Featured Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?

Correct! But we can TRUST GOD to have given us His word exactly as HE chose for us to have it!

 

Perhaps you could share where God has given us His abdolutely perfect word with no errors of any kind. For example, is 1 John 5.12 perfect in the 1611 or 1769 edition of the KJV? One is wrong. Which is it? Did God or did God not inspire those two little words 'of God' in that verse? Which is the EXACT word of God and which is a pretty close rendering?

 

Where does the Bible say "yes" that a translation made after the end of the giving of revelation in the Scriptures or after the completion of the New Testament and thus after the end of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God can be inspired?

Does Will Kinney arrogantly presume to speak directly for God by putting the answer "yes" in His mouth?

 

Of course, that a translation made after the end of the giving of the reveled Scriptures by inspiration of God can be inspired is a completely different question than the one Mr. Kinney addressed at the link.

Mr. Kinney is quite keen; the first thing a debater desires is that the question is worded in his favor. Will Kinney likes to formulate a question so that he can easily knock it down, especially one that every one already knows the answer to (consequently he will appear to be 'right'), and/or a question that nobody is really asking. Another tactic to watch for is his equivocation (shifting or redefining the meaning of words to suit his purposes).

It is sad that so many Christians do not think critically enough to recognize the traps he sets and thus they get sucked into a false feeling that he has the answers they desperately want.

 

Yes, what is being referred to in this context of a 'translations debate' forum is men translating the original inspired words. We are not referring to a work of the Holy Spirit 'translating' from one language into an inspired written account.

But can we really know that the Holy Spirit actually translated words from a spoken foreign language into a written biblical language? I don't think we would describe as 'translation' what the Holy Spirit did on Pentecost (multiple foreigners heard the Gospel in their own tongue simultaneously). Each person was receiving a first-hand account of the Gospel; it seems it was not processed and output as a repeat presentation. The Holy Spirit knows all human languages. Does He 'think' in only one at a time? Couldn't the Holy Spirit have simply inspired the biblical writers to pen the ancient words He chose without going through a process of 'translation' occurring? I think He could. That would make Mr. Kinney's entire article surperfluous.

 

First, I'd like you to show me any kind of attack because I asked a question (foretold in my little satire on another thread)

No, there is no perfect translation without error.

Now it is your turn. Where has God preserved his PERFECT words without any mistakes of any sort? Is it the 1611 or the 1769 edition? Which one can I trust COMPLETELY? If I am going to trust an inspired translation it must be perfectly perfect.

Here's your chance. Sort me out. Tell me which edition doesn't have a single mistake of any kind so I can know which EXACT ONE God inspired.

 

So I really can't find a perfectly inspired translation? I have to accept that no matter what God could not give me a perfect translation, only 99.9% pure.

If I am looking for a perfect translation is mostly perfect really good enough? Why would God allow his name to be left out of the perfect 1611 translation in 1 John 5.12?


Plus, how can I trust your authority to tell me which edition to trust?

 

You nailed it. Since none of us can be totally certain that we have a 100% perfectly inspired and totally preserved Bible translation (or edition) in every single word we pray and trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Which is just what I do when I read my NKJV.

 

Out of curiosity Jordan, do you think believers interpretations of scripture are inspired?

Rob

 

no, for the ONLY perfect text ever recorded down were the originals!

Good news is that we just need the bible to be infallible in all it states, NOT perfect in all its states

 

Just two quick examples (with "them" and "word") indicating the weakness of an argument presented in a post above.

Note the word "them" in verse 31 (I have included the three preceding verses for context) of 2 Samuel 22:28-31 [KJV] --

And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down.
For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness.
For by thee I have run through a troop: by my God have I leaped over a wall.
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. ​

To what or whom does "them" in verse 31 refer to? Certainly, it is not "buckler". The next nearest noun is "word" or more completely the word of the Lord. But 'a buckler to all the word of the Lord that trust in him' does not make any sense. Therefore, the next nearest noun is not necessarily the correct antecedent. A possible antecedent may be "the afflicted people" back in verse 28.

Note again the word "them" in verse 5 (I have supplied the verse before and after to show the context) of Proverbs 30:4-6 [KJV] --

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. ​

To what or whom does "them" refer to? Obviously, it is not "shield". The next closest noun is "word" or more specifically every word of God. But 'a shield unto every word of God that put their trust in him' does not make good sense here. Again, the next nearest noun is not necessarily the correct antecedent. Proverbs are brief, and I find no clear antecedent in the immediate context. In this case, I think an antecedent must be supplied by the reader.