Where is the Bible?

[Harold Garvey]

Well, I have many Bibles... One is here beside my computer.. plus many on my computer...

but the place where I like it the most:

My Heart! I have hidden God's word in my heart.. and it will never be taken away.

Are those "bibles" inspired? According to some, if they are a translation they have lost inspiration.

I believe you understood my question, it's just you are dodging it.

 

[Johnv]

Are those "bibles" inspired? According to some, if they are a translation they have lost inspiration.

Who are these "some" you keep referring to on this board? You're the only person claiming that translations aren't inspired.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Hi there Harold, I hope I can add something new to this conversation, but I rather doubt it.

I believe that the original autographs were the inspired, God-breathed, perfect Word of God. At this time in history we do not know where those original autographs are or if they have survived. They may be out there somewhere waiting to be discovered, or they may have been forever lost.

OK, but how is it you believe something to be perfect when you have nothing to hold in your hand? faith? Might I add to your faith that we have the inspired word of God today and you can hold it in your hands?

The history buff in me would love to see some or all of the original autographs discovered, that would be one of the greatest finds of all time and would be very exciting. However, my pragmatic side knows that it doesn't really matter because of the remarkable number of Greek manuscripts that we have along with a huge number of manuscript fragments and quotes from the early Church Fathers. We can use those to know, with a very high degree of accuracy, just what the originals said.

But wouldn't it matter if the originals were found to be somewhat different than many of the MSS/ "fragments"?

To answer your question directly, it is in those manuscripts, fragments and quotes that we have the perfect Word of God. There may be debate about which family of manuscripts better represents the originals ( I believe it is the Majority Text that was used by the entire Church for the first 1900 years of it's history and others here believe it is the Minority Text that is found in the oldest complete manuscripts), but every word that God inspired IS preserved in those manuscripts.

So then I would have to conclude by your estimation that God's "breathing" is bottled up in translations?

I have a preference for the Authorized Version (King James Version) because I believe it is the best translation of the manuscripts that I believe are accurate copies of the originals. However, I am under no illusion that the AV is perfect, inspired or anything of the sort. The AV does contain errors in translation (as does any translation). Those errors don't impact doctrine, but they are still errors.

Um, I can't agree with you 100%

If you have an AV sitting in front of you and you are thinking that it is without any error whatsoever, you are simply wrong. A translation, any translation can't be the "preserved Word of God" by it's very nature. A translation is a new thing, 17th Century English didn't exist in the First Century, so anything written in 17th Century English can't preserve something written in First Century Greek. This is a logic issue, not a theology issue.

OK, so how is it you know this as truth? You say this can't be done. How is it you know what the Greek says in your English comprehension then?

I just applied "logic" to your words and cannot see it your way, logically even.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Thermodynamics, I think you are bang on, mate. Imagine how many would worship the original manuscripts if they were found. We do have sufficient information scrutinized and passed on through time to rest assured that we have the word of God before us in the various translations.

I too accept the KJV as the best copy in the English language and continue to use my 1945 copy of the Cambridge version. A lot of corrections and updates mind you, but it is my study Bible and preaching Bible.

Cheers,

Jim

Why does anyone "HAVE" to worship the material when our God is not material, but Spirit?

Can't the self-same Spirit maintain inspiration in a translation, especially since God has not died?:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

It is nice to have someone on here agree with me for once, I am used to getting pounced on by both sides for everything I say. Thank you Jim.

By the way, have you ever posted pictures of your 1945 Cambridge? I'd love to see how one of the old (should I say classic) well made Cambridge Bibles has held up after 64 years of use.

I have never "pounced" on you or anyone else, hope you're not referring to me.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Hi Harold. I understand your question and sympathize with you. I would like suggest to you that part of the answer is to begin thinking of the 'Bible' in a different way than you have become accustom to thinking of it. It seems that your 'Bible' is an ideal you have in your mind. You ask: "... If we no longer have the inspired word of God?" I ask: When did "we" get an inspired Bible? In the 2nd century? Maybe the 7th? By the 11th? 18th?

No thanks. the Bible came by inspiration from God as men interpreted what the Spirit said.

