-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
I'd have to say their hearts were more in tune with God, and NOT bent on debating what the Word of God says, but in agreement, much unlike what I see here.
My "scenario" was a satiracle view towards the debate, now it somehow has become an inflaming remark, Oh, Well, So much for the BB gang.
My "scenario" was a satiracle view towards the debate, now it somehow has become an inflaming remark, Oh, Well, So much for the BB gang.
Indications are that they did debate... and even after the final draft one of the translators accused Archbishop Bancroft of making 14 changes to the text that never went through committee.
As far as their hearts are concerned, we can only look at what they believed (false, romish doctrines) and what they practiced/condoned their contemporaries to practice (persecution of Baptists and Separatists).
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Hi Everyone;
I just have a couple of questions and these are;
If we do not have a Bible that is true and accurate how can we assume that Salvation is of Christ? Maybe it's of someone else. How can we place our trust in any doctrine that maybe interpreted from scripture if the words we read aren't genuine ?
This has been my main concern since I realized that not all Bibles are a like. Yet we keep printing more and more with more and more changes. Even revise the ones that have already been printed. We have so many english translations that we no longer know what the originals said. LOL How is it that we can put a man on the moon and be so ignorant that we can't produce a Bible that is accurate. This IMHO is what happens when we allow greedy men to take over the translation of those scriptures.
I haven't read every post on this thread but the ones I have, I find amusing. A person who holds the KJV up as the only one he goes by, is ridculed and considered ignorant and uninformed.
When IMHO I feel that he is at least 400 years ahead of the ones who don't. If we believe all the selling dialog that has been given to sell the newer versions then we have no one to blame but our selves for our confussion.
I came to the light because I loved the light and I wanted to see clearly.
May God Bless You;
Mike
I just have a couple of questions and these are;
If we do not have a Bible that is true and accurate how can we assume that Salvation is of Christ? Maybe it's of someone else. How can we place our trust in any doctrine that maybe interpreted from scripture if the words we read aren't genuine ?
This has been my main concern since I realized that not all Bibles are a like. Yet we keep printing more and more with more and more changes. Even revise the ones that have already been printed. We have so many english translations that we no longer know what the originals said. LOL How is it that we can put a man on the moon and be so ignorant that we can't produce a Bible that is accurate. This IMHO is what happens when we allow greedy men to take over the translation of those scriptures.
I haven't read every post on this thread but the ones I have, I find amusing. A person who holds the KJV up as the only one he goes by, is ridculed and considered ignorant and uninformed.
When IMHO I feel that he is at least 400 years ahead of the ones who don't. If we believe all the selling dialog that has been given to sell the newer versions then we have no one to blame but our selves for our confussion.
I came to the light because I loved the light and I wanted to see clearly.
May God Bless You;
Mike
No, the person is only confronted when he/she tell everyone else that that the KJV is the only correct English Bible.
I have Williams Tyndales 1535 NT and a facimile copy of the AV1611 and have the Geneva 1599 on my computer, so I know what the original English Bibles say. And MV's are accurate and we have them because English has changed over the centuries.
Archangel7
New Member
I don't see where this is a problem, since every English Bible version I've read tells us that salvation is of Christ.
OH MY! Have you ever heard of the "wicked Bible"?
This was the name given to the 1631 Edition of the KJ Bible which contained a printer error.
They left the word "not" out of Exodus 20:14
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
http://www.didyouknow.cd/Bible/errors.htm
Hopefully no one took your advice.
HankD
ILUVLIGHT: Yet we keep printing more and more with more and more changes. Even revise the ones that have already been printed.
This has been done in English for centuries. Myles Coverdale had his hand in at least three versions, and for years he worked at the peril of his life. There are more made now for the simple reasons that it's a lot easier to print them, more people have access to the Scriptural mss or their replicas, and there are simply a lot more people, period.
No two of these English versions are alike, and as baptists we 100% believe that God preserved His word as He said. But does anyone have the right to hold up a certain Bible version and say, "THIS is the ONLY valid BV in English"? Not according to Scripture itself and the history of the Bible in English. Plainly, all the evidence shows God has preserved and provided His word for us AS HE CHOSE, not limited whatsoever ny the notions and false doctrines of men.
