Has God preserved the original language of the Bible?

C4K brings up an interesting point. According to the Chicago Statement
(read it here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html ) Article X,

THE Word was the original text, now seemingly long lost. All we have are manuscripts and translations, whether in the original languages or in alternative languages, but we still have the Word of God because scholars down through the ages have worked hard and even given their lives in the pursuit of "faithfully represent[ing] the original."

One thought comes to mind. Can we not trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Word in such a way as to speak God's truth into our hearts whether in the TR, RT, KJV, NASB, or the Message? I know of two different couples who were saved out of Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Society) by reading their horrid translation. Even in that expunged version, there is yet enough Christ to allow the Spirit of God to draw the reader to Himself if they only will read.

I also recall the early days of my church activity, when I was required (before I grasped the concept that I "got to!" memorize Bible passages on a weekly basis. We, like most people in the 1960s, used the KJV. If ONE WORD was memorized incorrectly, some form of discipline would be administered, for we had violated the Scriptures by mis-handling the very Word of God. As I grew older -- ran from that church into atheism -- and then later was drawn back to a true regenerated Christian walk, I learned much more about the Scriptures, including the fact that they were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and that multiple different translations existed, all of which SAID THE SAME THING, but used, at times, different words. Gee... Imagine that. And, isn't that precisely what we are spending many words discussing back and forth here? :BangHead:

 

I don't have a problem with that statement, Amy. As long as it doesn't induce this extrabiblical idea of "double inspiration" and as long as it doesn't make people think the King James, for example, must be flawless.

Because technically, if it came directly from God, the version that is, it would of necessity be totally flawless. You do understand that no translation is, don't you? Neither does it have to be. It can be accurate- that is enough.

 

GLFredrick, you appear to have a very good handle on God's word. God is well able to preserve/present His own word in any form HE jolly well chooses. Too often, there's too much emphasis placed upon whether or not some ms/version/translation is God's EXACT WORDS. I believe His MESSAGES are what's more important. God can use any number or assortment or words to convey His messages, as we see in the differing narrations of the same events in the Four Gospels.

 

I beleive the purpose of inspired originals was to provide a contextual framework of self-definition. That preservation of the scriptures was not to keep the scriptures from minor scribal errors or translation errors but to maintain that inspired pattern of contextual self-definition. Hence, I believe that copies of Hebrew Old Testaments and and Greek New Testament and translations are the very Word of God.

The most liberal Biblical critics admit that over 99% of the original text is not in question. This is an amazing feat of preservation by God in comparison with other ancient literature.

What a contextual pattern of self-definition provides regardless of copies or translations is the ability to compare scriptures with scriptures in order to determine exactly what that less than 1% questionable text should read where there is alternative readings among the copies. No matter what the translation, it provides a basis to self-define words by contextual definition by comparing scripture with scripture.

For example, the term baptizo is a disputed term in regard to its meaning. Regardless of the translation the term is placed in an overall context that precisely demands what it should mean. Even if you apply Romans 6:4-5 to a metaphorical baptism it still conveys contextually the idea of mode wherein a burial occurs.

I believe we have the Word of God rather than simply something that contains the Word of God. I believe that the design of inspiration was to provide a pattern of self-defining context and preserveration was designed to keep that self-defining contextual pattern from being destroyed in copying or translating. Hence, the only thing for you to do is the study to show yourself approved by comparing scripture with scripture. That is true with the Greek and Hebrew texts as well as with translations. Obviously, knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek copies makes it easier as you bypass the minor translation errors.

 

So you believe it to be the word of God, and to be authoritative, but that it contains errors?

 

By definition a contextual pattern of self-definition ultimately denies errors when scripture is interpeted and defined by scriptures. When it is not, then erroneous interpretations and accusations are the result. This is no way denies the need for Textual criticism in order to determine the source materials that elminate excessive amount of work in comparing scripture with scripture in order to reach a contextual based conclusion.