I'm just not into this dislocation of my brain from my mind sort of thingy.

First, you should remember that the 'Bible' (66 books, as we know it) could not exist until possibly the late 3rd century. That means that Enoch did not have the 'Bible'; Job did not have a 'Bible'; Abraham did not have the 'Bible'; etc. In fact, Timothy did not have the entire 'Bible' that we have. Sure, the Hebrew canon was complete about the time of Christ but even most Jews (especially women) did not have access to ALL of it. The apostolic Greek writings were finished by the end of the 1st century but were geographically scattered; so, incomplete collections of Christian writings eventually began circulating. Then the NT canon becomes recognized by believers. Complete 'Bibles' were rare and not commonly produced (for practical reasons) until into the 12/13th century (even then, usually in several volumes). Those 'Bibles' had been written in Latin and common folks could NOT read it even if they saw one; AND those 'Bibles' would have had the unacceptable apocryphal verses included. Large manuscripts (even 'Bible' ones) always contained transcription errors. It was only after the advances of Gutenburg that 'Bibles' really became available for the first time. What all this means is that: Many millions of believers never even had a chance to read the so-called 'Bible'.

Um, I cannot agree with you on this one. Once the Spirit began to speak the Bible, or only the part thereof, began to exist.

The form of the 'Bible' you speak of is less than 500 years young. I think a viable theory would need consistant answers to these questions: Did God deprive those ancient believers of something vital? Did God inspire all those incomplete copies? Did God also inspire those with errors? Did God inspire those with apocryphal material mixed in? Since there are no Scriptures to identify a particular inspired translation, how could a perfect 'Bible' be recognized at any particular point in time but never before (or again since), and at any particular place but not anywhere else?

As I stated previously, once the Spirit began to speak/breath/move upon men's hearts the Bible began.

Second, Thermodynamics explanation of the manuscripts evidence is quite adequate. I think we find that the recorded words of God, like God's physical creation (our Universe), were originally given in a perfect form but sin has had adverse affects upon them. Only by God's sustaining power could the written texts still be so remarkably preserved.

Facts are stubborn things. Thinking that something is perfect (or inspired) will not make it so.

OK, when did God become inable to preserve inspiration of His word?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Great post, Thermo. Well written and to the point. I also agree with your statements.

I have the bible... several copies of different translations. My wife owns a few, as well. Each and every one of them is inspired in that the original was inspired, but none of them (nor any other translation in existence) is inspired in and of itself. God inspired the original authors, not the scribes who copied or the translators who translated the writings into other languages.

Inspired, is inspired, isn't inspired?

After all, why should He have to redo what He has already done? Was not His original inspiration enough? Must have to re-breathe His word each time someone pens a translation? Or did He just do it in 1611? NO, God did His inspiring at the source, and that inspiration continues to live on in His words... no matter what language or translation it is in.

Um, wasn't His creation perfect and did God "redo" it? And then why is God going to redo it?

I asked where is the Bible and when it lost inspiration. The remarks I see all leave God to some sort of disadvantage. This is done by secular, idyllic and humanistic reasonings. You cannot dictate to God. He is able to do exceedingly abundant above all we ask or think. He said so. His word is inspired in that He said it was so.:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

Are those "bibles" inspired? According to some, if they are a translation they have lost inspiration.

Who are these "some" you keep referring to on this board? You're the only person claiming that translations aren't inspired.

OK, when did God become inable to preserve inspiration of His word?

Are you implying that God promised to preserve a specific original manuscript? If so, where does God promise this?

 

[Harold Garvey]

We all know it's a rhetorical question, because you believe that only one translations qualifies as a valid bible.

How is it you know something I "know" that I don't know for myself?

[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
In none of the threads in which you have posted has anyone said no version is inspired. Actually, it's you who claim that no version, save one, is inspired.

Show me the quote, sir, or are you going to continue to espouse this lie of yours?

I have read a few times where some in here claim no translation is inpired and I am too lazy to do your homework for you.:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Who are these "some" you keep referring to on this board? You're the only person claiming that translations aren't inspired.

Are you implying that God promised to preserve a specific original manuscript? If so, where does God promise this?

