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

[Ed Edwards]

// A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. //

I'd rather have two English translations (I prefer the
English I can understand best) in my hand
than unavailable in lost 'original autographs'.

I believe the worthy English Translations that I possess
now collectively and individually are the Holy Written
Word of God preserved personallly for me through
the Divine Providence of God. I also believe in a living
Messiah Jesus who is the Holy Living Word of God
preserved personallly for me through the Divine Providence
of God. And I believe God gave me enough sense
to tell which is the Living Word of God and which is the
Written Word of God - This is called the Baptist Distinctive
Doctrine: Soul Compentcy.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The website that percipitated this discussion began with what proved to be two fallacies:

1) that if God wanted us to "value" the autographs above another form of the Bible, He would not have allowed them to "disappear into the dust of history" - WRONG!; and

2) that if believers think that the original MSS are to be "valued" above English translations then they MUST learn the original languages because "it is your duty, as an obedient child of God" - WRONG AGAIN!

Which makes me doubt the validity of their third point, which is evidently to be made by quoting a portion of Gipp's book. Gipp asserts by using the example of Jeremiah's scroll (the first "original") being destroyed by King Jehoiakim in a fire, and subsequently a re-written scroll (second "original"?) thrown into the Euphrates River by Seraiah, that this scroll's text survives in chapters 45-51 which must have been from a "copy" (Gipp names this one "Original #3", although it is unclear why he calls it such).

Is there good evidence that Jeremiah 45-51 is the exact same text as that which would have been found in the second scroll?

 

[Salamander]

// A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. //

I'd rather have two English translations (I prefer the
English I can understand best) in my hand
than unavailable in lost 'original autographs'.

I believe the worthy English Translations that I possess
now collectively and individually are the Holy Written
Word of God preserved personallly for me through
the Divine Providence of God. I also believe in a living
Messiah Jesus who is the Holy Living Word of God
preserved personallly for me through the Divine Providence
of God. And I believe God gave me enough sense
to tell which is the Living Word of God and which is the
Written Word of God - This is called the Baptist Distinctive
Doctrine: Soul Compentcy.

Wonderful, wonderful. Now what about the dumbing down factor?

The incompetency factors into a dumbing down of society so that the illiterate won't get left behind in the reformed educational process of today.

A local public school teacher is frowned upon if she doesn't maintain a 65% passing rate or better no matter how talented she may be, but according to the learning abilities of her classroom she is then judged if even if they are incompetent.

Ed, will you please explain what Baptist Distinctive "Soul Compentcy" is??

The KJB is written to the objection of modernists in the eloquent Elizabethan style and prose. That should tell on them for their illiteracy.

Society is degrading, not getting more intelligent. More full of pride and intellect, but not intelligence.

Failure to comprehend our predecessors intent upon examination of their speech leaves us in the dark and dependent upon others to tell us what to know is the truth.

"Learn something" is not a derogatory phrase, though it's admonishing, it is to promote learning and not concede our duty to become educated and allow others to rule over us.


Baptist Distinctive: Soul Liberty of the Believer
So LEARN SOMETHING!raying:

 

[Ed Edwards]

// Ed, will you please explain what Baptist
Distinctive "Soul Compentcy" is?? //

Your question PROVES your 'dumbing down' theory.

I've answered your question several times.
Look it up in Google.
You can specify in Google "Advanced Search"
that it should only find results from
"baptistboard.com"

//The KJB is written to the objection of modernists
in the eloquent Elizabethan style and prose.
That should tell on them for their illiteracy.//

The KJVs were written to the dismay of people
who had a perfectly good version:
the Geneva Bibles, the last edition having been
put out in 1599. I have a paper copy of the 1560 Edition
of the Geneva Bible and an electronic /searchable/ edition
of the 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible.
Why so many Bibles? Isn't four or five plenty?
(the number around in 1605 when King James decided
he didn't like the commentary { not the scripture, the
comentary } ). But no, the King who wanted to
be Bishop of Canteberry, James I of England
(he was James VI of Scotland) wanted a Bible to
bear his name.

