Translations- Inspired??

[Luke2427]

Are the words of ANY translation infallible?

Can every word, say of the KJV, be considered the inerrant, perfect word of God as authoritative as the very words that fell from the original author's pens?

Were the translators in their work carried along by the Holy Ghost in much the same way as Moses and Daniel and Paul?

Or does inspiration only extend to the original autographs?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Are the words of ANY translation infallible?

No

Can every word, say of the KJV, be considered the inerrant, perfect word of God as authoritative as the very words that fell from the original author's pens?

No

Were the translators in their work carried along by the Holy Ghost in much the same way as Moses and Daniel and Paul?

No

Or does inspiration only extend to the original autographs?

Yes

But praise God for preserving His word for us.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I agree with Roger.

 

[Rippon]

I agree with Roger.

Roger that.

 

[Dale-c]

I am not sure if I want to vote on this. Translations are the work of men, but they are translating the word of God.
Still, their work is subject to error.

 

[robycop3]

I believe "influenced" would be a better word than "inspired" for translations. While God wills that translations be made, I believe He caused/causes certain people to make them, I believe He left the actual nuts-n-bolts work to those translators.

 

[Winman]

It depends on what you mean by inspired. Only the original prophet was inspired by God. Does that mean if someone else writes these words that they are not inspired? What do the scriptures show?

In Jeremiah 36 God spoke to Jeremiah, but Baruch wrote the words.

Jer 36:1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.
3 It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.
4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.

In verse 2 God commands Jeremiah to write all the words unto him in a book. But in verse 4 we see that Baruch actually wrote the words. Were they inspired? Yes, and the scriptures themselves show so.

Jer 36:5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am shut up; I cannot go into the house of the LORD:
6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

So, if you believe only the person whom God spoke to can write the Word of God, scripture itself contradicts you. Baruch was not inspired of God, yet Jeremiah called the words he wrote at his mouth "the words of the Lord".

So, if someone copies the words of an inspired prophet, I believe the scriptures show those words are inspired.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It depends on what you mean by inspired. Only the original prophet was inspired by God. Does that mean if someone else writes these words that they are not inspired? What do the scriptures show?

In Jeremiah 36 God spoke to Jeremiah, but Baruch wrote the words.

Jer 36:1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.
3 It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.
4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.

In verse 2 God commands Jeremiah to write all the words unto him in a book. But in verse 4 we see that Baruch actually wrote the words. Were they inspired? Yes, and the scriptures themselves show so.

Jer 36:5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am shut up; I cannot go into the house of the LORD:
6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

So, if you believe only the person whom God spoke to can write the Word of God, scripture itself contradicts you. Baruch was not inspired of God, yet Jeremiah called the words he wrote at his mouth "the words of the Lord".

So, if someone copies the words of an inspired prophet, I believe the scriptures show those words are inspired.

Apples and oranges.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Apples and oranges.

I am glad I am not the only one who could not see the connection between that post and translation from manuscripts.

 

[Winman]

It is not apples and oranges, you simply don't like the answer because it proves your argument false.

As for translations being infallible, I have answered numerous times that the scriptures themselves are often a translation. I hardly believe Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew, but perhaps. We have the words of Joseph in Hebrew and we know he spoke in Egyptian to his brothers. We know that Nebuchadnezzar spoke Chaldee but we have his words in Hebrew. We have the words of Jesus in Aramiac translated to Greek. Most scholars agree the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the Old Testament, but the scriptures themselves call the texts he was reading "scripture".

So, you can insist all you want that a translation must contain error, the scriptures themselves contradict you.

 

[Luke2427]

I believe "influenced" would be a better word than "inspired" for translations. While God wills that translations be made, I believe He caused/causes certain people to make them, I believe He left the actual nuts-n-bolts work to those translators.

I don't have a problem with this but I'd like to know what it is based on.

 

[Phillip]

I think that the answers cannot be correctly picked because as with most things in the U.S. we believe either all out one way or all out the other way.

I think God might be with a translator and maybe keep him from adding a completely incorrect word or meaning, but, He will only do it if He would only know why He did it and we would not even know it.

No, I don't think He "inspires" an entire translation to be inerrant as in period, comma and other items that didn't exist in the originals.

Can God have an editor reword a sentence to make it more understandable? I have no doubt, but we would never know it or His reason.

God can do anything, but He will only do what He said in the Bible and we are misquoting the Bible to make it fit our own set of standards. Why are there denominations using the very same Bible who are entirely going down the wrong path? Why are some right? Are those denominations or even church's 100% correct? No.

Take 100 people from a church and have them write down what God tells them to say what the church should do, build a new building or move to a new location. Let's assume there are hundreds of issues, updating an old building to meet new handicap specs, fire safety, exits, air-conditioning, remodeling costs, grandfathered rules they wouldn't have if they moved. Zoning ordnances, cost of new property and access, quality and other issues of the new properties.

I saw a church pray about this for a year and it was 50/50 right down the middle and both groups claimed that is what God told them in their hearts that we should do.

The church bought land, spent a fortune digging and came into a rock that without core samples would be between 200K up to 3 million to move. The church is still where it is at with a for-sale sign on the land and low on money to do upgrades to the new building.

Newer young Bible (Charismatic) churches with ministers trained at huge Bible colleges are eating their people up with their new buildings, multi-graphic sermons with huge screens, entertainment, bands, and theater seating, etc. because that church stalled with upgrading hard pews, etc.

Which group heard from God and how would a person determine which half heard the right message. Each and every one might have been honest and serious about their message from God and I know many of them and they thought they heard directly from upstairs.

Things were different in the Old Testament, this is where education and real Biblical Seminary comes in.

1. What genre was the book you are reading in the Bible?

2. Who was writing it and why did God choose to preserve it?

3. Who were the people God sent the message to?

4. Was this during the time of real prophets who if not 100% correct were not from God? Know any of those today? I bet not.

5. Was the story to show us how God delt with His people and why he sent a messiah and not concerned with a message he sent them except just the jest of it?

6. Did God send messages in those days that we do not need today because we have His Word?

7. Is His Word a bad way to translate the exact meaning of the Greek or Hebrew today when it should be something more on the order of "message"?

8. Can we have a book with typos and still pull the entire message with 100% accuracy?

9. Can God keep that message and the stories he wants us to know alive in any language on Earth?

10. Finally, did He give us the most complex machines ever built by anything we have found in the universe called our brains not to use them to try to keep his message updated in a language that changes every ten years or so?

11. Isn't God's plan for us available inerrant without error even if a typo occurs, can we not use our brains to see those typos in most cases?

12 Isn't it also God's plan for us to use those brains to try to determine whiich of the manuscripts are closest to the real thing or to just sit back and say, okay here is a 200 year old book that is inspired, 1800 years (not accurate I know) but don't you get the point I'm making even if my numbers aren't perfect?

As we get more and more technical, didn't God tell us that We see his work and understand him better if we continue to study His creation?

Finally, the second time, I say that you cannot answer those two questions and be 100% honest because there is a ground there where God can decide to help someone and not help someone and it is up to us to determine the accuracy and the only basis we have are the manuscripts, locations they were found, scientific processes to determine the people and how they lived and fit it together to try to determine that we are always trying to get as close to the originals as possible and even then 50% will say God told them the Byzantine group is more accurate than the Alexandrian group while the other 50% will do the same and we find that 1% of the original is the guess of the accuracy of the originals based on all of this study and if the end of Mark was added by a prophet, do we handle snakes and drink poison to prove God is with us today?

Do I not understand that Jesus is God's Son by reading the entire gospels even though translators may not drop the single word "begotten"; does that change my understanding of Jesus being God's Only Son that came from Him when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary? Isn't the "MESSAGE" which was called "Word" (as in the Word from God) in older English is there 100% accurate and infallable?

Just saying that we Christians are sitting here arguing this issue while there are sinners that need to be told about God regardless or not about foreknowledge of God, because He told US to tell them about Him and THAT my friends is the bottom line.

Have a good holiday, tomorrow let your wife rest on the sabbath by helping dress the kids or cooking dinner (if you are married) and do what the Bible says and worship Him tomorrow with whatever translation you carry to church and read. You know Him, if you don't then get to know Him. I can show you how in my NIV, KJV, ESV, NASB or many others.

If you ain't a Christian, then private mail me and ask me what you need to know to become one and what you do whe you accept him and I may not use the KJV but I bet you get HIS message.

----added: and please pardon my grammar, text, punc. etc. I'm writing on a mini-laptop.

 

[Dr. Bob]

To ascribe to God the works of fallible men is almost blasphemous.

Any translation will only "derive" inspiration (and not be actually God-breathed) as it faithfully presents the Words of God that ARE inspired accurately in a receptor language.

So my belove Latin Vulgate derives inspiration, but not all of it since it does a horrendous job on John 3 and other sections (where pesky men got their theology in the way of faithful/accurate translations)

Much harder of the inspired Word into a language like English that is so very limited. More and more places I'm reading in good translations that I regularly use that truly are NOT deriving inspiration in those passages.

Wish I could preach in Latin or Greek, the detailed languages that can convey meaning so much better.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... As for translations being infallible, I have answered numerous times that the scriptures themselves are often a translation. ...

Wrong in this context (unless for example, you are claiming the LXX is inspired scripture). The term "scriptures" identify that which is handwritten; the language of the original spoken words is thus irrelevant. Only those words that were committed to writing are covered by a doctrine of expiration (inspiration). That is not to say that I deny that sometimes what is enscriptured for us in the ancient languages of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek was originally spoken or heard in a different language.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is not apples and oranges, you simply don't like the answer because it proves your argument false.

As for translations being infallible, I have answered numerous times that the scriptures themselves are often a translation. I hardly believe Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew, but perhaps. We have the words of Joseph in Hebrew and we know he spoke in Egyptian to his brothers. We know that Nebuchadnezzar spoke Chaldee but we have his words in Hebrew. We have the words of Jesus in Aramiac translated to Greek. Most scholars agree the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the Old Testament, but the scriptures themselves call the texts he was reading "scripture".

So, you can insist all you want that a translation must contain error, the scriptures themselves contradict you.

You have yet to offer any proof. No modern day (i.e.- after 95 A.D.) translations or translators are inspired, hence they can (likely will) be in error.

 

[TomVols]

Once again, Winman espouses a view of inspiration of Scripture that fails the Biblical test and must be called what it is. Since Bob already did, I won't be redundant. This lack of sound doctrine is troubling. God, grant us a return to your Word.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You have yet to offer any proof. No modern day (i.e.- after 95 A.D.) translations or translators are inspired, hence they can (likely will) be in error.

For example, WM has yet to tell us if 1 John 5v12 is mistaken in the 1611 edition or the later editions.

 

[Winman]

You have yet to offer any proof. No modern day (i.e.- after 95 A.D.) translations or translators are inspired, hence they can (likely will) be in error.

Barach was not inspired either, yet he wrote the words of the Lord.

Jer 36:5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am shut up; I cannot go into the house of the LORD:
6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

The king's men questioned Baruch's writings just like you.

Jer 36:17 And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth?
18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.

So, we see an uninspired man writing the inspired words of scripture in this chapter. Jeremiah himself declared Baruch's writings to the word of the Lord.

We also see preservation of scripture, king Jehoiakim burned these scriptures, but God had Jeremiah write them again. So, the original autographs were destroyed, but a copy of them was scripture.

Jer 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Jer 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

Again, Baruch who was not inspired wrote the word of God from Jeremiah's mouth. And notice that this time words were added, which shows the Holy Spirit can restate scripture any way He wishes.