Can you show us any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for Onlyism?
This has been done in English for centuries. Myles Coverdale had his hand in at least three versions, and for years he worked at the peril of his life. There are more made now for the simple reasons that it's a lot easier to print them, more people have access to the Scriptural mss or their replicas, and there are simply a lot more people, period.
No two of these English versions are alike, and as baptists we 100% believe that God preserved His word as He said. But does anyone have the right to hold up a certain Bible version and say, "THIS is the ONLY valid BV in English"? Not according to Scripture itself and the history of the Bible in English. Plainly, all the evidence shows God has preserved and provided His word for us AS HE CHOSE, not limited whatsoever ny the notions and false doctrines of men.
Can you show us any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for Onlyism?
God's word is preserved for the english speaking people and you can put your whole trust in EVERY WORD, misprinted or not, in it and claim that you hold the very word of God in your hands with the KJV.
Then, why did you have so much problem believing "place" in Luke 4?
Then, why did you have so much problem believing "place" in Luke 4?
Will J. Kinney
Member
Michelle---I know that God Almighty himself is faithful and true and keeps his promise, and when he tells us repeatedly in his word of truth that man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD, then I will with all my heart and strength believe it, share it, and live it and stand for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------As will I. Scott---What I won't do is say things He didn't say, like "the KJV is "EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD". God never inspired the Bible directly into English words. It is just that simple.
I hope maybe my response to Will might help you. But in the mean time, replace "WORD" with "SAYING" in the above quote and it will help you arrive at a valid interpretation.
Scott, you are a General Message, Probably Close Enuf type of guy. All your round about talk about words equals general message stuff is faulty, in my way of seeing things.
I listed a concrete example of Matthew 6:13. These words are found only one time in the whole Bible and they are purportedly spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they Scripture or not?
Secondly, you seem to be of the opinion that a translation cannot be the inspired words of God. Where did you ever get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible itself. Probably at some seminary where they stole your faith and money.
Consider this article. Can a Translation be the Inspired words of God?
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
As for Matthew 6:13. Are the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" part of the inspired words of God or not?
Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."
Are these last words of the doxology uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ part of the inspired Scripture or not? A good friend of mine, Marty Shue, has written a brief rebuttal to James White's contention that these words are not inspired by the Spirit of God. The evidence for their authenticity is simply overwhelming. Please read Marty's article here:
http://www.avdefense.com/matt6-13.html
All English Bible versions that were translated from the Greek texts contained these words up until the Westcott-Hort Greek text was adopted in 1881 by the Revised Version. Since then among the versions that omit these words are the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, and the new ISV. The NASB has these words in the text, but it places them in brackets indicating "words probably not in the original writings".
All earlier English Bibles translated from Greek texts contained these words.
Tyndale 1525 "And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever. Amen."
Coverdale 1535 "For thyne is the kyngdome, and the power, and the glorye for euer. Amen."
Bishop's Bible 1568 "For thyne is the kyngdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer. Amen."
Geneva Bible 1587 " for thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glorie for euer. Amen."
King James Bible 1611, Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833 translation, Young's, NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the 1987 Amplified Version: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
There are currently two new bible versions starting to come out on the market. For the most part these two follow the Westcott-Hort texts like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV do. However they are beginning to reintroduce many of the readings found in the texts that underlie the King James Bible. One of these is the ISV or International Standard Version, and the other is the 2001 Holman Christian Standard Version. The ISV continues to omit the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen", but the Holman version has now put them back in the New Testament.
There is also a new version being produced today called The Complete Jewish Bible. So far they only have the first 5 books of the Old Testament and the gospels translated, but it is of interest to see they have included these words in their text. It reads: "And do not lead us into hard testing, but keep us safe from the Evil One. For kingship, power and glory are yours forever. Amen."
In 2002 another modern version called The Message came out which puts these words back in the text, but it is so paraphrased that it is almost unrecognizable. The Message says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."
