Translations- Inspired??

You fail to understand- God breathed out the original scriptures. He did not breathe out the KJV, the NIV, or any other translation.

On that note, I am done wresting with this pig of an argument.

 

What was Jesus reading in Nazareth in Luke?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus was reading a Greek translation of the book of Isaiah originally written in Hebrew as shown by the word Esaias in verse 17, but Jesus himself confirms it was scripture in verse 21.

So, this was a translation and a copy, not the original autographs, but Jesus called it scripture.

And calling someone a pig just shows I am getting the better of you, that was not my intent, I have tried to be civil here.

You folks who support the MVs have all these pat arguments you all parrot over and over. You are just not used to someone standing up to you and showing your arguments error.

 

Give me a break

Obviously, there were MV's in Jesus' day of the OT books. The Septuagint, possibly even Aramaic because that is probably what Jesus spoke from day to day while Greek was the official language used in the churches for formality.

You really do need to go and take a course on Hermeneutics and there is a free one on bibletraining.org that you can stream or download and listen to every single lecture. The man is not Baptist, but he sticks to the known facts concerning the Bible and its inspiration.

Since you feel you are really stomping our arguments, then take this pie in the face and give me some real answers:

1. What was the 100% perfect Bible in the English language before 1769 and I say that because of all of the changes made in 1611.

2. How do you explain the end of Revelation that was retranslated even again from the Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible.

3. Why was the Apocrypha included in the in the KJV for so many years and don't tell me it was seperated and marked as non-scripture. It was placed between the Old and New testaments with no remarks whatsoever that it was not simply part of the accepted gospel.

4. Was the Bishop's not the 100% perfect word of God? If not then the English did without for a long time.

5. Do we get an official inspired version in every language? If so, why do they not match the English in places. This can be proven by those who translate into those languages.

6. Are we going to have to live with the KJV when my grandson cannot understand it when I read it to him and a he will listen to my stories in a Modern Version and understand them? Do you think he is being corrupted if I don't read that he should handle snakes and drink poison?

7. I'm sorry Winman, but there is no evidence that God wanted a single language 100% perfectly worded Bible in English. First, it is not Biblical that England or America even exists. Compared to the countries that lasted for hundreds of years, America is quite young and I am not being unpatriotic, just factual that it might break into at least two sections where the right and left maintain different areas of land and set up their own governments, even without a war, possibly by agreement if differences in values and politics continue to seperate.

8. Can God help a translator? Absolutely, but with the errors obviously in every translation, they are definitely not 100%, no question inspired.

9. Was the Latin Vulgate the Bible of Inspiration between then and 1611 or when the Martin Luther German edition was printed, along with earlier English versions?

Finally, I say as I said above, if you ain't got the apocrypha, you ain't got the complete King James Version, the version people died over because the King set it up as THE Modern Version with a government granted monopoly, thus killing the Geneva which was brought to America by the Pilgrams on the Mayflower.

I visited a KJVO church yesterday, due to my kids and every time I visit I hear him call all MV's as coming from Satan. Isn't there something in your KJV that says it cannot be from Satan if it is telling the gospel of Jesus Christ as the Son of God? To me, that is blasphemy of a book that tells the Gospel and someone will have to answer for that statement.

This issue has confused and almost caused my daughter to leave church (all of them) because she is smart enough to know the truth and we are in a very small and limited town where there are Baptist churches I wouldn't darken the doors because of the hypocracy.

Will you take my challenge and go to biblicaltraining.org and take that class for free? ALL OF IT? Just remember he is human and may make a bad comment here and there, he's human just like the translators of the KJV who made many errors.

 

This has been answered many times. Simply to save time and space, see this article.

http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/kjv_been_revised.htm

I am not familiar with this, could you give a link that more fully explains this? I do know that the KJB translators used many sources.

Tradition, and it was soon removed which would not have happened if they considered it scripture.

They had the scriptures in the original languages that were used to translate the KJB. How could they have translated the scriptures if they did not have these texts?

I believe any translation based on and faithful to the RT would be the word of God in that language. I believe any translation based on the CT would be error. I have no problem with the scriptures being translated into any language and think they should be as long as the correct line of text is used.

So, the scriptures should be dumbed down? Are you an educator? As far as handling snakes and drinking poison, those were the signs of the apostles.

2 Cor 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

So, it is pure coincidence that just as the KJB was published that England became the world's first global super power and took the KJB and the gospel to every continent and nation, and that America did the same? How fortunate.

