Featured Are there any inspired translations today?

Again, this is a strange view. I am asking if there are sources (other than you) who support this shift in thinking. It seems that you are twisting Scripture (OT and NT) to fit your view.

 

No. You have completely misunderstood my point (sorry if I was not clear).

I am saying that the Apostles (and Jesus) considered the Old Testament to be inspired Scripture even though they did not have the original autographs.

 

As do we.

 

The same question can be asked of you. You are assuming the original autographs existed in the first century.

I see no evidence that God miraculously made the original documents last centuries. Instead, it seems reasonable that Scribes made copies of the originals, which would have been lost to antiquity. We do know this because in various synagogues Jews read from Scripture (they did not congregate in the Temple library to read Scripture). Men copied Scripture. And we have to acknowledge the possibility of oral transmission for a portion of the OT text.

But like I said, the issue between you and me is what constitutes the Word of God and exactly what is inspired. Even if we had the original autographs today our arguments would be the same.

 

No, I am not arguing from silence. I am arguing from what I believe to be the proper definition of "God breathed". Jesus told the Apostles that the Spirit would bring to mind all of those things - not that the Holy Spirit would dictate the words to write. So my argument (regarding inspiration) is not from silence. That is where my argument is, not with the "original autographs". The original autographs have no bearing on my argument.

But you, friend, are arguing from silence. It has been accepted (going to textual criticism) that even in the first century there were transcription errors in the existing Scriptures (this is often taken as a proof of accuracy - that the Scribes were aware of these transcription errors and did not attempt to correct them but faithfully copied what they read). Nowhere is Jesus said to have read from the autographs. Also, we know that there were copies of Scripture in scrolls (in the synagogues). Even if the original autographs did exist it is a bit strange to assume that those were the texts from which Christ read. Your argument is on this point is one from silence.

 

I am exactly sure that we are saying the same thing. By "they" I am talking about the Scribes who were copying Scripture. Are you saying that God "moved" or "carried" the Scribes in their work in addition to inspiring the writers to initially record God's Word? If so, then how can you reconcile textual differences (when did God stop this "second" form of inspiration?

 

Yes, I am willing to "argue from silence" that Jesus did not have in HIs hands the Ten Commandments when He quoted from the stone tablets. I am also willing to "argue from silence" that Paul was not in possession of the original when he quoted Scripture. I simply do not believe that the original autographs existed during the first century. It does not make sense to me that they would.

That said, my argument itself has nothing to do with the existence of the original autographs. I believe I have pointed this out already. My argument would be the same if we knew Martin Luther had in his possession the original autographs when he translated Scripture into German. My argument would be the same if the original autographs we in an oak desk in a corner office at the SBC library in Nashville. My argument is that what is inspired is not the exact words but the Word that those words communicate and therefore inspiration transcends translation.