As for the foreign language versions, I knew the words of this doxology are found in the Spanish Reina Valera versions used throughout the Spanish speaking world in Mexico, Central and South America, and Spain. It says: "Y no nos metas en tentación, mas líbranos del mal: porque tuyo es el reino, y el poder, y la gloria, por todos los siglos. Amén". This is just like the King James rendering.
There is a site on the internet where you can access foreign language Bibles and I was amazed to see how many of these I could make out what they say contain the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." I even found some I had never heard of before. Among the foreign language Bibles that contain these words of our Lord are: the Albanian, Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, German Luther, Modern Greek, Gypsy (Rhomanese N.T.), Haitian Creole Bible, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian Diodati, Korean, Latvian, Maori, Norwegian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Shuar, Swahili, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and the Vietnamese Bibles.
Does your Bible contain these inspired words spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ?
Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
Will Kinney
------------------------------------------------------------------------As will I. Scott---What I won't do is say things He didn't say, like "the KJV is "EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD". God never inspired the Bible directly into English words. It is just that simple.
I hope maybe my response to Will might help you. But in the mean time, replace "WORD" with "SAYING" in the above quote and it will help you arrive at a valid interpretation.
Scott, you are a General Message, Probably Close Enuf type of guy. All your round about talk about words equals general message stuff is faulty, in my way of seeing things.
I listed a concrete example of Matthew 6:13. These words are found only one time in the whole Bible and they are purportedly spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they Scripture or not?
Secondly, you seem to be of the opinion that a translation cannot be the inspired words of God. Where did you ever get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible itself. Probably at some seminary where they stole your faith and money.
Consider this article. Can a Translation be the Inspired words of God?
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
As for Matthew 6:13. Are the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" part of the inspired words of God or not?
Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."
Are these last words of the doxology uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ part of the inspired Scripture or not? A good friend of mine, Marty Shue, has written a brief rebuttal to James White's contention that these words are not inspired by the Spirit of God. The evidence for their authenticity is simply overwhelming. Please read Marty's article here:
http://www.avdefense.com/matt6-13.html
All English Bible versions that were translated from the Greek texts contained these words up until the Westcott-Hort Greek text was adopted in 1881 by the Revised Version. Since then among the versions that omit these words are the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, and the new ISV. The NASB has these words in the text, but it places them in brackets indicating "words probably not in the original writings".
All earlier English Bibles translated from Greek texts contained these words.
Tyndale 1525 "And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever. Amen."
Coverdale 1535 "For thyne is the kyngdome, and the power, and the glorye for euer. Amen."
Bishop's Bible 1568 "For thyne is the kyngdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer. Amen."
Geneva Bible 1587 " for thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glorie for euer. Amen."
King James Bible 1611, Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833 translation, Young's, NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the 1987 Amplified Version: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
There are currently two new bible versions starting to come out on the market. For the most part these two follow the Westcott-Hort texts like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV do. However they are beginning to reintroduce many of the readings found in the texts that underlie the King James Bible. One of these is the ISV or International Standard Version, and the other is the 2001 Holman Christian Standard Version. The ISV continues to omit the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen", but the Holman version has now put them back in the New Testament.
There is also a new version being produced today called The Complete Jewish Bible. So far they only have the first 5 books of the Old Testament and the gospels translated, but it is of interest to see they have included these words in their text. It reads: "And do not lead us into hard testing, but keep us safe from the Evil One. For kingship, power and glory are yours forever. Amen."
In 2002 another modern version called The Message came out which puts these words back in the text, but it is so paraphrased that it is almost unrecognizable. The Message says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."
As for the foreign language versions, I knew the words of this doxology are found in the Spanish Reina Valera versions used throughout the Spanish speaking world in Mexico, Central and South America, and Spain. It says: "Y no nos metas en tentación, mas líbranos del mal: porque tuyo es el reino, y el poder, y la gloria, por todos los siglos. Amén". This is just like the King James rendering.
