That includes all accurate translations, not just one.
-
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!
Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.
- Thread starter Johnv
- Start date
- Status
That includes all accurate translations, not just one.
He didn't say a word about translations. This is what he said:
That is an accurate statement, as the Scripture was written in Hebrew in the OT and in Greek in the NT. The prophets and apostles did not write the KJV nor did they write any of the modern versions or any of the translations of any of the other nations of the world.
The original writers wrote down God-speaking "Scripture", these words on the autographs were inspired of God.
That is a good statement. Only those words can be accurately said to be "inspired" as the word inspired means "God-breathed."
franklinmonroe
Active Member
True, but that does not explain how the same original language words in manuscript copies are different from those in the autographs.
True, but that does not explain in what way accurately copied words in manuscript copies are different from those in autographs.
True, but that does not address the individual words in manuscripts or why they are different from the same ones in autographs.
Uh, no. The definition by Warfield doesn't even have "original MSS" (or the word "manuscript", "autograph", etc.) in it. Why does the whole document have to be perfect for any of the words to be inspired? Weren't the words inspired when they were written (and some books written before other books)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Since "original MSS" vs. KJVOism wasn't an issue in Warfield's day he didn't have to put it into the definition. It was inherent in his definition. It was assumed and widely believed by all. No one thought it to be an issue.
Furthermore, the words are perfect and infallible in the original by the very definition of the word "inspiration" in 2Tim.3:16. The Scriptures are "God-Breathed." The only Scriptures that come from the breathe of God are the original MSS which the prophets and apostles. The words that they wrote are perfect and infallible; no other copy is so.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
DHK, I appreciate that you have consistently stated your position. However, you seem to be incapable of giving a direct answer to my question. I'm not certain you understand the essence of my question.
I think the closest you may have come to addressing my question was if you agreed that the inspiration of the words by God occurred only when the original penmen wrote them down. But the uniqueness of the event would be in that it was the first time (an origin or 'birth') these words would have been revealed by God. The individual words accuracy (appropriateness), inerrancy, and infallibilty are not unique to the autographs.
I think the closest you may have come to addressing my question was if you agreed that the inspiration of the words by God occurred only when the original penmen wrote them down. But the uniqueness of the event would be in that it was the first time (an origin or 'birth') these words would have been revealed by God. The individual words accuracy (appropriateness), inerrancy, and infallibilty are not unique to the autographs.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is where we disagree. Inerrancy, infallibility, etc., are indeed unique to the autographs. As I say consistently, God alone is perfect, and therefore no other copy can be "inerrant, infallible;" it is impossible. The word "inspired" itself ("God-breathed") by definition, demands that the original MSS be perfect and without error. By contrast we know that men who make copies make mistakes.
Inspiration applies to the original MSS.
God promised to preserve His Word.
We still have the preserved Word today.
I have been following this debate. Quite interesting. However, I am not sure that this is correct. It seems to me that if you truly believe this then you are arguing for the inspiration of translations. But then again perhaps I am reading something into this that isn't there.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
i guess this is where definitions collide.
if inspiration means absence of textual variation or copyist errors, then one wonders if even Jesus' Bible, also called graphai, in Luke 4, is inspired.
but if inspiration references the Bible's authority, then yeah, "even the very meanest of translations" is inspired, is the Word of the King.
perchance we're splitting hairs to an extent Christ n the Apostles didn't. :jesus:
That's because the KJV isn't mentioned in scripture. Neither is the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV.........
What is mentioned is the preservation of God's word. The question really is which version is God's word preserved in? Is it all of them? One of them? And why?
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
There can be only one? This isn't Highlander we're talking about, but God's word.Amy.G said:
Did God restrict Hid word to a single language at Pentecost? Did He even restrict a single person to being the only one to speak a speecific language? Did God ever say only one person could go and witness to a nation or people?
God's word is contained in every bible translation so long as it is a valid effort to translate it. The NWT and other cultic "versions" are not in this category, but even they contain some or most of His word (I have used a NWT to convict a JW before).
So, all of them? Yes, to some extent.
One of them? Unless God put it in His word (which He didn't), no.
And why? Why do some people drive a Ford and others a Chevy and others a Toyota? Why don't we all just drive Model A's, since they came first? Because people move forward and change. God's word never changes, but the languages it is conveyed in does. No one, even in jolly old England, uses Jacobian English to communicate anymore, nor does everyone use American English. Some people have extensive vocabularies, and others have more limited vocabularies. Some can grasp deep theological truths without explanation and instruction, and others need all the help they can get. God has gifted men with the ability to bring His word into different languages and different forms within those languages.
There is no scriptural support for any single translation, nor is there a specific verse promoting using several. God's examples show that He uses multiple means to reach people... the apostles, the disciples, missionaries, the Diaspora... and the same applies to translations of His word.
You are right in alluding to one thing. Many claim that Jesus used the Septuagint. If he did, he was not using the "inspired Word of God." He was using a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a translation which had many errors in it--a translation which wasn't even a very good translation. But he apparently used it anyway. That doesn't make the LXX an inspired book. What is inspired are the words that Christ spoke that are penned in the NT autographs. Those are the inspired words, whether or not they are quoted form the LXX.
A few other examples make the same point.
Jude quoted from an apocryphal book: the Book of Enoch, but that didn't make the entire book inspired. Only the words that Jude quoted became inspired.
In Titus 1, Paul quoted from a Cretian philosopher. Certainly not all Cretian philosophers are inspired of God, or not even that one. But the words that are recorded by Paul--that particular quote from that Cretian is inspired of God.
In Acts he quotes from a Greek poet. That doesn't mean that all Greek poets are inspired. But what is inspired are the words that Paul quotes.
Thus only the quoted words of Christ from the LXX are inspired, not the entire book.
Only the original MSS are inspired.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
No, I'm not addressing translations (yet).
If individual words found in manuscript copies are the same (collectively determined to be 'original') as would have been in the autographs, then those copied words must be as appropriate ('accurate'), inerrant, and infallible as the first time those original language words were written. This is pure logic since individual words cannot become inappropriate, errant, or fallible while laying on the surface of parchment.
The words on a page are static; only human mishandling can make words seem inappropriate, erroneous, or false. It does not matter how many times the words are copied, if the copied words are precisely the same words as the original word; words themselves do not 'degrade' as a result of the handcopying process.
Yes, scribal error does occur (be it misspelling, omitted words, inserted words, etc.). But those have been readily identified and restored (added words deleted, missing words repatriated, and spelling corrected) in our critical texts. The silver is purified. We have original language text that is about 95% sure; the remaining % is merely disputed, because the words NOT lacking.
The words have not been lost, it is more a matter of which of the words are to be accepted as the equivalent to the autograph. Is a landscape picture puzzle any less of a complete landscape picture simply when the pieces are disorganized in the box (and perhaps a few extraneous pieces thrown in)? No, the complete picture can be restored.
Please tell me why you think pure logic does not apply here (I'd really like to know). Am I missing something taught in Scripture about the nature of inspired words?
Last edited by a moderator:
Harold Garvey
New Member
All definitions collide with DHK theology, period!:love2:
Since we don't have the originals any more, and the oldest MSS that we do have dates back to about 200 AD (to my understanding), and it has mistakes in it, how is it possible to make a direct organic link all the way back to the originals to prove your hypothesis? How would you know that "those exact words" were copied exactly as they were originally written?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The certainty of the accuracy to the autographs comes by the preponderance of the witnesses (original language manuscripts, writings of Church Fathers, lextionaries, ancient foreign versions). Just as certainly as a suspect can be tried without an incriminating confession when there is overwhelming forensic evidence, surveillance video, and eyewitnesses to his crime.
If the correct words are not preserved for us in manuscript evidence then they are frauds (merely masquerading as words from God) and our belief is a sham. You don't believe that the words in the manuscripts are wholly or largely different than what would have been written in the autographs, do you?
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
sure, they may or may not be quoted fr the LXX--we can't be sure.
what we can be sure of, though, is that they differ fr the Masoretic reading.
n that's my point. while i'm all for reverend textual criticism n all, i do wonder if we're more restrictive than Christ n the Apostles in the quest for a single text form. maybe there's just one text form for parts of one book but multiple forms for others? just 2 things to consider: 1. none of those multiple forms change any doctrine of Scripture when we consider the "whole counsel" as a whole; and 2. "every jot n tittle" may refer to every teaching of God's Word rather than a single text-type of the Bomberg or some other edition.
however, Enoch, Menander, n Epimenides were never called scriptures n weren't included in the canon of the Law, Prophets, n the Pss that Christ held up in Lk 24.
readings fr the OT that are different fr the Masoretic are in a different category, however. in Lk 4, the words of Isaiah 61 are different fr the Masoretic text, n, most importantly, they were regarded as Scripture."
again, which is inspired, if Christ's words n the OT Masoretic conflict?
why not both?
Therein lies the science of textual criticism. IMO we can conclude that God has preserved His Word inasmuch as no doctrine has been affected, there is no contradiction; in essence, yes we do have the Word of God.
But the copies of the originals are not perfect and infallible and there is no way to prove that they are. Every copy that we come across varies from others. The two oldest copies A and B vary from one another in 3,000 places. Wow! And you contend that there is accuracy in copying???
God alone made a perfect MSS.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Correct; individual manuscripts are not perfect. However, collectively the manuscript witnesses can overcome the problem of individual imperfections.
You say copies are not infallible; but you also say that "no doctrine has been affected" (that we indeed have the "Word of God"). 'Sound doctrine' from the 'Word of God' is virtually the definition of infallible. I say that if no doctrine is affected in the copy, then the copy is infallible. Errors make a document errant; but errors do not necessarily make a document fallible. For example, I listen to your answering machine (and then accidently erase the message) and in my excitement I write you a memo, "U have one a million dollers." Would you ignore that statement because it had errors and might be fallible? Probably not. And the confirmation letter you'd receive from the sweepstakes would establish that "You have won a million dollars."
But I think you protest against the copies too much. Is not the very purpose of copying to faithfully replicate the original? I believe that the vast majority of copies were earnest attempts to duplicate the source text from the beginning. It would be unreasonable to assume that the great majority of the words of the copies were inaccurate. Again, assurance of the correct text is proven by the similarity among geographically diverse text traditions. How many Greek & Hebrew words do you think are not original? Are you implying that 'preserved' words are not always the 'original' words?
I didn't contend that there was perfect accuracy in any individual copies, but through examination of the mutiplicity of the manuscript witnesses we can ascertain the truth. I don't know what that "3,000" actually represents, but in a document with as much text as the complete Bible (with Apocrypha) that number would likely characterize a small percentage of variance.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status