What a silly question, God can and does help sincere people that trust in him.

No, but there was another line of scriptures preserved by the eastern churches, this is where the RT came from. These groups and churches were persecuted by the RCC. There are many articles you can find on this subject.

Why did you go there in the first place? I will not and have never attended a church that used other than the KJB. And I was not indoctrinated to be KJB only, I came to this on my own when I was a young man first saved. I simply believed that God promised to preserve his word and that God always keeps his word, so the word of God must exist in the world today. Through prayer and study I came to believe that the KJB is the word of God in English.

As for you daughter, if she thinks that being KJB only is wrong, then she should go to the church of her choice. If she has to travel, that is unfortunate, but that is what she should do if she feels that strongly about it. I would.

We don't rant and rave about the MVs in our church, the subject only comes up very infrequently. There is another Baptist church in our town that uses modern versions, a person is free to go there if they don't agree with our doctrine.

I don't see how it would be a problem unless a person is dead set against the KJB to begin with. You folks say the KJB is the word of God, then why is it a problem? Should a church use multiple versions? How does that edify the church, how is that orderly?

 

Your reading comprehension needs work- I called your argument a pig, not you.

Here are my exact words:

"On that note, I am done wresting with this pig of an argument."

Have a lovely evening.

 

Oh, I see, my arguments are slippery like a pig? You can't get ahold of it and control it?

I remember awhile back someone called my arguments subtle, I got a good chuckle out of that one. I am a very simple fellow, I do not and have never portrayed myself as some sort of intellectual, in fact I would be sincerely insulted if you called me that.

But I can think for myself and am not fooled by the many fallacious arguments parroted over and over again by some. It would be refreshing to see an original argument from some of you.

 

Winman, I don't believe anybody is trying to say that we don't have Scripture today. We would say that the NIV is Scripture just as we would say the NASB is Scripture, the ESV is Scripture...

Your argument is against something that isn't being advocated here. What is being said is can a translation of the Scripture be inspired as the original writings were. The answer is no. You even said this earlier in this thread.

Only the original writings were God breathed(inspired). Now, if these inspired words are copied down, the words are still inspired, though the copyist was not inspired. So when Jesus calls something Scripture, He is speaking of the words that are in font of Him. Paul refers to the writings that Timothy had as Scripture. We know he didn't have any original autographs, but copies of the Scripture. These are called Scripture, yes, but the copyist were not inspired in their copying. they could make mistakes. Same thing today. Translators are not kept from error. Translations are not inspired like the original writings are. Now, can we call the KJV the inspired Scriptures? Sure, as long as we know that we are talking about derivative inspiration and not that the KJV translators were inspired in their translating.

 

You give your arguments way too much credit. Pigs are best known for stinking.

 

Exactly. :applause:

 

And I will always disagree that KJB translated from the RT texts cannot be the same as the MVs translated from the CT texts. God has specifically warned us with severe punishment not to add to, or diminish from his words. The CT has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek, it is missing dozens of verses, and complete passages. How can they both be the word of God? Either the RT added to the word of God, or the CT diminished from it.

This is a very simple argument. For people to say that the RT and CT are the same thing is ludicrous, yet that is your argument. Even a small child would not be fooled by this. But some seem to believe if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes truth.

As for the word inspired, yes, only the original prophets who God spoke to were inspired. But does God's word lose it's life and power when it is copied? No. And the scriptures bare this out, Jesus was reading a Greek copy and translation of the scriptures in Nazareth, but he declared them scripture. These words were just as "quick" and "powerful" as the original words penned by the original prophet.

If this were not so the scriptures would be dead and useless, because we do not have any of the original autographs in the world today. Not one.

And I am not so sure that translation and copies are not inspired, because the scriptures say all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It doesn't say some scriptures, it says all, 100% of scripture is given by inspiration.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jesus called those Greek texts he read in Nazareth in Luke 4 "scripture". Well, according to 2 Timothy 3:16 they must have been given by inspiration of God. Do you understand this? So, in a sense I see this inspiration carrying over into translations and copies, not just the original autographs, otherwise the translations and copies could not be called scripture. But they are called scripture here and in several other verses in the NT.

You know, I have been debating with folks here for months. The one thing you cannot overcome is that I believe by faith. I have no proof, my faith is not based on scholarship or scientific evidence. Yet, folks continually try to attack it with scholarship and scientific evidence as shown by all the questions I was asked by Phillip.

You will never understand KJB only folks until you realize that we believe solely by faith in preservation. You cannot overcome this with scholarship, try as you may. I do not understand exactly how God preserved his word without error to this day, but I firmly believe he did because he promised to do so.

But at the same time I do not believe the RT and CT can both be the preserved word of God because they do not contain the same number of words by a great degree. And it is not simply numbers they disagree on, there are many differences in the text itself, often affecting important doctrine.

Did you see Phillip's post were he seemed to mock the last 12 verses of Mark 16? I got the impression he does not believe these verses. I do not know his heart, but this is the impression I got. Look at what he said:

Now, the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are either God's word or they are not, it is that simple. If they are, they should remain in there. And if they are not they should not be there, there is no gray area here. The RT has these verses, the CT does not, both cannot be the inerrant word of God.

Just because some folks have taken these verses to an extreme does not mean they are not God's word. We should not remove them simply because we might be uncomfortable with them.

But it always comes down to faith. You can spend your lifetime studying this subject and you will just be spinning your wheels. You will never find the answer this way. Either you believe God preserved his pure word as he promised, or you don't. It's that simple.

 

I will read this later and answer it when I have more time if that is okay with you, brother? I will not avoid it just because it is a link I may or may not agree with.

It is quite well known that the translator who was head of the committee made the decision. It was only a few verses. The committee had many more manuscripts and chose to accept the minority number available, but I am not an expert on the actual history. The Biblical books that I have, written by conservative Baptist authors explain the background of the Catholic selections of King James--remember, King Henry the eighth started his own church which today is the Episcopal church in American, Anglican Church in England where they still follow the Catholic tradition of worship. The strange thing is that the evangelical Catholics in America as they are called are much less liberal than the local Episcopal, which had half its members leave when the minister admitted he was gay and half he members left (this is the Bible belt) and the Episcopal Churches of America (I believe is the correct name) actually paid the difference of loss of funds to support the church and its gay pastor. This occurred twenty years ago when I was around thirty years old here in town.

They actually had more, but used what they chose. Obviously they picked manuscript pieces that were obviously not much older than the Bible. While in reality if you will compare the Bishop's Bible, you will find that the wording is very close, but different in places. The only RT that really exists is more of a reverse engineering of the KJV English version. Look at the dates, and which particular RT are you speaking about, there are at least two. Besides, the RT only relates to the NT and the Old Testament has been kept well by well meaning Jews. Obviously, there were several versions in Jesus' day because quotes in the NT don't always match any document we can find and its called scripture. That means there were MV OT books circulating in different languages in Jesus' day?

Maybe we are getting somewhere. The NKJV used the most reliable RT that we are aware of. So, you are saying it is a good translation?

Did you see me say "Dumb down"? This is an old KJVO argument to the fact that our kids learn English 200 years later and you expect them to read a document printed in 1769?"

Don't ever say that I said to "Dumb" down the Scriptures. You have read my posts and they are clear that our language evolves and our words in 1611 are NOT the same as 200 years ago. Look at the list that was placed on all of the words that mean different things today and then tell me a six year old can REALLY understand even 10% of the KJV compared to translation printed in their language.

Haven't I said, over and over that the language changes so fast that new translations are very effective in keeping God's Word understandable to all and not just those who grew up in a King James Church where they memorized it over adn over. My background was KJV, but I try to read it to my six year old and unlike me, he cannot understand it. Do we waste our time teaching the kids what the words mean?

I have heard KJVO claiming preachers over and over say: "Now that verse means...." and he will clarify it usually with a rendering just like the NIV if not quoted from the NIV.

But, he dare not use the NIV to read, but he uses it to explain what he just read. This is more common than you think. He just doesn't want the old timers to fire him; while he compare's translations on a computer, printing out two versions for his notes.

Now I don't know, I like the way the NIV used footnotes, but the end of Mark just does not fit from a grammatical point of view as a correct ending and what is the oldest Manuscript that this is found in? If these verses are left out, do they change my theology? Absolutely not. But, if we follow it, we have people who don't understand that "yes, there were miracles, but to handle snakes or drink poison could cause people to do it and DIE today. Just like the people who have so much faith they won't take their kids to the doctor when a shot of antibiotic will save them. God gave us brains to develop those antibiotics just as he expects us to use them to study the manuscripts with scientific methods to determine the lifestyles, accuracy and dates to see if they are closer to the time of Jesus than a copy of a copy of a copy by hand for 1500 years.