And if the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the OT to which almost all scholars agree, then that is a translation not written by Isaiah, yet the scriptures themselves call the texts he was reading scripture. And all scripture is given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Esaias in verse 30 is the Greek translation of Isaiah. So, this was most likely a Greek translation and copy of the OT scriptures, yet the scriptures themselves call these texts scripture.

So, your argument that only the inspired prophet can write inspired scripture is shown false by the scriptures themself, as is also the false argument that a translation must contain error.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Barach was not inspired either, yet he wrote the words of the Lord.

WRONG!

Jer 36:5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am shut up; I cannot go into the house of the LORD:
6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

The king's men questioned Baruch's writings just like you.

Impugning my motives will get you nowhere.

Jer 36:17 And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth?
18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.

So, we see an uninspired man writing the inspired words of scripture in this chapter. Jeremiah himself declared Baruch's writings to the word of the Lord.

Your argument falls flat on it's face right here. Baruch wrote what Jeremiah told him to write.

We also see preservation of scripture, king Jehoiakim burned these scriptures, but God had Jeremiah write them again. So, the original autographs were destroyed, but a copy of them was scripture.

Yes, and what exactly does that have to do with translations from one language to another? Exactly nothing.

Jer 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Jer 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

Again, Baruch who was not inspired wrote the word of God from Jeremiah's mouth. And notice that this time words were added, which shows the Holy Spirit can restate scripture any way He wishes.

Yes. But again, that has nothing to do with translations.

And if the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the OT to which almost all scholars agree, then that is a translation not written by Isaiah, yet the scriptures themselves call the texts he was reading scripture. And all scripture is given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Yes, the NIV is scripture, the ESV is scripture, etc...

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Esaias in verse 30 is the Greek translation of Isaiah. So, this was most likely a Greek translation and copy of the OT scriptures, yet the scriptures themselves call these texts scripture.

So, your argument that only the inspired prophet can write inspired scripture is shown false by the scriptures themself, as is also the false argument that a translation must contain error.

You have yet to prove anything except your ability to twist the Bible to fit your erroneous bibliology.

 

[Winman]

WRONG!

How could this be wrong? The Lord did not speak to Baruch.

Impugning my motives will get you nowhere.

I don't know your motives, but these men were using the fact that Baruch wrote the words and not Jeremiah to question the inspiration of God's word. And that is exactly what some here do, they say only the original autographs written by the prophets and apostles can be the true and inerrant word of God. If a man who is not directly inspired by God wrote the words, then they cannot be innerrant or inspired. That is exactly the argument made here all the time.

Your argument falls flat on it's face right here. Baruch wrote what Jeremiah told him to write.

So what? Baruch was not inspired by God. God did not tell Baruch to write the words, he told Jeremiah.

Yes, and what exactly does that have to do with translations from one language to another? Exactly nothing.

I was just bringing up preservation of the scriptures because a direct example of it is shown in scriptures.

Yes. But again, that has nothing to do with translations.

Sure it does. The Greek translation the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was not word for word in agreement with the Hebrew OT, and many times in the NT when Jesus or one of the apostles quoted OT scripture it was not in word for word agreement. Yet, the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to restate scripture differently, which is the Holy Spirit's perfect right.

Yes, the NIV is scripture, the ESV is scripture, etc...

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with it. The NIV and ESV are based on the Critical Text which is missing nearly 3000 words in the Greek compared to the Received Text. Either the RT added many words, or the CT diminished many words both of which are forbidden by God, but they cannot both be the inerrant word of God at the same time.

You have yet to prove anything except your ability to twist the Bible to fit your erroneous bibliology.

Who has twisted scripture? When Joseph spoke in Egyptian was it translated into Hebrew? When Nebuchadnezzar spoke Chaldee was it translated to Hebrew? What language was Jesus speaking when he called Peter Cephas?

The scriptures themselves are many times a translation. This proves a translation does not have to contain error as many here claim over and over again, or else both the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT contain error as both are often a translation.