However, take any copy or translation and let the immediate and overall context be your guide with the Holy Spirit and the truth will be the ultimate product.

 

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
Mark Twain

Good post above Dr. W.

 

You said the bible contains scribal errors, yet you also believe it to be the word of God, if I understood you correctly. I've never figured out how someone can believe that.

 

The copyist errors and translation errors are acknowledged only by consulting and comparing other copies. However, within the framework of that particular copy when such terms or lack of such terms are interpreted by the immediate context and overall context allowing the overall pattern of context to define itself then all errors are resolved within the copy or translation as it is a self-defining pattern of context. Where the textual critic is comparing copies and alternative readings are available, then, adherence to the overal contextual pattern again resolves the difficulty. All I am saying is what the scriptures themselves say and that is we are to compare scripture with scripture and allow the overal and immediate context define and interpret any difficutly.

 

Because it is actually true versus theoretically true...

IF we had the original autographs, we would find them perfect. Every other copy has issues... Every one.

That sounds horrid and like we cannot trust the veracity of Scripture. That is not true. We can and we do trust precisely because God is at work preserving His Word, just as He says that He will. We have lost no essential word, doctrine, or tenet of Scripture due to transmission errors, and in additon, God has elected and called out men (and women!) who He has gifted with the ability to study that Word at an ultra-high-level in various languages (true gift of tongues?). They have compared in meticulous fashion the various texts, fragments, codexes, manuscripts, quotations, etc., that are extant and discovered through the work those who have searched for and discovered these treasure troves of information down through the ages.

We have almost complete reliability in the Word that we have handed down to us (in excess of 99%) which is remarkable seeing that we do not have in our possession the original "perfect" texts, demonstrating that God has indeed preserved His Word. This is verified through new discoveries and on-going investigation and important finds in the field.

FYI, one exciting new find is the discovery that one of the oldest manuscripts extant has had leafs rediscovered in the cover bindings of other newer manuscripts. The old paper has been reused, and the ability to find the old under the new adds a great and interesting chapter to biblical textual study.

http://bible.org/article/search-biblical-manuscripts-city-library-kozani
http://www.greek-language.com/greek.manuscripts.gateway/

 

Then God hasn't preserved the bible.

 

Forgive me for my bluntness, but are you calling Him a liar? Or are you trying to force Him into your Bibliology?

 

I'm saying that if God allowed scribal errors to creep into the word of God, then His words are no longer pure. That isn't my bibliology, I didn't write that passage. But I believe it. How about you?

 

First of all, it is a verifiable fact that the manuscripts we have today have scribal errors. To deny this is to be ignorant of the facts.

Secondly, the Bible does not contain any errors. Only copies that copyist made contain errors.This does not mean that the Bible isn't preserved. I believe we have every single word preserved for us today. Why do I believe this? Because God said it. He didn't say that copyist would be kept from making copying errors. He didn't say that translators would be kept from error. He just said that every word was pure and would be preserved.

 

I used to struggle with this too. The reason for me is that I had not ever thought it through far enough.

The BIBLE is the 66 canonized books of the Old and New Testaments. These were the books of God, human in penmanship- divine in Authorship.

God has preserved every word of them in the superabundance of manuscripts available to us. No other ancient document can boast of such proof and preservation.

The Word of God is NOT the translation of the BIBLE. It is- a translation of the BIBLE. That's why we call it a BIBLE translation.

The translation is not inspired. The brilliant scholars who labored reverentially over the translation of the Word of God into the Authorized Version were not carried along by the Holy Ghost like the authors of the Word of God were.

Therefore, the translation is not the Word of God. It can have errors, unlike the original autographs because the translation is NOT INSPIRED. To make inspiration reach to the translation is to teach an extrabiblical doctrine. This is a slippery slope into heresy.

 

If God's preservation is perfect, without any error, where is it?

