Are translations inspired?

Dr. Bob has a poll going on the Polls section of the BB with the following statement as a possible choice:

Personally, I no longer refer to translations, even good ones, as inspired. The original documents were God-breathed ("inspired") but man makes translations and there is not a single translation that is perfect, without a single error or misleading reading. We in fundamentalism have been calling our translations inspired for years and now we have a group that takes that idea literaly. We are paying the price for being loose in our terminology.

Having said that, let me back peddle just a bit and say that I don't have a problem with holding up a solid, conservative, faithful translation and calling it the "Word of God" because it is a faithful representative of that Word. But when we are using theological terminology, I think it behooves us to be more precise.

Just my thoughts.

Andy

 

aefting, just one question, are you saved?

 

I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at that one! :D

Yes! How about you?

 

OK, I'm saved, been saved for 40 years.

Translations technically are not "inspired".
For that to be so, the translators would have to have been instruments of the Holy Spirit as being "moved" and their words "God-breathed". I don't see that in the Scriptures applying to translations. Well, only to the NT Greek translations of the OT.

Case in point The New World Translation.

However, I could call a faithful translation "inspired" qualified with "by derivation" from the inspired text (or copy thereof).

"a faithful translation" being both a matter of faith and subjective, of course.

My opinion, of course.

HankD

 

Homebound,

Why would you ask aefting if he is saved or not based on what he posted.

Surely you are not implying that if someone does not hold to the KJV only position that means that their salvation is in doubt, or are you?

 

You still run into the conundrum you were trying to avoid by not using the word "inspired." To be consistent, you must qualify your use of "the Word of God." It is not the Word of God if there are errors, as God cannot err. It is a substantially accurate (depending on the version really) translation of the Word of God. There might be some people who think you actually and literally mean that it is "the Word of God," so don't forget to qualify any reference to the Word of God, such as in the following:

"This book that I hold up is a translation of the Word of God with errors and misleading readings, and was originally inspired but due to man's influence it is no longer inerrant or inspired." We wouldn't want anyone to get confused.

Jason

 

Translations are not inspired. Translations are just that: Translations.

They are translations of manuscripts that are copies of inspired texts. Some translations are more accurate than others, but, due to variances in linguistic verbage, there is no perfect translation, nor is there any one translations that is authoritative over any other translation.

 

I told you I was back peddling.

To me, though, there is a distinction. "Inspiration" really only applies to the autographs. Human translators were not inerrantly "moved" by the Holy Spirit as they performed their work. It is simply incorrect to say that a translation is God-breathed. Just to state the obvious, a translation translates God-breathed Scripture. God did not breathe out any English words.

The "Word of God", however, can apply to a faithful translation. I think we even have Scriptural warrant for calling a translation God's Word (Acts 19:20, most likely referring to the use of the LXX; there are other similar passages).

Andy

 

I disagree.Lets look at Moses' and Pharoah's conversation;it was in Egyptian,but in every Hebrew manuscript,it is in Hebrew.

II Timothy 3:16 is NOT a reference to any original document;Paul was refering to a Bible that Timothy read(II Timothy 3:15).The originals were never in book form for one second.So yes,a translation can be inspired.

 

The Book of Exodus was breathed out by God in Hebrew, not Egyptian.

It is a reference to a process, not a translation. Notice that Paul says that "Scripture" was God-breathed; he didn't say the LXX was God-breathed. I think that's an important distinction.

Now, I would call the LXX Scripture but not inspired. Maybe that's a distinction w/o a difference, but I don't think so.

Andy

 

But Moses and Pharoah spoke Egyptian.

No it is not;Paul was making reference to the Scripture Timothy had read.How can it be a process?? Splain..

 

I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at that one! :D

Yes! How about you? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I am, thanks for asking. The reason I asked you is, I sometimes have a hard time understanding how a person can be saved and deny God's word. This is just a question that I have and if you can answer, please do.

 

n why not? if KJBOs do that all the time ...

:rolleyes:

 

Didn't you see my answer, I said, "Yes!"

Where exactly was it that I denied God's word? You should be able to point to something explicit in God's Word that I have denied.

Andy

 

Here you have denied God's word to be perfect, without a single error and misleading reading.

 

People such as yourself do this all the time. Do you question your own salvation simply because you deny God's word??

No one here has denied God's word. Please do not make such assertions.

 

God preserved His inspired Word in apographs.

 

You know, I think everyone should agree with that statment. Wow!

Andy