Featured Translating OT from Septuagint

How can an uninspired Bible be trustworthy (it'd be nothing but a human book).

 

Depends on what is "inspired", doesn't it?

By your definition it can't. God's Word does not exist today (by your definition) but enough of it has somehow made it through so that we have a Bible that works. How much of it is a product of man and how much a product of God? We can never know because we do not have the originals. But it seems to work. This does mean we cannot get caught up with words....like "foreknowledge"....because we do not really know if God chose the word in the original. It could have been a product of human understanding. And we cannot really know that Christ was born of a virgin. It could mean young woman and the Greek translated virgin could be human error. So we have to hold our theology very lightly.

By my definition inspiration is preserved by God. What is communicated by the text of Scripture is inspired by God. This is why the Bible is also infallible and why we test doctrine against Scripture.

 

This is not true. Historically people have viewed Scripture as the Word of God and inspired by God. You are confusing terms here, brother.

I am not saying that God inspired the "so" in John 3:16 (it is not even the best translation of the word in contemporary English). I am saying that the verse is, nonetheless, inspired.

The problem with your position is that you hold man as the standard for doctrine because you hold that standard to be absent divine inspiration. You don't know if God foreknew the elect because you do not know if that concept is really divinely inspired.

 

I hold the view that was held by men like Martin Luther and John Calvin. I NEVER said that translation are being inspired in the same fashion as the originals. I said that we have the inspired Word of God and we can rest assured that when we hold a Bible we have the inspired Word of God.

You are a A or B type of guy, @Yeshua1 . I do not mean this negatively, but just as an observation. You consider everything in terms of your view and everything else. But there are many views of how the Word of God is inspired. And I agree with Martin Luther's explanation about divine inspiration. So like Luther and Calvin, I can look to Scripture as God's revelation of Himself to man, and as the authority for our doctrine.

 

Like I said, you are a A or B person. Did I ever say that any translation is inspired as the originals? No. YOU said that because you seem to want to hold a progressive and "enlightened" position. But you are wrong.

I have been repeating, over and over again, what Martin Luther wrote regarding the nature of inspiration and the Word of God. But you have not heard.

We have the inspired Word of God in Scripture. When you read your Bible, whether the KJV or the NASB, or a Greek translation, you are reading the inspired Word of God.

 

You do understand that the word "inspiration" means "God breathed" indicating that the word comes from God....correct?

If you are not reading the inspired Word of God then you are reading the words of men. This is the same idea many cultists have who follow the writings of men.

Why do you believe them infallible if not from God?

 

To help the conversation, I will offer my definitions:

Inerrant means without error. The Word of God is without error.
Inspired means "God breathed", i.e., coming from God, His Word and not man's. The Word of God is God's revelation to man.
Infallible means it will not fail. It is trustworthy. The Word of God will accomplish it's purposes.

I will add another term that I believe needs defining - The Word of God.

I define the Word of God two ways. The first is Christ in terms of God providing man with the fullest revelation of Himself in the Person of His Son. The applicable define here, however, applies to Scripture. In this context I define the Word of God as God's inerrant, inspired, and infallible revelation communicated via Scripture.

 

Yet we do not have any originals so you have no clue what was really in them, correct?