Where is God's preserved word in the Original Langauges?

[Jordan Kurecki]

In accordance with Psalm 12 and Matthew 4:4 where can I find the "every" "preserved" word of God in the original languages?

And can you really stand up and preach from a bible that you're not 100 percent sure every word is God's word, and still have a clean conscience?

I'm really fed up with all this I believe all translations are the word of God nonsense...

 

[SolaSaint]

Thus the reason for the science of textual criticism. Look for the Bible that meets the criteria of what is closest to the originals, or use the best extant copies and learn Hebrew and Greek to preach from.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm really fed up with all this I believe all translations are the word of God nonsense...

Who cares what you are fed up with?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Thus the reason for the science of textual criticism. Look for the Bible that meets the criteria of what is closest to the originals, or use the best extant copies and learn Hebrew and Greek to preach from.

I just have a hard time with trusting textual criticism, How can you preach from any bible, when you don't have 100 percent confidence, that EVERY word is God's word, what if you preach and make a point on something that is not scripture? I'm just having a crisis I suppose.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

what is considered the best extant greek and hebrew copies..?

 

[Deacon]

Welcome to the forums Jordon,

Concerning the verses you referenced:

The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6–7 (AV 1873)

If you believe the "them" in verse 7 refers to the 'pure words', then they are kept by God - Where are they kept? - it's not told.

The second verse you referenced:

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 (AV 1873)

As quoted by Jesus from Deuteronomy 8:3 –

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (AV 1873)

The Lord makes the point that obedience to God takes precedence over self-gratification.

Before you get all riled up over being 100 percent sure that every word is faithful to the original – be faithful to what you have before you.

As the translators of the KJV wrote in their preface:

…we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, … containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
… A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

Rob

 

[Winman]

In accordance with Psalm 12 and Matthew 4:4 where can I find the "every" "preserved" word of God in the original languages?

And can you really stand up and preach from a bible that you're not 100 percent sure every word is God's word, and still have a clean conscience?

I'm really fed up with all this I believe all translations are the word of God nonsense...

Hi Jordan, and welcome to BB.

I believe you can find the preserved word of God in English in the King James Bible. :thumbsup:

And of course it is impossible for the word of God to both contain and omit the last twelve verses of Mark 16, but there are a bunch of folks here that have the ability to believe the illogical and impossible. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Hi Jordan, and welcome to BB.

I believe you can find the preserved word of God in English in the King James Bible.

And in many other versions in English as well as in many foreign languages.

And of course it is impossible for the word of God to both contain and omit the last twelve verses of Mark 16, but there are a bunch of folks here that have the ability to believe the illogical and impossible.

I believe that the KJV is the Word of God despite a number of additions. The extras are not the Word of God --the rest of it is.

You believe that translations based on the Critical Text are "missing" many verses. I believe you are wrong --but you should grant that what the modern versions (based on the CT) do have is indeed the Word of God. Besides,many of the (in your view) "missing verses" are still found in the modern version texts through marginal and footnotes.

 

[jonathan.borland]

And can you really stand up and preach from a bible that you're not 100 percent sure every word is God's word, and still have a clean conscience?

Pretty stinkin' rotten question coming from one who believes that in some places every God-preserved record of his written Word is corrupt, every Greek manuscript passed down to us by our forefathers, every Latin manuscript, every Coptic manuscript, every Syriac manuscript, in fact every version ever made from any Greek witness present or now lost, every Father who ever quoted the passage, all of them are corrupt. So you have the audacity to ask this question after attacking the very foundational basis of God's preserved Word? How do you get up and look yourself in the mirror every day with your pathetically low view of the preservation of God's Word? What a hypocritical thing to ask us such a question in light of your own shallow view of the preservation of God's Word, in fact that God failed altogether to preserve his Word in some place until Beza conjured up the right reading out of his BRAIN in 1565, and then you have the audacity to lamblast textual criticism, which was practiced by J. W. Burgon (and imperfectly by Beza by the way), anyway by Burgon whom you've apparently read and quote with approval (another one of your many self-contradictions)! I don't think so, buddy.

 

[Winman]

And in many other versions in English as well as in many foreign languages.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I believe that the KJV is the Word of God despite a number of additions. The extras are not the Word of God --the rest of it is.

Again, that is your opinion, I disagree.