Did God give us brains to be dumb?

England was a socialist, Catholic minded global super power whipped by the United States of America while England tried to sue many times for printing bootlegged copies of the KJV. The KING wanted the money and the KJV printing was OUTLAWED by England. Although they failed to stop it in the US after we declared our freedom and publishers essentially took their copyrighted material and used it. And YES I believe it STILL maintains a copyright in England on the KJV. They just don't have coverage from the rest of the world due to the 200 year old changes in political links between countries.

It was meant to be silly; because God still listens to us, but he certainly didn't promise a man with the capability of being able to translate a perfect translation. He promised to keep His word and as I said, Maybe the translation of the ancient Greek words we translate to God's Word might better be understand if translated more accurately to "Message"? Can a translator tell me if this is possible?

You ask me for specifics, WHAT eastern churches, in what country and what denomination and where do you obtain your information? Don't quote another KJVO site, I can find ANYTHING including porno on the internet if I don't know its source.

To be with my daughter. I told you it was a small town and its 90 miles to the nearest city. I'm sure I want my 22 year old daugher and her 2 year old and husband driving 90 miles on Sundays and Wednesdays. Didn't you hear me tell you there are limited churches that I would go to and none are perfect, not even yours? Yes, your church is not perfect either, so why do you go there?

From the way you talk, you would vote someone out just because they read from an NIV from the alter. Am I right? I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but your argument here is just ridiculous. I have trouble believing it based on your statements about us "MV people.":BangHead:

 

Of course.

I am not an expert either. Years ago I read many books on the subject, but I have forgotten nearly everything.

You point out something I have said before, in some instances they chose a minority reading. Sometimes this was because the minority reading was shown in the writings of early church fathers, or in very early translations in other languages. The majority texts were of course considered, but they had many other tests as well.

It is true they leaned heavily on earlier English versions. I am also aware that the RT today was derived from the KJB. Folks have asked me many times which RT they used, and I have answered those texts which they used which appears like circular reasoning, but it is known that they reached outside the Majority texts. No one knows for an absolute certainty which exact texts they used in every case.

No, I don't like the NKJV. Where it departs from the KJB it agrees with the MVS. It is not that they simply used modern words to replace archaic words whatsoever. Here is an article on that.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html

Isn't this the big complaint against the KJB? That it is difficult to read and understand? I remember reading Shakespeare in High School and it was difficult too, but I don't think anyone should write it in modern English. Should college textbooks on science or engineering be written in simple language and concepts?

My 8 year old and 11 year old read the KJB all the time. On occasion they ask what a word means, but for the most part they do not have difficulty with it.

The argument I have seen here numerous times is that a translation MUST contain error. I counter that by arguing that the scriptures themselves are a translation in many places. If God can translate the scriptures from one language to another without error, then why can't man?

I hate footnotes, they introduce doubt and you cannot convince me otherwise. When I was a boy I had an RSV with footnotes that said "better manuscripts omit these verses". And I remember exactly how it affected me, it made me wonder if those verses should be there or not. How is that helpful? We are supposed to trust the word of God by faith, how can you trust scripture when you are not sure if it is supposed to be there? So, no way can you convince me that footnotes like this are helpful, I know from personal experience they are not.

Who cares? God can use evil to bring about good. I believe the whole reformation was a movement by God to bring the word of God to the common man and take it to the nations.

Well, I don't have the time for all that. But basically we have two lines of scripture, those that originated in Antioch (RT) and those that originated in Alexandria (CT). You'll have to search this on your own, it would take volumes to explain it to you.

Well, then she should attend that local church and use the KJB while there. If she wants to study other versions at home she can. But she shouldn't go into a church and introduce division. I would not go into a church that uses an MV and insist they use the KJB.

I wouldn't vote them out unless they were causing division in the church. If they want to use a modern version they can. But if they go around in the church and try to cause division over which Bible we choose to use, that is another matter.

 

What do you do with the occasions when the KJV departs from the so-called Received Text and agrees with the readings of the modern versions?

Common sense would inform anyone of that fact and that it rests on an inferior textual basis.

I'd love to quiz them,especially on some Old Testament passages.