Idyllic secular and humanistic reasoning hampers faith and you will forver be at the mercy of them until you learn to live by faith.:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

I am too lazy...:sleep:

Finally, after hundreds of posts, an accurate statement from Harold Garvey.

 

[Harold Garvey]

OK, Johnv I felt sorry for you and helped you do your research:http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1460022&postcount=193

 

[Johnv]

OK, Johnv I felt sorry for you and helped you do your research:http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1460022&postcount=193

What, exactly, is it with the statement that you take issue with? Is it your assertion that translations are inspired in the same manner as the source text from which they came?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Finally, after hundreds of posts, an accurate statement from Harold Garvey.

If you're going to quote me please include all my words. I don't speak in morse code (...) But I do see often how you dishonestly represent what people have said, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[Harold Garvey]

What, exactly, is it with the statement that you take issue with?

If "no translation is inspired" then when man first began to hear God speak and then translated it into human vernacular, according to the post, immediately the word of God became totally uninspired.:type:

 

[Johnv]

If "no translation is inspired" then when man first began to hear God speak and then translated it into human vernacular, according to the post, immediately the word of God became totally uninspired.:type:

Is it your position, therefore, that translations are inspired?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Is it your position, therefore, that translations are inspired?

I believe the eternal Godhead has eternal breathing capabilities. Do you?

 

[Johnv]

I believe the eternal Godhead has eternal breathing capabilities. Do you?

The question wasn't if it is your position that God can inspire. The question was if it is your position that translations are inspired?

 

[DHK]

As far as i know, no one is idolizing any book.

Your words deserve the analytical conclusion to be that God only breathed during the time of the past and hasn't continued breathing or even breathed in 2000 + years.

Where is this ever elusive "Bible" no one has which is the only inspired word of God?

Where is your Bible, and how can you be sure it is the right one?

What do you know about the Peshitta, the Itala, and even Jerome's Vulgate?
Were or are they the Word of God? Are they inspired? Why or why not?
The Peshitta and Itala are both second and third century translations of the Bible, some of the oldest Bibles that we have access to today. However, they are still translations.

Inspiration took place only once. God used the prophets and the apostles to pen the words that he told them to write. The fact that we don't have those manuscripts today is irrelevant. He inspired those documents, from those apostles, at one time, in one place in history. They were not inspired over and over and over again. They were inspired once and only once. It was the original copies that were inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit, God using the prophets and the apostles as his writers.

He did not inspire the copyists that copied them for the first few centuries.
He did not inspire any of the translators that translated them into the many different languages. BTW, that includes the translation of the Septuagint, the first translation of the OT into Greek. It is not an inspired book. It is simply a translation of the Hebrew OT. No translation is inspired. Only the originals are, and can be, inspired.

He did not inspire the KJV translators. They are not "the holy men of God," referred to in 2Pet.1:21. If so, please demonstrate how Peter could have been speaking of the KJV translators. Inspiration only took place once. It was applicable only to the prophets and the apostles.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If you lived in India and only spoke Hindi would you be askng the same question: "Where is your Bible?"
If you lived in China and only spoke Mandarin (the language that is spoken by more people than any other language in the world), would you still ask the same question: "Where is your Bible?" If God were to justly inspire any one translation, out of his justice he must give the world a Mandarin Bible, not an English Bible, because more people in the world speak Mandarin than English. English only ranks second as the most popular language spoken. I guess that puts you in a minority

However God chose to preserve his word. He preserves it in Hebrew and Greek MSS. I have no problem saying that we have the Word of God today. I have no problem lifting up my Bible and telling my people that this is the Word of God. It is a translation. Translations are not inspired. Translations have mistakes; they lose meaning from one translation (Greek) to another. (There is no such thing as a unicorn for example). But His Word is preserved. It is preserved so accurately that one might say it is as if it were inspired.

 

[Trotter]

If "no translation is inspired" then when man first began to hear God speak and then translated it into human vernacular, according to the post, immediately the word of God became totally uninspired.

You have completely missed the boat, Harold.

The ispiration is in God's words, not a book in your hand. Every translation contains God's inspiration, but none of them are a second work of inspiration.

How is that so hard to understand?