You believe that translations based on the Critical Text are "missing" many verses. I believe you are wrong --but you should grant that what the modern versions (based on the CT) do have is indeed the Word of God. Besides,many of the (in your view) "missing verses" are still found in the modern version texts through marginal and footnotes.

Yes, I do believe the CT is missing many words, verses, and even entire passages.

Do I believe the CT contains "some" of the word of God? Yes, but I do not believe it is the preserved word of God.

Now, if I saw an ad in the paper for a preserved Ford Mustang in the newspaper and it looked like this;



I would call that false advertising. Yes, that is a Ford Mustang, but it is not preserved.

Of course, one thing I have discovered at BB is that lots of folks here have their own special definitions for words.

 

[HankD]

The original languages of Greek and Hebrew is the essence of preservation of the word of God. Any other word of God in another language is not preservation but is the word of God by derivation (out of and from the original language manuscripts).

I found a jar of jam in an out building which had been preserved a year ago, the label said "Blackberry 2012"

When I opened it sure enough it was blackberry preserves not strawberry. It hadn't changed over the course of the year.

The preservation of God's word MUST be of a similar nature - Hebrew and Greek and none else, it cannot change.


From the Translators to the Reader :
King James Bible AD1611

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; Saint Hierome, fountains. The same Saint Hierome affirmeth, and Gratian hath notspared to put it into his decree, That as the credit of the old books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes; so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore (the Scriptures, we say, in those tongues) we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

 

[Winman]

The original languages of Greek and Hebrew is the essence of preservation of the word of God. Any other word of God in another language is not preservation but is the word of God by derivation (out of and from the original language manuscripts).

I found a jar of jam in an out building which had been preserved a year ago, the label said "Blackberry 2012"

When I opened it sure enough it was blackberry preserves not strawberry. It hadn't changed over the course of the year.

The preservation of God's word MUST be of a similar nature - Hebrew and Greek and none else, it cannot change.


From the Translators to the Reader :
King James Bible AD1611

This view is refuted by scripture itself, the Ethiopian eunuch was not reading Hebrew scriptures, but a translation into Greek from the Hebrew, but scripture itself calls what he was reading "scripture".

Acts 8:32 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:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Almost all scholars believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew;

Reading Esaias … - Isaiah. Reading doubtless the translation of Isaiah called the Septuagint. This translation was made in Egypt for the special use of the Jews in Alexandria and throughout Egypt, and was what was commonly used. “Why” he was reading the Scriptures, and especially this prophet, is not certainly known. It is morally certain, however, that he was in Judea at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; that he had heard much of him; that this would be a subject of discussion; and it was natural for him, in returning, to look at the prophecies respecting the Messiah, either to meditate on them as a suitable subject of inquiry and thought, or to examine the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to this office. The prophecy in Isaiah 53:1-12; was so striking, and coincided so clearly with the character of Jesus, that it was natural for a candid mind to examine whether “he” might not be the person intended by the prophet. On this narrative we may remark:

 

[HankD]

This view is refuted by scripture itself, the Ethiopian eunuch was not reading Hebrew scriptures, but a translation into Greek from the Hebrew, but scripture itself calls what he was reading "scripture".

Acts 8:32 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:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Almost all scholars believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew;

I agree in part, but any translation of the scripture is scripture by derivation not inspiration but still, I personally can call it the word of God as did the KJV translators themselves (in another place).


HankD

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

This view is refuted by scripture itself, the Ethiopian eunuch was not reading Hebrew scriptures, but a translation into Greek from the Hebrew, but scripture itself calls what he was reading "scripture".

Acts 8:32 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:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Almost all scholars believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew;

Sometimes the Holy Spirit does things like this and causes scriptures to be referenced in different places with different wording, does not mean he was using the LXX . Consider the differences in Psalm 18 and the song recorded in 2nd Samuel 22

 

[Logos1560]

In accordance with Psalm 12 and Matthew 4:4 where can I find the "every" "preserved" word of God in the original languages?

According to a consistent application of your own claims, it evidently would not be in the original language manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based since those manuscripts were not perfect and had some copying errors.

It seems that your reasoning would undermine the authority of the very original language sources from which the KJV was translated.

 

[Logos1560]

This view is refuted by scripture itself, the Ethiopian eunuch was not reading Hebrew scriptures, but a translation into Greek from the Hebrew, but scripture itself calls what he was reading "scripture".

