture. For example, in Gal. 3:16 Paul wrote, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Paul was clearly putting the authority in the Hebrew OT there.

How do you get that from Galatians 3:16? I don't mean how do you read that into it, but how do you get what you said from the words in the verse?

• Bible verses referring to translated copies as given by inspiration: Proverbs 25:1, Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:19-20.

 

[SGO]

I deplore the multiplicity of modern translations, but for a far different reason than most who take that view. My view is that there are far too many English versions when there are still over 3,000 languages in this world with not even a single verse translated into them. There are many people groups waiting and hoping and praying for someone to translate the Bible for them. I know of a people group in Papua New Guinea which is mostly Christian now, but still have no Bible. Yet some scholar in America pops up and says, "We need a new Bible in English," or, "We need to do a revision of the translation we did five years ago." I believe God is not pleased by this!
No, not "whatever version." Not until I can compare it with the original language Biblre God gave us. No translation--including the effort I led to get a TR translation into Japanese--is the Word of God except as it accurately translates the original.


I say the original language OT and NT are inspired to the exact extent that they reflect the original manuscripts. God preserves His Word in the original languages. That is very clear from Scripture. For example, in Gal. 3:16 Paul wrote, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Paul was clearly putting the authority in the Hebrew OT there.

Again, in various passages you have the Hebrew or Aramaic quoted, then a translation given. This shows me that in the Bible itself, the wording of the original languages is vital. Here are two examples from Revelation:

Rev. 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Rev. 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Not sure what you mean here.

They have not been discovered in 400 years. Pretty sure they don't exist.


Absolutely.


So many of these discussions make big claims without using the Word of God itself to get there. Many years ago I decided to go to the Bible itself for answers, and did a systematic study of my own, and that's where my bibliology comes from--the Bible.

"ONLY the originals are inspired" is a repetition from many "sources" means that translators, text books, seminary professors, school teachers, pastors, lay Christians, fill in in the blank, repeat the mantra,
"Only the original documents are the inspired word of God."

OK I do not have the acumen or the mental strength to really discuss, but then I have another question:

By Jesus calling the copies "the word of God" or "scripture" did He mean that the copies are equal to the inspired word of God?

 

[Yeshua1]

What is your proof of "... a standard text used by early Christians" ?

There were quotes captured and used sometimes by the Apostles that appeared to reflect more of the Septuagint !

 

[SGO]

There were quotes captured and used sometimes by the Apostles that appeared to reflect more of the Septuagint !

This is a statement by you and not proof to me.

Can you site a more authoritative source?

 

[Yeshua1]

• Bible verses saying that only the original autographs were given by inspiration: NONE.

• Bible verses referring to translated copies as given by inspiration: Proverbs 25:1, Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:19-20.

Read the references in context before disagreeing.

Jesus stated that ONLY the Apostles of His would be inspired by the Holy Spirit, as it ended with their deaths no ongoing inspiration!

 

[Yeshua1]

"ONLY the originals are inspired" is a repetition from many "sources" means that translators, text books, seminary professors, school teachers, pastors, lay Christians, fill in in the blank, repeat the mantra,
"Only the original documents are the inspired word of God."

OK I do not have the acumen or the mental strength to really discuss, but then I have another question:

By Jesus calling the copies "the word of God" or "scripture" did He mean that the copies are equal to the inspired word of God?

The Originals alone are Inerrant, but translations are infallible!

 

[SGO]

Jesus stated that ONLY the Apostles of His would be inspired by the Holy Spirit, as it ended with their deaths no ongoing inspiration!

I am really referring the the Old Testament quotes that Jesus and the apostles read and quoted, not to the New Testament writings. And yes, after the bible I do not think there has been any more divine revelation.