There is a site on the internet where you can access foreign language Bibles and I was amazed to see how many of these I could make out what they say contain the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." I even found some I had never heard of before. Among the foreign language Bibles that contain these words of our Lord are: the Albanian, Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, German Luther, Modern Greek, Gypsy (Rhomanese N.T.), Haitian Creole Bible, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian Diodati, Korean, Latvian, Maori, Norwegian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Shuar, Swahili, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and the Vietnamese Bibles.
Does your Bible contain these inspired words spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ?
Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
Will Kinney
Which demonstrates nothing but your pride and vanity. I didn't say anything about "General Message" nor "Probably Close Enuf". Those are your words not mine. I have told you before and will tell you again. I believe in the Specific Message and Definitely Alike Enuf.
From the Bible. God uniquely chose about 40 men to be writers of scripture. They were specially qualified being Apostles, prophets, and holy men of old. With the death of John, there ceased to be men scripturally qualified to receive direct inspiration of scripture.
Further, the KJV translators, not to mention Erasmus, were most decidedly NOT qualified to receive direct inspiration. They held false doctrines and were representatives of an official state church that persecuted true believers.
Well... Yes, it certainly does.
Never been to seminary... never been to vetenary school either... but I do know which is the smelly end of a horse...
My faith was never stolen... in fact, it has been greatly enhanced since I ceased to be KJVO... once again, I know which is the smelly end of the horse by the evidence.
If one asks the question "can evolution be true?" The answer must actually be "yes". If creation were untrue then something like evolution would have to be true. So it exists however minutely within the cosmos of possibility... but fact and scripture mitigate so strongly against it that someone must favor a bias outside of these two realms in order to believe it.
The same is true of your question. Can a translation be inspired? Sure, it lies within the cosmos of possibilities... but it is many times less possible than evolution. The facts of history and scripture weigh strongly against it.
Once again, an argument you make or cite is based on faulty premises and contains gross, apparently intentional, mischaracterizations of what non-KJVO's believe.
The KJV itself seems to be of a divided opinion on the matter. See Luke 11:4.
Whether original or not, no doctrine is changed or effected in any respect. A Bible is therefore not false if it contains them nor false if it doesn't.
Now you aren't going to employ a double standard again are you? If you contend that MV's that do not contain them are therefore corrupt then how do you avoid the obvious implication that Luke 11 in the KJV must likewise be corrupt? Since they are "purportedly" the words of Jesus, wouldn't it be a significant error that Luke doesn't contain them?
This is just one demonstration of how you are constantly caught in your own snares. I asked on one of the first pages if you were willing to apply the rules you use uniformly- well, are you?
Will J. Kinney
Member
As for Matthew 6:13. Are the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" part of the inspired words of God or not?
------------------------------------------------------------------------The KJV itself seems to be of a divided opinion on the matter. See Luke 11:4.
Whether original or not, no doctrine is changed or effected in any respect. A Bible is therefore not false if it contains them nor false if it doesn't.
Now you aren't going to employ a double standard again are you? If you contend that MV's that do not contain them are therefore corrupt then how do you avoid the obvious implication that Luke 11 in the KJV must likewise be corrupt? Since they are "purportedly" the words of Jesus, wouldn't it be a significant error that Luke doesn't contain them?
This is just one demonstration of how you are constantly caught in your own snares. I asked on one of the first pages if you were willing to apply the rules you use uniformly- well, are you?
Scott, I really have to wonder if you read the article by Marty Shue dealing with this. Luke 11:2-4 was spoken by the Lord Jesus ON A DIFFERENT OCCASION, AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
In addition to this, the KJB as well as the Majority of all texts read; "When ye pray say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation: BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."
ALL the capitalized words are omitted by your nasb, niv, rsv. Here in just three verses among your "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, and C, no two are alike in 32 of the 45 words found here.
As for your allegation that a translation can be inspired is equal to the chances of evolution, remotely possible, I will go ahead and post the article. Let others decide which argument is biblical and which is man made.
Can a Translation be Inspired?
I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?
Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.
It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.
So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.
A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.
God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.
Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.
In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.
If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.
Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.
" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.
It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".
So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.
Will Kinney
------------------------------------------------------------------------The KJV itself seems to be of a divided opinion on the matter. See Luke 11:4.
