Translating OT from Septuagint

[rlvaughn]

My words were not addressed to you...

Thanks for the explanation. They were addressed to my quote, so I assumed they were addressed to me.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Thanks for the explanation. They were addressed to my quote, so I assumed they were addressed to me.

Thanks for the explanation. They were addressed to my quote, so I assumed they were addressed to me.

Thayer, like Dr George Winer, of the 3 NT Greek grammars, allowed his theology to influence his word definitions in his lexicon, many being quite subtle, and almost convincing to the untrained mind!

 

[Conan]

My words were not addressed to you, but to those who still try to defend Thayer as non Unitarian, even though he was

And you are giving false witness about and slandering a Christian. It was wrongly reported in the book "kingdom of the cults" 50 years after Thayer was buried. Since he was not King James Only onlyist jumped on the false statement repeating the slander. The false information was added to an edition published by "green" of Thayers lexicon. But clearly he clearly did not belong to a Universalist church, or they would claim him. Why don't they claim him? Because they can't. He did not belong to their Church nor hold their views. As told to you by Christians, he was a Congregationalist. He did not belong to a Universalist Church, nor hold their views. Find something from his time period stating that he was a Universalist. You can't because it's not true. You, through bad witness, are slandering a fellow Christian by giving false witness about him. Passing on false witness by kingjamesonlies mickey mouse websites. Keep on repeating false things do not make it true

 

[SavedByGrace]

And you are giving false witness about and slandering a Christian. It was wrongly reported in the book "kingdom of the cults" 50 years after Thayer was buried. Since he was not King James Only onlyist jumped on the false statement repeating the slander. The false information was added to an edition published by "green" of Thayers lexicon. But clearly he clearly did not belong to a Universalist church, or they would claim him. Why don't they claim him? Because they can't. He did not belong to their Church nor hold their views. As told to you by Christians, he was a Congregationalist. He did not belong to a Universalist Church, nor hold their views. Find something from his time period stating that he was a Universalist. You can't because it's not true. You, through bad witness, are slandering a fellow Christian by giving false witness about him. Passing on false witness by kingjamesonlies mickey mouse websites. Keep on repeating false things do not make it true

Have you got a copy for Thayers Greek Lexicon

 

[Yeshua1]

So would you agree that we do not have the inspired, inerrant Word of God as we do not have any of the originals (OT or NT)?

We have the infallible and trustworthy word of God to us still now!

 

[Yeshua1]

I guess what I do not understand is how we can determine what is inerrant and what is not if what we have is not actually inspired by God. If the Scripture that we have is inerrant to some extent, there remains an extent to which it is not inerrant. Since the inspired Word of God did not survive time, who determines what is truth and what is error in the Scripture that we have?

This is where textual criticism comes into play, and great news is that ANY Translation based off of Hebrew.Greek and translated rightly would be infallible

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. And I apologize for not stating my position earlier. I just did (we were typing at the same time).

There is no derived authority of inspiration, as that would be same view as the KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

I also should have offered my view (it isn't fair for me to question others who are willing to offer their position without offering mine for the same scrutiny).

I believe that we do have the inerrant, inspired, and infallible Word of God even thought we do not have the originals. I believe that when we hold a Greek text, a KJV, a NASB, etc. that we are holding the inspired Word of God.

That said, I do think that we also need to realize that what we have are translations of existing manuscripts and as such we need to study accordingly.

So I suspect the question would be how I can hold that we have the inspired Word of God in these different translations, not having the originals, when we know that translations differ and involve compromise on the part of the translators.

I believe that words should be considered as symbols that are used to convey expressions. So I believe it goes back to what is being communicated. As such I believe that divine inspiration transcends human preservation and translation. We get caught up on theologies that are often what Scripture is not communicating. We tend to ask questions to satisfy our curiosity.

This is a good discussion, BTW. I'm enjoying learning from you guys.

Translations cannot be Inerrant, nor inspired, but are Infallible!