You have not proved that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation.

Are you merely assuming that in order to rationalize your KJV-only opinions?

Your speculation or assumption does not refute what the Scriptures teach about inspiration and preservation.

If your assumption was correct, perhaps it only rufutes your own KJV-only opinions since it would show that any translation with derived or secondary authority can still be called scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

And can you really stand up and preach from a bible that you're not 100 percent sure every word is God's word, and still have a clean conscience?

I'm really fed up with all this I believe all translations are the word of God nonsense...

Are you in effect suggesting that those who preached from the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible with their few textual differences with the KJV and with their many translational differences with the KJV did not have a clean conscience?

Do KJV-only advocates believe that all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were the word of God in English in their day even though they had hundreds and thousands of words that were different from each other or do they claim that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the word of God?

Perhaps you should be fed up with inconsistent KJV-only reasoning that depends upon fallacies and upon use of unrighteous divers measures.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh goodie! KJVO and NIVO are going to go head to head. How fun!:1_grouphug:

 

[Winman]

You have not proved that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation.

Are you merely assuming that in order to rationalize your KJV-only opinions?

Your speculation or assumption does not refute what the Scriptures teach about inspiration and preservation.

If your assumption was correct, perhaps it only rufutes your own KJV-only opinions since it would show that any translation with derived or secondary authority can still be called scripture.

I simply showed you what scholars have said. Albert Barnes said it was a Greek translation.

Heard him read the Prophet Esaias - The eunuch, it seems, was reading aloud, and apparently in Greek, for that was the common language in Egypt; and, indeed, almost in every place it was understood. And it appears that it was the Greek version of the Septuagint that he was reading, as the quotation below is from that version.

1. The chapter he was reading was the fifty-third of Isaiah, two verses of which are here quoted (Isaiah 53:7,8; Acts 8:32,33), part of the seventh and eighth verses they are set down according to the Septuagint version, which in some things differs from the original Hebrew. Grotius thinks the eunuch read it in the Hebrew, but that Luke takes the Septuagint translation, as readier to the language in which he wrote and he supposes that the eunuch had learned from the many Jews that were in Ethiopia both their religion and language. But, considering that the Septuagint version was made in Egypt, which was the next country adjoining to Ethiopia, and lay between it and Jerusalem, I rather think that translation was most familiar to him:

Now, I don't know, I wasn't there, but I have shown you that quite a few scholars believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation.

That scripture can be restated by the Holy Spirit is known and perfectly acceptable.

There are other examples, such as when Joseph spoke in Egyptian before his brothers. We are told what he said in Hebrew, which is a translation, and yet it is scripture.

Gen 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food.

12 And he said unto them, Nay, but to see the nakedness of the land ye are come.

14 And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies:

I could show you much more that Joseph said, all being an interpretation;

Gen 42:22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

We are told Joseph's exact words in Hebrew here, but Joseph spoke these words in Egyptian. This shows that a translation from the original language can be scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

I

There are other examples, such as when Joseph spoke in Egyptian before his brothers. We are told what he said in Hebrew, which is a translation, and yet it is scripture.

Gen 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food.

12 And he said unto them, Nay, but to see the nakedness of the land ye are come.

14 And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies:

I could show you much more that Joseph said, all being an interpretation;

Gen 42:22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

We are told Joseph's exact words in Hebrew here, but Joseph spoke these words in Egyptian. This shows that a translation from the original language can be scripture.

Your assumption that those examples excuse your KJV-only theory is incorrect.

The giving of the original language words by inspiration to the prophets and apostles even if those given words had originally been said in another language is all part of the original miracle of the giving of direct revelation and Scripture.

You have not actually demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that the very different matter of the translating of the Scriptures after the end of the giving of new revelation with the completion of the New Testament and thus the end of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration is the same thing as the examples to which you appeal.

Your reasoning is also inconsistent and faulty because you likely do not suggest that the translating work of the earlier pre-1611 English translators in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision or even the later translating work of the NKJV translators involved the same processes as those in the making of the KJV and had to result likewise in perfect translations.

Do your KJV-only opinions depend upon the use of unrighteous divers measures that use different measures concerning the making of the KJV than for the making of other translations of the Scriptures?

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.