Translating OT from Septuagint

[JonC]

Unlike others in the King James Only movement, the Society claims, "The supernatural power involved in the process of inspiration, and in the result of inspiration, was exerted only in the original production of the sixty-six Canonical books of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16)."

"Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original."

"Translations made since New Testament times must use words chosen by uninspired men to translate God’s words. For this reason no translation of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive status. The final appeal must always be to the original languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts."[6]"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This sums up my position!

I disagree. As stated, I take Martin Luther's position on this topic.

I believe progressive theology dangerous to the Church (if the Bible is not a revolution from God then it cannot be infallible. It is just a good book.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Yes we do, its called textual criticism!

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree. As stated, I take Martin Luther's position on this topic.

I believe progressive theology dangerous to the Church (if the Bible is not a revolution from God then it cannot be infallible. It is just a good book.

Neither Luther or Calvin stated that there was a derives inspiration to any translation, as they both saw the ultimate form would be the Originals, and then the Hebrew and Greek texts!

 

[JonC]

Neither Luther or Calvin stated that there was a derives inspiration to any translation, as they both saw the ultimate form would be the Originals, and then the Hebrew and Greek texts!

I am not saying God inspired translations. But I am saying that Luther and Calvin were both correct that we have God's inspired Word.

 

[JonC]

Yes we do, its called textual criticism!

Brother, textual criticism deals with the text that we do have. We do not have the originals. Textual criticism does not confirm non-existent text. And it does not determine divine inspiration.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not saying God inspired translations. But I am saying that Luther and Calvin were both correct that we have God's inspired Word.

Infallible word, not inspired!

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, textual criticism deals with the text that we do have. We do not have the originals. Textual criticism does not confirm non-existent text. And it does not determine divine inspiration.

We know that the Spirit inspired the Originals, and we have Hebrew and Greek source texts extremely close to them!

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning -
This thread will close no sooner than 1230 AM (Tue) EST / 930 pm (Mon) PST

This thread is closed