BTW, Isn't it treason in the USofA to overly honor
British royality? :laugh:


Soul Competency is akin to the 'I' in Baptist (the aconym):

I = Individual Soul Liberty
( Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2, Titus 1:9 )

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Is there good evidence that Jeremiah 45-51 is the exact same text as that which would have been found in the second scroll?

I have not found evidence stated in any commentary I've looked at. Help, anybody?

 

[robycop3]

Salamandar, there's no 'dumbing down' factor...that's New-Age-Liberal imagination.

The KJV was written in the English of its day, same as Wycliffe's earlier translation was.

The language has moved forward AT GOD'S WILL. No man nor groupa men is responsible for this. Mosta us speak the same language we learned early in life. We've only added more words to our vocabularies as we've aged

Sure, i often type in "Computerese', but that's hardly a new language, nor will it ever be.

"Dumbing down" would be a return to the language of the past. And if we do that with God's word, why stop in 1769? Why not go backta Wycliffe's spelling & English?

John 3;16, Wycliffe's Bible: "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

We should thank God every day for supplying His word in OUR language.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

"I'm t'other Ed, and I second that motion!"

Ed

 

[Rippon]

The KJV was written in the English of its day, same as Wycliffe's earlier translation was.

No , Robocop , the KJV was not written in the language of that day -- it was written in a more archaic manner than the British citizens spoke , with a fair number of Latinizied English words which were not common then .

The first so-called Wycliffe translation was a very wooden English version of the Latin Vulgate . The second "Wycliffe Version" was written in a more idiomatic style .

 

[robycop3]

The KJV was written in the English of its day, same as Wycliffe's earlier translation was.

No , Robocop , the KJV was not written in the language of that day -- it was written in a more archaic manner than the British citizens spoke , with a fair number of Latinizied English words which were not common then .

The first so-called Wycliffe translation was a very wooden English version of the Latin Vulgate . The second "Wycliffe Version" was written in a more idiomatic style .

I dunno...there's not a vast amounta difference between the Av, Geneva, and Bishop's Bibles. There was no more than fifty years between their makings. Seemsta me that the AV, Shakespeare, and Milton all used similar English. In all cases, Bible translations are confined to the sources being translated, while Shakespeare and Milton could write whatever they imagined.

 

[Rippon]

I dunno...there's not a vast amounta difference between the Av, Geneva, and Bishop's Bibles. There was no more than fifty years between their makings. Seemsta me that the AV, Shakespeare, and Milton all used similar English. In all cases, Bible translations are confined to the sources being translated, while Shakespeare and Milton could write whatever they imagined.

Rip here :There have been documented posts before regarding the somewhat antiquated wordings in the 1611 Anglican Version -- antiquated to the ordinary person of that era .

Benson Bobrick's book : "Wide as the Waters" speaks of this on page 255 .

Their conservative mandate -- not to make a new translation but to revise the old -- restrained them to some degree from modernizing the English of it , even up to the usage of their own time . Some of the expressions they adopted were already a bit archaic in 1611 -- such as 'verily' and 'it came to pass' -- but these were kept because they also seemed to endow the text with a certain 'antique rightness' for which it has always been prized .

 

[Faith alone]

franklinmonroe:
So, the question might be asked: are ancient language manuscripts more textually valuable than translated texts? Yes! Certainly, faithfully translated text can only aspire to accurately reflect its' source text. The translation work might fall short of this goal, but it is impossible to exceed that goal. An exact duplicate cannot be 'more genuine' than the original, much less a modified copy (which is what a translation is). The limit is perfection, just as a bowler cannot exceed a score of 300 in a single game.

Thx for pointing out the real issue here. If we correctly understand what translation is all about, of course no translated text (in a different language than the source language) can ever be as accurate, as close to the Spirit's original words, thoughts or inspired concepts, as a text copied from a text in the source language. That should be obvious.

FA

 

[Crabtownboy]

1-How would we know the originals were original?
2-What language would the OT be written in .... Egyptian??
3-Translations would differ because different languages require different words as concepts are not present in all languages and thus words chosen must come as close as possible, but can never duplicate exact meanings.
4-Not all translations are equal. There are some bad ones available.

The better question is not about inerrance and originals which we do not have and never will have, but is there sufficient truth in our current translations for us to learn and live as Christ wants us to live?:tonofbricks: