Translations- Inspired??

How do you defend the fact that the KJ translators did the EXACT same thing.

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.
If God can create the world so can man? You can not give me one reason why this is not so.
If God can pay the price for sin so can man? You can not give me one reason why this is not so.


Where does that logic come from? How about because He is perfect and man is not?

 

But when the KJV does this very same thing...

 

Wait - I get it - those were marginal notes, they are okay.

 

My personal KJBs do not have any notes whatsoever. In the back of one there is a concordance and some maps.

I used to own a Scofield, I got rid of it because of the notes.

 

The original did. Another mistake in the 1611 I suppose?

 

Okay, this thread is totally getting out of line and I am just as guilty as anybody here. Winman has derailed it with the KJVO stuff and we all took him on hook line and sinker.

Winman the subject is: "Are Translations Inspired?" Drop the KJVO stuff, because it is not the subject. If you want to open another ridiculous KJVO thread, I'll let you do it unless the other moderators shut it down.

We've been over this stuff enough and you are not going to listen to factual information anymore than a person who uses an MV is going to buy your same old arguments.

Back on are translations inspired, or I'll shut it down. This is getting ridiculous and I helped, so I take much of the responsibility for the derailing. But, I just felt someone needed to correct your theology.

Back to the subject, I think the Lord can help any translator in maybe placing a better group of words into his mind if he is in tune with the Spirit or not, because God does not want his MESSAGE corrupted. As I just listened to a professor, his statement was (I'm paraphrasing I am going on memory.) He points out errors in ALL translations.

His statement was: "God's message was inspired by the MEANING of the Words written down and also the intent of the original writers. All copies of translations since vary in accuracy to one level or another, and it depends on the accuracy of the translation as to how close that Bible is to the Inspired documents."

He also said: "Most modern translations have been worked over very hard to make them say the same MESSAGE (Words--was the same meaning in KJV days before periods, sentences, and today's grammar was added.).

So, if you have a good translation and that translation is more accurate the later it is again depending on the translation itself because it says words we understand today. Point: "What if I were to read the KJV and say that, Peter was stoned. To a group of unchristian and untrained college students. A better translation would be "Peter received a stoning."

As I say and most scholars and pastors who are educated in these matters (whether self educated or formally in the right way) they all indicate that the Ancient Texts are not an issue anymore since only about 1% and it is all repetition of something else (except for maybe handling snakes and drinking poison and what does that have to do with anything, sure we know the desciples could do miracles, not necessarily all Christians---this was proof that Jesus was from God and handling snakes is unnecessary.)

So if the texts are within 1% of full accuracy, then we come to why we translate. As the professor then said, "It is because in 2050, the generation will need a translation in their language and not in 2010 languge. This is not a "dumbing" down, it is changing to the used language (Examples: stoned, gay, etc.); then we come to the conclusion, that translations provide newer generations with newer vocabulary and wording, but God holds His MESSAGE (words--in 1611), inaccurate and without error, not the individual sentence structures that sometimes can be misunderstood or badly translated.

Another thought is that a Bible translated by a committee is usually much more accurate than a one man Bible. Professional translators are more accurate, higher level editors check it and then it is proofed by English instructors of very high level who make sure the grammar in ENGLISH is correct, accurate and consistent throughout the book.

Can God have His hand in that process: Sure. I still believe God can do anything, he just didn't tell us that translations would be inerrant in the "wording and punctuation." I think God does guide some translators a little, but obviously, like all things today, it is not your level of faith that may cause you to die of cancer. Therefore, the translators, will and have made mistakes, including those who recopied the Bishop's so that the King of England would have a monopoly on the printing and use of it.

 

I tried to answer it, but it all depends on how a person defines "inspired". The scriptures say all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Jesus was most likely reading a Greek translation of the OT in Luke 4, and the Ethiopian eunuch was most likely also reading a Greek translation of the OT in Acts 8, and in both instances the scriptures themselves called these texts scripture. Well, if they are scripture, and all scripture is given by inspiration of God, don't they have to be inspired?

I have answered you, I have shown two examples of translations in the Bible that are called scripture by scripture itself, one by the Lord Jesus himself. If all scripture is given by inspiration of God, they must be inspired. No?

 

Are translations inspired - NO!

Case closed - let's go to lunch. C4k's making green cabbage.

 

I'm game! Any of that fattening sausage in it to help me keep my ateries clogged?

 

Bingo! It really is pretty simple.

 

Nah - I'm just going for fish and chips!

 

Be careful using 'bingo'- you might be called a closet Catholic as W&H are.

 

Tha'll do too!

 

Great point, Dr. C.

Let me ask you this, I have been hoping you would jump in somewhere. Is it possible "the word" as it was translated, would be better translated in Modern English as "the message" or something even closer meaning it is the story God tells us and not the individual Wording? Would that be correct and clear up some of the problems?

Of course a strong KJVO is going to stand on "the Word" as meaning the individual Words, many also including the periods, commas and possibly verses and chapter numbering.

Just curious as to your thoughts on this? Could our translators possibly be more accurate by using what the writer originally meant when the Greek used the ancient word "word" as the "story or the message to man from God"?

I am not saying to mistranslate, but I was saying to look at the use of the word in modern language.

 

That's why I don't holler about "God forbid" in the KJV, cuz that expression best conveyed the English meaning of "me ginomai", when the KJV was made, better than the literal "may it never be", since "God forbid" is a stronger negative than "may it never(not)be".

I believe that's why the AV men used so many marginal notes. They often wrote the literal interp of a given word or phrase in these notes, & I believe later KJV editions have done their readers a disservice by omitting mosta these notes.