Has God preserved the original language of the Bible?

So, Winman, ya still insist on the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" which comes to us from Dr. Wilkinson's book.

Betcha cannot prove the Geneva Bible's rendering of "him" in V7 wrong. And I betcha can't prove the KJV's rendering of those 2 verses refers to the KJV, remembering GOD preserved those passages long before the Geneva or KJV were written, and before English itself existed.(Remember, the AV men changed "him" to "them" and gave an explanation in their marginal note, while the Geneva simply translated the hebrew literally.)

 

Please

The tone on this thread is starting to become argumentative. So, that the other mods/admins won't shut it down and allow for legitimate answers, let's all watch how we speak to our brother's and sister's in Christ, please.

Just a little note I wrote after reading through the entire thread.

No offense, just please keep to the subject and don't question like a lawyer might question a hostile witness.

Thank you so much, brothers and sisters.

In Christ,
Phillip

 

Then please tell us Radam, what is the alternative?? Is it that translations are inspired TOO? What do you believe?

BTW, it is not that hard to figure out how scholars know we have the language of the originals preserved for us today. There are THOUSANDS of manuscripts from different regions. When compared it is OBVIOUS what words were in the originals and what words were not.

But you need to tell us at this point what doctrine you believe. Do you believe in double inspiration? do you believe the KJV is as much the Words of God as the words Paul wrote while being moved by the Holy Ghost?

You don't get to just come up with new doctrines willy nilly that the Church has NEVER accepted in two thousand years of history and that the Bible no where teaches. You can't even find what you are purporting in the version you claim is flawless.

 

From you. You stated above that you accept that there can be printing errors and such in the Bible.

Let me try and get this straight. You contend that God divinely superintended the translators of the KJT so that they could not make one single mistake, but but did not do the same for the printers so that they could make mistakes in His perfect word?

I trust that God can preserve His word for more than just 17th century Englishmen, that's how.

However, somewhere along the line, according to your theory, the modern editions of the King James translation did add to God's word.

The 1611 edition said in 1 John 5v12 - 'Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.'

By the time of our modern editions some one added the words 'of God' to this verse - 'He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.'

Who received all the plagues of the Bible and had their name blotted out from the book of life for adding to His word? How can you trust a Bible that we can prove added to the word of God (at least according to your theories and interpretation of the passage you cited).

Small addition? Yes. But, if we accept your theory, God does not allow for any addition. He does not make allowance for a little change. Adding two words is still adding. How can that be acceptable?

 

And you claim you believe in preservation all the while claiming every translation of scripture contains error, an illogical impossibility.

If a translation must contain error as I have seen many say on this forum several times, then all of God's word is corrupted including the OT, because much of it is a translation. I hardly believe Nebuchadnezzar spoke in Hebrew. We know that Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian through a translator.

Gen 42:23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

And it is doubtful that Adam and Eve and all the people spoke Hebrew up until the tower of Babel when the world was of one language, so all the words of men in scripture would be a translation.

It is a false argument that a translation must contain error as proven by the scriptures themselves. Much of the scriptures was a translation from another language into Hebrew.

Almost all scholars agree that the Ethopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the OT, but the scriptures themselves call the texts 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.

Yet another false argument that you anti-KJBs parrot. Try coming up with something original of your own. Something legitimate.

 

Actually, TCassidy's point is proven by your post winman:

Isaiah 53

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.​

The quote in Acts 8:
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.

Do you see the dramatic and obvious differences?

It looks as if the Ethiopian eunuch had an MV translation which differed significantly from the Hebrew yet it was called "Scripture".

Do you overlook the fact that there are differing texts of the KJ Bible?

How about this, would you admit that the NKJV is the word of God though it also differs from the differing KJ Bibles such as the Oxford vs the Cambridge?

In fact there are those who call the Cambridge KJV a "counterfeit" Bible.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Others say the same for the Oxford.

So, you see its not just us "anti-KJBs parrots" but "anti-Cambridge KJBs parrots" and or "anti-Oxford KJBs parrots" as well.

Since the Cambridge KJ Bible differs from the Oxford, which parrot are you?

Just a gentle barb winman to show you how it feels to be accused of being a "anti-KJBs parrot".

Neirther TCassidy or myself are anti-kjb but just willing to acknowledge undeniable historical truth which can be verified with two eyes that either one or both has "flaws" (or whatever name you wish to give the differences) because of translation.


HankD

 

Yes, I know the verses are not word for word the same, and I also realize that the apostles did not always quote OT verses word for word in the NT. My answer for that is that the Holy Spirit has complete freedom to restate himself anytime He chooses.

Though the text the Ethopian euncuch read was different than the Hebrew account, it is just as much inspired and the Word of God as when Isaiah wrote.

 

Agreed, what of the differences between the varying KJB publications?

Can we go from there to the KJB differences and the NKJV?

The NIV?

HankD

 

So you agree that GOD was not limited in how he could present his word in the "original" languages, and is not so limited now?

Do ya agree that many of the goofs or errors in English translations are simply alternative but correct renderings in English of certain Hebrew or Greek words/phrases that have multiple English meanings?

 

That is not my problem with versions based on the Critical text.

The Critical text has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek than the Received text. They cannot both be the word of God. Either the RT added words, or the CT diminished words. This is not a minor difference, it is a MAJOR difference.


But I think any translation should be as literal and word for word as possible, only adding words when necessary to make the verse intelligable.

 

Winman, you'd better take this back. See, I agree with you You and I agreeing on something could be a sign of the return of Christ in Revelation.

Dr. Cassidy, you're too much! :applause:

 

Ah, you fall back on the old 'number of words' ploy. There's a reason for that- A compound word in one Greek text is sometimes rendered as two words in another. Kind of like our English usage of "does not" and "doesn't" or "bookshelf" and "book shelf". Of course that does not count for all of the difference, but there are legitimate reasons for some of them.

And the correct spelling of the bolded word is 'intelligible'.

 

Give me a break, it's not a ploy. Entire verses and passages are missing from the Critical text. If anybody is using an old ploy, it is you.

 

There are, by my rough count, 34 verses "missing" from the CT in comparison to the TR.

Here's a list of the "important" differences:

http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/important.htm

I have no problem admitting there are differences. And I have no problem believing that in spite of those differences, my ESV is just as much the Word of God as the NIV or the KJV. God promised to preserve his Words and they are.

 

This is a "horse of a different color" winman.

While what you say is a true statement, how do you know that those "missing" verses from the CT are not verses which were "added" to the TR?


HankD

 

Nearly every verse in the KJV and the more modern versions have added words as necessary for understandable communication.

KJV and the MV's are arm&arm on this one!

 

Yes, Winman -- how do you know?