• 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!

The original written word of God.

Deacon

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
More factors

Matthew 24:35 “…my words will not pass away.”
(Includes written and spoken words)

Inspiration - God inspired the authors who wrote as they were moved by the Spirit

There are no original documents of Scripture.

Transcription (copying) of Scripture is not inspired

Translations are not the original Word of God, translators are not inspired

Rob
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Deacon said:
There are no original documents of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Either the copies are on the whole representative of what the origins were as they were given or we have no meaningful written word of God, just wishful documents. (! Matthew 4:4, Matthew 5:18 !)
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
I would say that the overwhelming majority of Greek Manuscripts are very accurate copies of the Originals. Not perfect copies, but generally very accurate.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Some important factors.
Verbal.
Plenary.
Inerrant.
Infallible.
Immutable.
Self Authenticating.
Click to expand...
Bible translations which generally hold to the verbal plenary tradition, KJV, ASV, NASB (... 1995, 2020, LSB) and the NKJV.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
Would you include the ESV on this list?
Click to expand...
The translations I listed are those which use italics to show words not from the text being translated as was done in the KJV. The ASV to the RSV broke from that KJV tradition of doing that. The ESV follows the RSV in not doing this. Most assist in translation words are not in italics anyway even in the KJV.
KJV John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.". Two words in italics, "is" and the second "him."
 
Last edited:
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
The translations I listed are those which use italics to show words not from the text being translated as was done in the KJV. The ASV to the RSV broke from that KJV tradition of doing that. The ESV follows the RSV in not doing this. Most assist in translation words are not in italics anyway even in the KJV.
KJV John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.". Two words in italics, "is" and "him."
Click to expand...
I have to admit: when I'm reading the ESV, I do miss those italics.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
I bought my copy of the ESV because a Gideon's New Testament used it. What I didn't know before hand, the Gideon's had gotten permission to make select changes per the TR. Like Luke 4:4.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Deacon said:
More factors

Matthew 24:35 “…my words will not pass away.”
(Includes written and spoken words)

Inspiration - God inspired the authors who wrote as they were moved by the Spirit

There are no original documents of Scripture.

Transcription (copying) of Scripture is not inspired

Translations are not the original Word of God, translators are not inspired

Rob
Click to expand...
If there are no original documents (and the autographs are long gone) and neither “transcription” nor “translation” is INSPIRED, then Matthew 24:35 is false … the words of God HAVE passed away because God failed to protect them. From your statements, even the Torah written by the hand of Moses was only an “uninspired transcription” of the inspired spoken words of God with the two tablets of stone and the wall in Daniel the only words “written by God”.

I think God has a vested interest in preserving His word. I believe Matthew 24:35 is true. I believe that God has inspired more than you give Him credit for. The errors do not negate the hand of God, they necessitate the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth.

You are free to follow an unknowable God whose words are lost to time … that is your right.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
The translations I listed are those which use italics to show words not from the text being translated as was done in the KJV. The ASV to the RSV broke from that KJV tradition of doing that. The ESV follows the RSV in not doing this. Most assist in translation words are not in italics anyway even in the KJV.
Click to expand...
The use of italics in translation is pointless. It's an unfruitful and an illogical enterprise. If italics would be put in every passage it would be an optical nightmare. What about the fact that those translations that use italics do not put them where untranslated words or phrases are not put in the text?
I'm a fan of footnotes instead of italics.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
The use of italics in translation is pointless. It's an unfruitful and an illogical enterprise. If italics would be put in every passage it would be an optical nightmare. What about the fact that those translations that use italics do not put them where untranslated words or phrases are not put in the text?
I'm a fan of footnotes instead of italics.
Click to expand...
The the 1611 KJV used both.

NASB20, ". . . brothers and sisters . . . ."
 
Last edited:
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
The the 1611 KJV used both.

NASB20, ". . . brothers and sisters . . . ."
Click to expand...
In the 1611 or later additions are you saying that there were blanks with italics set forth? Logos has shown that there are big differences between the 1611 and future additions with respect to the number of italics.

I don't understand what you were saying about the 2020 NASB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top