Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?

[Charles Meadows]

No particular language is inspired, whether Hebrew or Gree.

1. But into which tongue did God breathe His revelation for us, when the biblical writers wrote?

2. Are our English translations to be regarded as the same as those original writings of say, Paul?

1. If God breathed a revelation to us then I take that as meaning that it is accessible to all of us.

2. If the originals somehow different (enough that we would call them so) then how are the translations not substandard?

If God has preserved His word, that which He wanted us to have, then I have difficulty seeing how the originals would be fundamentally different. Those of us who can read Greek on a fairly advanced level would still argue over meanings of words and constructions. "Pistis Christou" would probably still be an issue - so what is the difference?

Furthermore - the concept of "absolute inerrancy of the original autographs" seems to be a foil for explaining the fact that we have different translations in different languages, which makes defense of plenary inerrancy a bit strained.

I'd love to see the originals - but I don't expect they would change my beliefs at all.

 

[Salamander]

1. Of course, the NASB that I teach and preach from is sacred---but sacred in what sense I ask? Sacred in the same sense as the autographs? Not at all! But sacred, because it is God's words.

That would be idolatry of the originals.

2. My NASB is Scripture.

Contains a majority of God's words but not where God is deceived./ Psalms 78:36

3. I wonder if they were elevated to the same level as the autographs in the mind of the Fathers and so on?

I'm sure that's the case in many ionstances, but what is elevated in the mind of Gopd would be that which has the least contradictions and remains inerrant.

 

[Salamander]

1. If God breathed a revelation to us then I take that as meaning that it is accessible to all of us.

God did so.

2. If the originals somehow different (enough that we would call them so) then how are the translations not substandard?

Harmony, harmony.

If God has preserved His word, that which He wanted us to have, then I have difficulty seeing how the originals would be fundamentally different. Those of us who can read Greek on a fairly advanced level would still argue over meanings of words and constructions. "Pistis Christou" would probably still be an issue - so what is the difference?

Harmony, harmony.

Furthermore - the concept of "absolute inerrancy of the original autographs" seems to be a foil for explaining the fact that we have different translations in different languages, which makes defense of plenary inerrancy a bit strained.

Not at all... Harmony, harmony.

I'd love to see the originals - but I don't expect they would change my beliefs at all.

Sure they will, and they will forever. All our misconceptions will be done away when we meet Jesus, Face to face.:jesus:

Then we will see as far as English is concerned we should have always stuck with the KJB.:godisgood:

 

[Charles Meadows]

Then we will see as far as English is concerned we should have always stuck with the KJB.:godisgood:[/quote]

 

[TCGreek]

1. If God breathed a revelation to us then I take that as meaning that it is accessible to all of us.

2. If the originals somehow different (enough that we would call them so) then how are the translations not substandard?

If God has preserved His word, that which He wanted us to have, then I have difficulty seeing how the originals would be fundamentally different. Those of us who can read Greek on a fairly advanced level would still argue over meanings of words and constructions. "Pistis Christou" would probably still be an issue - so what is the difference?

Furthermore - the concept of "absolute inerrancy of the original autographs" seems to be a foil for explaining the fact that we have different translations in different languages, which makes defense of plenary inerrancy a bit strained.

I'd love to see the originals - but I don't expect they would change my beliefs at all.

You have not even addressed the questions I asked.

 

[TCGreek]

That would be idolatry of the originals.



Contains a majority of God's words but not where God is deceived./ Psalms 78:36



I'm sure that's the case in many ionstances, but what is elevated in the mind of Gopd would be that which has the least contradictions and remains inerrant.

Please, address my questions about the autographs, not translations.

 

[Charles Meadows]

You have not even addressed the questions I asked.

Sure I did.

The answer to #1 is pretty self-explanatory. The NT is in Greek - and in a dialect of which no one here is a native speaker.

As far as #2 I don't see them as much different. The fact that we don't have originals pretty much validates the observation that God is satisfied with what we have. It seems contradictory to say that the Bible is God's word but is somehow not as good as God's word.

The very nature of language is such that no 2 languages are identical in translation. The notion that one language can hold God's word moreso than another is very problematic.

Again I ask you - would the "autographs" solve the textual questions we still have?

 

[TCGreek]

Again I ask you - would the "autographs" solve the textual questions we still have?

1. We still have to bridge the cultural-historical gap---ask those who write books on hermeneutics.

2. It seems like you and others are downplaying the verying autographs that someone like Paul wrote directly from inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[EdSutton]

Sure I did.

debatable.

The answer to #1 is pretty self-explanatory. The NT is in Greek - and in a dialect of which no one here is a native speaker.

The OT is in Hebrew and Chaldee/Aramaic - and in two dialects of which no one here is a native speaker. So what? I fail to see the significance. So is virtually every translation of Scripture, including most all except for those of the last few to a hundred years or so, and even much of that is 'dated' in the langauge in which it is translated, be it English or another.

As far as #2 I don't see them as much different. The fact that we don't have originals pretty much validates the observation that God is satisfied with what we have. It seems contradictory to say that the Bible is God's word but is somehow not as good as God's word.

Who supposedly has made this 'straw man' statement, that you have here referenced and someone erected? I do not recall such a statement being made on the BB, by any from any textual stream preference, or by any 'version preferrer' for any version, for that matter. Well, aside from some who seem to hint that God has allowed a particular English version that neared, if not reached the apex of 'perfection' and brilliant illumination almost 400 years ago.

I still ain't quite figgered out 'zackly why 396 years (1611) is somehow so much improved over 447 years ago (1560), or why the downward slide started immediately after that, with a few notable sudden exceptions that just seemed to appear, for an instant, such as one blip that briefly appeared 245 yrs ago in 1762, and another to soon follow 238 years ago in 1769, and then just seem to vanish away again to the dimmest glow, however, with the last major appearance of this phenomenom, around 130-140 years ago, with the light suddenly and completely 'extinguished' some 126 years ago (1881), never to again appear.

If the above seems a bit 'stretched' and sarcastic, here, then I think you have understood me and my POV 'perfectly'.

The very nature of language is such that no 2 languages are identical in translation. The notion that one language can hold God's word moreso than another is very problematic.

Exactly! And the very nature of Biblical manuscripts is such that no 2 manuscripts are identical in every detail, either. So the notion that one 'text', derived from however many manuscripts (of course, this is only referring to Greek manuscripts, you see), can hold God's word more so than another, is also just as problematic.

Again I ask you - would the "autographs" solve the textual questions we still have?

Absolutely! This is not the same as any questions about either the proper interpretation or correct translation of the same texts, however.

FTR, I am not disagreeing with you, necessarily, but am using your post, which was the latest posted, to show how one can misapply the Scriptures.

Ed

 

[Askjo]

God inspired His Words in the autographs of the OT and the NT through the Holy Spirit's work through His writers. These autographs are gone, but these 5,000+ apographs are there somewhere.

These apographs between TR and the CT differed each others a few thousand times. The CT changed 10,000 Greek words. Can the disagreement of word variations between TR and CT be equally verbally inspired of God?

The autographs are the product of inspiration. The agreement of wording between the TR and CT is identical to the autographs.

The KJV is more than modern versions because of high percentage of the agreement of wording which is identical to the autographs.

 

[Deacon]

The problem lies with the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration, the teaching that every word, even every letter, down to the jots and tittles, is inspired.

If this be the case then a study of the original documents is highly important.
Each word was inspired by God.
This doctrine has driven the science of textual criticism and fueled the translation debates.

The difficulty as I see it lies in the way the NT authors used OT Scripture.
They used it quite freely, adapting it to their need.
This seems to rule out a strict application of verbal plenary inspiration; at least for the NT authors, word-for-word translation wasn’t that important.

