Final written authority?

I thought I answered the OP.

When you say one final written authority, does this mean God has to provide a text in that langauge? We didn't have the scriptures in English until it was translated, it would work the same for all nations.

I believe the text used for the KJB should be the text used. [off topic]

 

This is the same argument people use when they ask where the scriptures were before the KJB. The scriptures were in those texts from which the KJB was translated. It is the same now for Japan. A translation could be made from the Scrivener's TR into any language, as long as it is accurate it would be the preserved Word of God in that langauge.

[off topic]

[false statement veiling a personal attack deleted] If he preserved it, it has to be somewhere. I believe it was preserved in the texts used to translate the KJB, and is therefore preserved in English today. God was not so hung up on languages as some here are, even you must admit he used at least three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to write his scriptures. So why couldn't God preserve his word in English?

 

Hi C4K,

I think I would probably tell them that the final authority is the Word of God, that I speak English, and that the Word of God does not change even if translated into their native tongue.

Great Question,
J5Grand

 

OK, I will try to expand on my previous answer, in my opinion these texts are :

The Hebrew Masora represented by ben Chayyim.
The New Testament Traditional Text represented by Scrivener's Edition.

The KJ Translators gave the scriptural reason:

IMO, it is not enough to answer with the names of the texts themslelves but to make the addendum that they must have the marks of inspiration being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.


The native tongue of the one who is ministering is of no consequence.

The resultant translation cannot be perfect unless the one who is ministering is a prophet or an apostolic spokesman with the authority and actuality of being "guided" by the Holy Spirit.

Some ecclesiastic bodies claim this authorirty, to be accepted or not is at the disgression (soul liberty) of the seeker and the consequences thereof.

1) No.
2) Only if they claim that they have another.
3) Yes, at their disgression.

No.

HankD

 

I basically agree with Hank except for this:

I do not agree with this, if those translators are expert in the language being translated into and are faithful to the texts I believe a perfect and pure translation can be arrived at.

[off topic]

 

The fact that inaccurate copies of scripture exist does not negate the fact that accurate copies exist. [personal snipe deleted]

I would say an English speaking missionary should teach and practice from the KJB and have it accurately translated into that language.

 

If a person believes that the KJB is the pure and preserved Word of God in English (which I do), then you must believe the preserved and pure Word of God existed before that. The fact it was not compiled into one single book does not negate the fact that it existed.

[off topic]

 

Boy, you never run out of questions do you? :laugh:

Well, he must either speak English or have a translator. Still, he should use scriptures based on the RT.

[off topic]

 

If accurate scriptures were not available he should rely on preaching.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

I understand, and indeed I was using the word from the redefined venue you mention.

However it was by convenience to those here who use in it the way in which you speak since presumably this thread seems focused upon them.

My own use is the same as you have defined it.

So, in those terms yes, one can have a perfect translation which can be held in one's hands, one which will accomplish in terms of spiritual growth what God has intended for the children of God.


HankD