 

[Yeshua1]

While the sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Quen Suan Yew wrote: “Argument from silence is very dangerous and can lead to all kinds of wrong doctrine” (Kwok, VPP, p. 53). Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to advocate personal opinions based on unproven assumptions involving the use of fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3). Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament?

This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration.

It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or for the way or process by which they are translated into other languages including into English.

God make sure to preserve to us through the multitude of the manuscripts and other data His written word, but there is no derived authority of inspiration passing from the originals to the copies during the translation process!

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh...you are wrong there. I very much understand textual studies (I have studied textual criticism, biblical exegesis, and koine Greek at a graduate level).

What it seems is that you do not understand what Scripture means by "inspiration". That is unfortunate, but not unexpected. Biblical literacy has been on the decline in our nation for some time now.

Inspiration refers to just the originals, as those books had the Holy Spirit making sure were written down without any errors or mistakes!

 

[JonC]

This is where textual criticism comes into play, and great news is that ANY Translation based off of Hebrew.Greek and translated rightly would be infallible

So any translation based off of any Hebrew or Greek is infallible even if the Hebrew or Greek from which they are translated differ?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. The idea that God inspired translations is, IMHO, contrary to Scripture (it's what I call "double inspiration" and is the hallmark of cults around the world).

This is the issue I have with KJVO. No matter how they define it, it goes back to believing God inspired the KJV translators.

Inspiration meant that the Spirit made sure that there were no mistakes or errors in the originals , but there are no translations in any language that can claim to be inerrant!

 

[JonC]

Inspiration refers to just the originals, as those books had the Holy Spirit making sure were written down without any errors or mistakes!

So you are saying that we have no inspired Bible in any language as we do not have the originals. This is an interesting, albeit problematic, stance as you can have no confidence of ever having read God's Word.

 

[Yeshua1]

So any translation based off of any Hebrew or Greek is infallible even if the Hebrew or Greek from which they are translated differ?

Yes, as there will be no doctrines affected regardless of which textual basis used to translate off from!

 

[JonC]

Inspiration meant that the Spirit made sure that there were no mistakes or errors in the originals , but there are no translations in any language that can claim to be inerrant!

My point is that we do not have any of the originals. So by your standard we cannot have an inerrant Bible or an inspired Bible in ANY language. We just have a good guess. I don't think that's enough to base belief upon.

 

[JonC]

Yes, as there will be no doctrines affected regardless of which textual basis used to translate off from!

That does not matter. All of the text used could be wrong....maybe even just a myth....as you believe none of them to be inspired by God.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you are saying that we have no inspired Bible in any language as we do not have the originals. This is an interesting, albeit problematic, stance as you can have no confidence of ever having read God's Word.

The only ones that can claim what you want for ther bible would be Muslims and their Koran!

 

[Yeshua1]

My point is that we do not have any of the originals. So by your standard we cannot have an inerrant Bible or an inspired Bible in ANY language. We just have a good guess. I don't think that's enough to base belief upon.

We have infallible b ible, again, NO doctrines or practice is affected, do you think any version is perfect then?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. I think that where we mostly disagree is in exactly what is "inspired". Where you lean towards the words themselves (which is probably the most common position and was the position of the seminary I attended) I lean towards what those words communicated (latitude, I suppose, in how the human authors expressed those words). And I cannot say that I would be consistent in my view (it is a leaning). But I do believe that divine inspiration transcends translation, partly because I also believe that so much of Scripture is missed due to "literal" methods of interpretation - not that the "literal meaning" is incorrect but that often what is being communicated is more significant (again, you can accuse me of inconsistency and that would be a fair accusation).

But we are all dependent on the work of the Spirit. I absolutely agree with you here.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration!

 

[JonC]

The only ones that can claim what you want for ther bible would be Muslims and their Koran!

This is not true. I am claiming that Scripture is "God breathed" in such a way as we have God's infallible and inspired Word in our Bibles today (my claim is that inspiration goes beyond the words used and that God preserves His word in Scripture).

The problem with your view is that you say some non-existent writings were inspired by God but nothing that exists today is God's Word.