Every edition and every printing of every translation have some differences. Some are minor, some more substantial, but no two editions of any translation are identical. Typists still make mistakes. I can show you typographical mistakes in most of my Bibles.

If God preserves his word in the way you insist, would He not preserve it from copyists, typesetters, typists, and printers.

My favourite example is 1 John 5v12. Check that out in a modern KJV and the original 1611 edition. In which does God preserve His word perfectly.

I trust God to preserve His word despite human mistakes in translating and printing it for me.

 

Then what are you reading?

 

Ah, so you ARE trying to force God to fit your Bibliology.

When I was in Bible College we used to call that "putting God in a box".

Yes, I do believe His Words are pure and preserved- in the original mss, just as He promised. And as far as those have been translated without malice aforethought, we have the very Word of God.

Who are we, as imperfect beings, to dictate to God how He should keep His Word? "Ok, God- since there are a multitude of languages, translations and manuscripts and none of them say the EXACT same thing (remember- things that are different are not the same), then you broke Your promise."

How silly!!

 

As I have said, the originals were perfect. The most liberal textual critics assert that only about 1% of the original text stands in any kind of doubt. Among the thousands of materials there is no question we have preserved even that 1%.

However, as I have said, the value of inspired perfect originals and divine preservation was not that they would keep copyist from making minor scribal errors or that it would keep translators from making errors in translation. The value is that it would provide a sustained pattern of contextual self-definition that by merely comparing scripture with scripture and allowing the immediate and overal context define and interpret the intended truth will always be apparent.

If you are a Greek or Hebrew scholar but have but only one copy of the Hebrew Old Testament and one copy of the Greek New Testament you may study it and compare scripture with scripture in order to rightly define and interpret any passage of scripture and arrive at the truth designed by that particular verse. Here is the point. Divine preservation and the pattern of contextual self-definition does not allow any error that is significant so that it affects or changes any essential truth. However, the Holy Spirit has made abundant copies available to the scholar and by comparing copies the variants provide the solution to whatever minor problems the careful scholar may encounter.

We would not even know about textual variants if we did not have a number of copies that had variant readings. However, the textual critic need only study the passage where the variant occurs within the framework of the immediate and overall context in order to determine which variant fits that contextual pattern.

The same is true with any translation of the scripture. There is a contextul self-defining pattern that is transferred from one language to another. In translating the translator encounters the same terms over and over again and has to provide some kind of equivilent meaning in the language it is being translated into. Take for example the KJV. The translators would often translate a single term by a variety of English terms because that term had a variety of nuances. In doing that the KJV translation was only further enriched to provide variants in the King James English that in turn enriched the self-defining contextual pattern. By comparing scripture with scripture the variants provide only a richer source of materials for the Holy Spirit to aide the student in defining any particular passage.

Don't we tell our students to interpret a word, phrase or passage by its immediate context and overall context??? Isn't the basic Biblical hermeneutic to compare scriptures with scriptures in order to allow the scriptures to interpret themselves under the leadership of the Holy Spirit? That is precisely what the pattern of self-defining context is all about and that is what inspiration has provided and divine providence has perserved but it takes work, rightly dividing the Word of truth by comparing scripture with scripture to exegete the truth.

 

Let me ask you a question. You say that most scholars believe only 1% of the original text stands in doubt. How do they know this? Have they ever seen the originals? If not, how do they know what the originals said and how much of it has been preserved beyond doubt?

This is the problem with the modern view held by many: they say that the originals were perfect. Lot of good that does us today since they are long gone and nobody alive today has ever seen an original. Nobody alive today has any idea what the originals contained. All we have today are copies. We have copies in the languages the scriptures were originally written in and we have copies translated into other languages. So, if the originals only are perfect, then we have a bunch of copies that contain errors and we are hopelessly without the ability to know exactly what the originals said. In other words, we don't have a perfectly preserved copy of scripture. There is no way around that.