On the other hand, reading the Bible in a translation is like ‘kissing the bride through the veil’.
Translations are only approximations, at times they fail to fully convey the meaning of the original text (as one writer said, “a translation is exegesis without explanation”); a study of the original languages brings us one step closer to the original source.

Rob

 

[TCGreek]

The problem lies with the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration, the teaching that every word, even every letter, down to the jots and tittles, is inspired.

If this be the case then a study of the original documents is highly important.
Each word was inspired by God.
This doctrine has driven the science of textual criticism and fueled the translation debates.

The difficulty as I see it lies in the way the NT authors used OT Scripture.
They used it quite freely, adapting it to their need.
This seems to rule out a strict application of verbal plenary inspiration; at least for the NT authors, word-for-word translation wasn’t that important.

On the other hand, reading the Bible in a translation is like ‘kissing the bride through the veil’.
Translations are only approximations, at times they fail to fully convey the meaning of the original text (as one writer said, “a translation is exegesis without explanation”); a study of the original languages brings us one step closer to the original source.

Rob

Good stuff, I might add. :thumbs: You have just built a prima facie case for the autographs.

 

[Charles Meadows]

debatable.

Who supposedly has made this 'straw man' statement, that you have here referenced and someone erected? I do not recall such a statement being made on the BB, by any from any textual stream preference, or by any 'version preferrer' for any version, for that matter. Well, aside from some who seem to hint that God has allowed a particular English version that neared...

Ed

Ed, this is the quote from TC to which I responded:

Of course, the NASB that I teach and preach from is sacred---but sacred in what sense I ask? Sacred in the same sense as the autographs? Not at all! But sacred, because it is God's words.

Did you read my post? - because it seems you have taken this as a KJVO stance.

:BangHead:

My disagreement with TC is over his assertion that somehow the autographs are better than what we have today. Why would that be the case? If they are better then in what way? That implies that our Bibles of today would compare unfavorably (in some small way at least) to the autographs.

I also pointed out that the autographs, being in Greek (for the NT), would need to be translated (for most English-speakers) or read in a non-native language for those of us who can read Greek well. I fail to see how this would be a drastic improvement for the average believer.

We have Bibles in many languages. It is obviosu that they cannot all be 100% the same. To claim absolute inspiration of the "autographs" alone seems to me to be a bit of a cop out in terms of addressing how this affects our view on inerrancy.

We have what we have and that's what God wanted us to have.

It would probably be fair to note that my views on inerrancy are closer to those of say Dan Wallace than those of the average fundamentalist. Perhaps that explains my position a bit better.

 

[Charles Meadows]

On the other hand, reading the Bible in a translation is like ‘kissing the bride through the veil’.
Translations are only approximations, at times they fail to fully convey the meaning of the original text (as one writer said, “a translation is exegesis without explanation”); a study of the original languages brings us one step closer to the original source.

Rob

I cannot agree with this statement completely.

I don't discourage study of the original languages - that has been my biggest hobby for the past 5 years! But it has also taught me that learning languages is not like learning to read Morse code.

I think that NT scholarship in the past 100 or so years has overstated the ability of the average armchair student (like me) to master a language without being immersed in that language as it was spoken. For us here we tend to study Greek analytically - and as a second language. That will no doubt give us insight - but it will not make us native speakers who are able to really understand every colloquial nuance of the language as it really was. This type of mastery is an unattaibale goal for many - and this does not comport with the observation that God provided His word for everyone - not just those who happen to have been raised in Greek households or who have natural aptitude for language and ample time to learn.

 

[TCGreek]

Ed, this is the quote from TC to which I responded:

Of course, the NASB that I teach and preach from is sacred---but sacred in what sense I ask? Sacred in the same sense as the autographs? Not at all! But sacred, because it is God's words.

Did you read my post? - because it seems you have taken this as a KJVO stance.

:BangHead:

My disagreement with TC is over his assertion that somehow the autographs are better than what we have today. Why would that be the case? If they are better then in what way? That implies that our Bibles of today would compare unfavorably (in some small way at least) to the autographs.