Whether original or not, no doctrine is changed or effected in any respect. A Bible is therefore not false if it contains them nor false if it doesn't.
Now you aren't going to employ a double standard again are you? If you contend that MV's that do not contain them are therefore corrupt then how do you avoid the obvious implication that Luke 11 in the KJV must likewise be corrupt? Since they are "purportedly" the words of Jesus, wouldn't it be a significant error that Luke doesn't contain them?
This is just one demonstration of how you are constantly caught in your own snares. I asked on one of the first pages if you were willing to apply the rules you use uniformly- well, are you?
Scott, I really have to wonder if you read the article by Marty Shue dealing with this. Luke 11:2-4 was spoken by the Lord Jesus ON A DIFFERENT OCCASION, AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
In addition to this, the KJB as well as the Majority of all texts read; "When ye pray say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation: BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."
ALL the capitalized words are omitted by your nasb, niv, rsv. Here in just three verses among your "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, and C, no two are alike in 32 of the 45 words found here.
As for your allegation that a translation can be inspired is equal to the chances of evolution, remotely possible, I will go ahead and post the article. Let others decide which argument is biblical and which is man made.
Can a Translation be Inspired?
I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?
Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.
It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.
So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.
A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.
God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.
Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.
In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.
If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.
Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.
" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.
It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".
So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.
Will Kinney
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I beleive in the inspired translation.
The MESSAGE by Peterson is the inerrant
divine written Word of God inspired:
the mark of the preserved written Word
of God kept intact for this generation.
Matthew 6:13 (The Message)
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauth!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Will, This is what I have been trying to say to you for a long time. A translation doesn't have to be word-for-word literal/identical into another language or even within a language. The important thing is that they preserve the substance... and MV's do this. You have yet to demonstrate that truth or doctrine has been lost.
BTW, your documentation would be credible in an effort to convince people of the superiority of the KJV or its text. But when you make the quantum leap from "best" to "only", you lose it.
Will, I am not only a professing Christian, I am a Christian and I can say with conviction that no translation can be inspired apart from derived inspiration which depends upon the faithfulness of the translation to the original language MSS. It doesn't matter what language was being spoken, the Koine Greek is the codified Word of God as it came from the pen of Luke (for instance) who was moved by the Holy Spirit. The KJV translators were neither prophets nor Apostles or "holy men of old" moved by the Holy Spirit, they were working from MSS which disagreed with one another and put alternative readings of such in the margins for the reader's disgression.
If you insist that a translation can be inspired prove to me that the Latin Vulgate is/was not inspired, forget the fact that it contains the heretical Apocrypha because so did the 1611 AV.
HankD
[ March 15, 2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Hi Everyone;
I apreciate your replies.
May God Bless You all
Mike
I apreciate your replies.
The KJV has been around a lot longer than the NIV or NASB. In the last 50 years we have been over run with men making claims about the newer versions they Can't back up. What do you expect. Yes the KJV has been revised several times but it takes time to approach perfection for man. I'm sure there are just as many mistakes in the newer versions as there are in the older. I'm not what you might call a KJV only because I use other versions. The problem is you must trust one version more than another.
Yes it has so has greek and the miss translation of all versions has happened because of the fact they use dictionaries to determine the meaning of each word. Dictionaries didn't exist until around 800 AD. When people spoke in the days of Christ each word had to mean it's root meaning. Nothing more. Plain and simple oh No! LOL
I think that the problem is, if there isn't acuracy then we may as well throw it all out. I have over 25 copies of the Bible and everyone different in some way. They do not all say the same thing, they just have Similarities. Yes most do say that Salvation is of Christ and yes this is important, but what about all the other information that is necessary for your faith?
Yes it can even be translated by someone like me these days. That is if I had a greedy notion to want to make a buck off of God's word. These guys who have, sure aren't hurting for cash. Please don't tell me it's a blessing. All we have is confusion no one knows what is real anymore.Every version different means confusion there is no unity In what we believe God said. Now they come out with gender neutral come on give me a break we sure wouldn't want to upset all those Homo's out there. Guess the next one will praise them as gods next.
May God Bless You all
Mike