Well, if you had a real KJV you would have read the following in the Preface:

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin,lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversis by that show of uncertainty,should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point...t hath plased God in his divine providence,here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulties and doubtfulness,not in doctrinal points that concern salvation,but in matters of less moment...doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further,and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

I'm glad to hear you give a hearty endoresement of that mighty Calvinistic movement!

 

Wrong. Neither is perfect. both are products of men attempting to decide between the different variants. Neither are inspired

Not on topic. Nobody said that.

That's what I just said. Nobody has denied this. Did you even read what I or anybody has written?

 

I guess ignorance is bliss seeing how the KJV had marginal notes that said, "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." (Luk 17:36)

Of course proving that the KJV translators knew they were not under inspiration.

 

That is some funny stuff, right there!:laugh::laugh:

 

Winman:

Sorry, Captain, you're proving our arguments CORRECT. The more pro-KJVO stuff ya post, the more YOUR goofs show.In Luke 4:16-21, JESUS was reading aloud from a copy of Isaiah which obviously didn't match the version translated by the KJV in the Old Testament, but He called it "this Scripture", showing us that He-The Word-was NOT stuck with just one translation or edition. Obviously, JESUS' concern was with the MESSAGE, not the exact words.

As for your article about KJV revisions...having the names Gipp & Reagan upon it raises a red flag at once for Freedom Readers. Neither is exactly an unbiased nor trustworthy sourca info about Bible versions.

And call'em revisions, editions, whatever...the fact is, most currently-used KJVs are quite-different in their text from the AV1611 in wording, spelling differences aside. This fact CANNOT be truthfully denied, not to mention the fact that most current KJV editions have conveniently omitted the translators' preface & mosta their other extratextual material, including mosta the marginal notes. TODAY'S KJV is NOT yer great X20 granddaddy's AV1611!

 

Winman:

SO?

In most cases, the NKJV corrects some poor renderings in the KJV such as replacing "Easter" with "passover" in Acts 12:4, and correctly rendering 1 Tim. 6:10 as "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil". Your article is simply a biased opinion.

You mention Shakespeare, as more than one KJVO does, with such hooey as "those who wouldn't change a worda Shakespeare's don't think twice about changing the Bible". There's a BIG difference! Shakespeare's worx were frozen in time with his death, while both GOD and HIS WORD are ALIVE and in charge. GOD still superintends His word; Shakespeare is dead & His words are frozen. Shakespeare's worx are entertainment; GOD's word is our instruction manual for howta worship Him & live a life pleasing to Him. Shakespeare's words were for HIS time; GOD'S words are for ALL time.
It is GOD who causes/allows all changes in the languages; thus He keeps His word current in all the major languages. As I said earlier, I believe "influence" is a better word than "inspire" as far as how GOD causes Bible translations to be made, but the fact is, He DOES cause His word to appear in CURRENT language, which HE has caused us to use.

Winman:

Cuz GOD is perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful; man is not.

Winman:

Footnotes ofetn show the alternative and perfectly-valid rendering of a Greek or Hebrew term besides the one the translator chose for the text. And they are TRUTHFUL. Why conceal the fact that certain mss mighta omitted certain words, phrases, or sentences? They coulda been ADDED to other mss! You're placing ALL yer trust in just ONE setta translators who didn't have access to mosta the resources available now.

I say that GOD has caused ALL valid translations of His word to have been made, and that He is NOT limited to just one. Your pro-KJVO stuff is useless in the face of REALITY.

 

I believe Easter is correct. I also believe 1 Tim 6:10 is correct.

The argument about Shakespeare is an argument about dumbing down literature or even science that is complex and difficult. Should we dumb down Physics because it is complex and difficult to learn? Why not just reduce the scriptures to these children's Bibles so nobody has any difficulty reading it?

If God can translate from one language to another without error, so can man. You can not give me one reason why this is not so. Awhile back I listed an article from a translator who was at the time translating the scriptures into another language. He said if the scriptures can be understood, then they can be translated. I agree. This is simply a false argument people have invented. Yes, there are difficulties in translating I am sure, but if the scriptures can be understood, they can be translated.

Footnotes introduce doubt plain and simple. When a footnote says something like "better manuscripts omit the last twelve verses of Mark 16" this immediately casts doubt on scripture. You cannot be certain if those verses should be there or not, so how can you possibly have faith in them?

And I say God has always preserved his word pure. It cannot be in two different lines of text that differ by thousands of words, dozens of verses, and missing complete passages.

If you can believe that two texts that are so widely different are exactly the same, it is you that is not dealing with reality.