I also pointed out that the autographs, being in Greek (for the NT), would need to be translated (for most English-speakers) or read in a non-native language for those of us who can read Greek well. I fail to see how this would be a drastic improvement for the average believer.

We have Bibles in many languages. It is obviosu that they cannot all be 100% the same. To claim absolute inspiration of the "autographs" alone seems to me to be a bit of a cop out in terms of addressing how this affects our view on inerrancy.

We have what we have and that's what God wanted us to have.

It would probably be fair to note that my views on inerrancy are closer to those of say Dan Wallace than those of the average fundamentalist. Perhaps that explains my position a bit better.

One question I will ask of you, Based on 2 Peter 1:21, Could any translator make the claim that they were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they were translating?

 

[Charles Meadows]

TC,

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[TCGreek]

TC,

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Charles,

What is the meaning of 2 Pet 1:21 in your mind?

 

[Charles Meadows]

TC,

I think the verse is pretty obvious in its claim - God inspired scripture to be as it is.

I certainly don't dispute revelation in scripture.

But I fail to see how investing lost "autographs" with a higher degree of inspiration is consistent with how the Bible functions for those of us who read it. It may make some feel better that we can always refer to these autographs as inspired 100% - even if the subsequent copies and translations diverge slightly. But that seems to skirt the real question which to me is what kind of inerrancy did God intend to give us? An inerrancy where only one language can capture 100% of the inspiration is not useful since only a small minority of people will speak that language. The mere fact that after so many years the Bible has lost no significant content in its transmission is evidence of God's inspiration. This is the kind of inspiration that means that a reader can have, and then read, a reliable translation of the Bible in his/her own language and understand (with the Holy Spirit) just what the perfect word of God says.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I am not so sure that reading the Greek gives a great deal more information. That would seem to imply that the Englsih translation are somehow less inspired.

I believe that recalling just one familar example (with most of us) will prove that knowing the text in Greek does in fact yield additional information. The examples I'm thinking of are all translated as "love" in English and sometimes "charity" in the KJV; but a Greek reader can know more completely about the particular kind of love being described in a passage.

No, it does not imply that a translation is less inspired; it only implies that some readers get more out of what they read than others.
How could the skill of understanding Greek affect the quality of the inspiration of an English text?

BTW folks: the cited post (#3 in this thread) was the first to mention the word "inspired". 'Inspiration' is not used in the OP, nor in the website article. Sometimes we respond to what we think we read, and not what was actually written there, eh?

 

[TCGreek]

TC,

I think the verse is pretty obvious in its claim - God inspired scripture to be as it is.

I certainly don't dispute revelation in scripture.

1. What do you mean by revelation in Scripture? Aren't all of Scripture the revelation of God?

But I fail to see how investing lost "autographs" with a higher degree of inspiration is consistent with how the Bible functions for those of us who read it.

2. Then you are putting what Paul wrote Y2k ago on the same level as the HCSB of 21st century.

It may make some feel better that we can always refer to these autographs as inspired 100% - even if the subsequent copies and translations diverge slightly.

3. The variants in the extant MSS are owing to human frailty, not God--when God inspired Paul to write Philippians, there were not variants--it was perfect from the get go.

But that seems to skirt the real question which to me is what kind of inerrancy did God intend to give us? An inerrancy where only one language can capture 100% of the inspiration is not useful since only a small minority of people will speak that language. The mere fact that after so many years the Bible has lost no significant content in its transmission is evidence of God's inspiration.

4. Are you contending that Paul wrote errors through the inspiration of the Spirit?

5. What then is the kind of inerrancy God intended for us to have?

This is the kind of inspiration that means that a reader can have, and then read, a reliable translation of the Bible in his/her own language and understand (with the Holy Spirit) just what the perfect word of God says.

6. Why isn't the Shepherd of Hermas in our Bibles?

7. Are you claiming that translators are inspired in the same way to translate as the writers of the Bible were?