Inspired Text

The autographs were God breathed, versions are not. Translators could only do the best they could in putting the Bible to English.

 

I've not ever seen a legitimate translation bear the words, "Although there are several meanings possible for many Hebrew/Greek words translated here, this text contains the INSPIRED meanings", or any similar disclaimer.

 

The way i see some people attack the
cover page, thus making the cover page
part of the inspired text; I believe the
translator notes to illustrate the meaning
of the text. That which makes the text
more understandable makes it inspired of
God and useful for our instruction.

2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB):

All Scripture is inspired by God
and is profitable for teaching, for
rebuking, for correcting, for training
in righteousness,

IMHO translator footnotes are Scripture.

To withold translator footnotes
(as many alleged KJVs do) is an afrount
to God's Holy Scripture, the Written
Words of God.

 

Agreed Brother Ed,

And, might I add, I would rather believe the testimony of the translators concerning their work, their imperfections, their reliance on other translations, etc., than the ex cathedra pronouncements of the self-appointed KJV Magesterium trying to second guess said translators 400+ years later.

HankD

 

I do not necessarily believe that the study notes(i.e., Scofield, etc..), cross references or anything that was added by man to be inspired. For instance, in John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Beside the last word trust is a u, which when I look to the reference it says i.e. hope. Though hope may be a good word to use, God's word says trust and that is what is inpsired, not hope. BTW, I have a Scofield study bible.

 

Homebound:I do not necessarily believe that the study notes(i.e., Scofield, etc..), cross references or anything that was added by man to be inspired. For instance, in John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Beside the last word trust is a u, which when I look to the reference it says i.e. hope. Though hope may be a good word to use, God's word says trust and that is what is inpsired, not hope. BTW, I have a Scofield study bible.

Is it God's word or an English translator's rendering thereof? That same Greek word,'elpizo'(from 'elpis'), here rendered "trust", is also rendered "hope" ten times in the KJV, I.E. Romans 8:24-25. Looks like translator's whim to me!

 

Dr. Bob, this whole thread exposes yet more of the great KJVO double standard. When the KJV uses a rendering such as those for 'elpizo' above, when several English renderings are possible since the context doesn't dictate any one rendering as the most correct, the KJVO attributes it to "inspiration". However, when another version does the very same thing, the KJVO often says, "That's the work of man", especially if it disagrees with the KJV rendering. Kowabunga.

 

I believe what the Bible says. I believe what God said in the Bible. If God used trust one time and then hope the next, that is God's perfect word. We are in no place to correct God's word. I do not question God's word, I believe it.

 

"yea, hath God said?"
Where does this attitude come from?
I am NOT saying any individual in particular on this board or in either camp,is devilish, per se.
What I am saying is simply this;
This attitude of questioning 'did God really say this and so? Or did He really mean that and such?', is not of God. Can't convince me otherwise. The principle of first mention applies here.
In this case, yes...I AM like that man who says..."my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts", because I do not believe your facts.
The progression goes like this.
1st) Question the words.
2nd) Allow a misquote.
3rd) Outright denial.
4th) Introduce false doctrine.
It all starts with questioning whether God said it one way or the other way.
That the AV translators were humble enough to admit they were only men and that there may be (to their minds) better renderings, is testimony to their integrity.
But this fact of history does NOT negate the possibility, no...PROBABILITY, that God superintended the work and directed them to choose the renderings as He wanted.
Do I hold to inspiration of a translation? Yes.
Do I hold to inerrant preservation? Yes.
Why? Because to do less would lead right down the "Eden Path".
Laugh or ridicule, do what you may feel "led of the Spirit" to do. Won't matter.
I do not question my Bible. Period.
I might add, that if God had wanted me to be some "grrrrreeeeeeek" scholar, I suppose He would have placed my birth and upbringing in GREECE!
Had He wanted me to be some sort of Hebrew feller, likewise I would have been born in Isreal and taught the language as a 'lil shaver'.
But God in His wisdom placed me in the not-so-good-ol-USA, speaking English. I do not NEED more than one language to understand what He said.
What I need, is more willingness to OBEY what He said rather that trying to figure out if He REALLY said it this way or that way.
Jim
On a side note;
You (generic as in a group, i.e. "you" not "ye" singular) may keep your multiple versions if you like. It does not affect me in the slightest. What I want to know is....are you in the battle with it leading souls to Jesus? Ultimately that is the question. I really don't care if you believe in a perfect Bible which you can hold in your hands or not. I DO have one. I have several copies of it. I can point a lost soul to it and say..."Thus saith the Lord." And maybe, just maybe, God the Holy Spirit will allow me to be in the "maternity ward" during yet another new birth.
Jim

 

av1611jim: "I do not question my Bible. Period."

Amen, Brother Jim -- Preach it!

Neither do i question your Bible. However, you moniker suggests you question my Bible. My Bible is the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Which is yours?

BTW, if you don't believe my HCSB is the inerrant written Word of God impeccably preserved by God for the 21st Century Englilsh speaker -- if you don't believe that, then I hold the moral high ground and will continue to operate from there.

 

um........Ed?
Did you miss the last paragraph of my post or just ignore it.
I suspect you ignored it. If that is so then you do NOT hold the "moral" high ground.
If you just missed it then go back and re-read it and then report to 'teacher'.
BTW; My Bible is the AV. THAT should be obvious. Don't go off on your tangent of 'which one'. I really do not care which one. Right now it is the one on my desk. It was published in 1901.
As I said, my question is not, do you believe your bible to be perfect, I want to know are you in the battle with it reaching the lost millions around you?
Jim

 

AV 1611, just because some of us seem to spend a lotta time on boards such as these doesn't mean that's our whole life. All we see of each other is what we post on these boards. Just as John said that if everything Jesus did was recorded, the world couldn't hold the books, the same could be said for most of us. Not trying to sound disingenious, but please keep this in mind, that we DO have lives away from these boards.

As for Bible versions, feel free to use whichever one(s) you wish. Where one crosses the line is criticizing another's choice. This is why we fight the KJVO myth so vehemently; we KNOW it's false.

 

While one side rejects the scholarship of its opponent, and dogmatically says "we know it's false"; they then disallow the SAME FREEDOM for their opponent.

How very gracious of you.
Jim

 

Ed;
Forgive me.
I neglected to acknowledge that AT THE VERY LEAST there is some point of agreement between us.
It was wrong of me to fail to note your hearty AMEN!
I appologize.
Jim

 

While one side rejects the scholarship of its opponent, and dogmatically says "we know it's false"; they then disallow the SAME FREEDOM for their opponent.
</font>[/QUOTE]Therein lies a huge difference between KJVO's and non-KJVO's. The KJVO rejects the scholarship of non-KJVO's arbitrarily. Non-KJVO's refute the "scholarship" of KJVO's.

KJVO's start with a conclusion and reject or ignore anything that contradicts that conclusion. Non-KJVO's start with the facts as presented by scripture and history then develop conclusions that are consistent with those facts.

If shown proof that what I believe is false or that KJVOnlyism is true, I will gladly change my position. KJVO's are fond of claiming that we have our minds as our final authority yet is they who cling to their extra-biblical beliefs no matter what the evidence says.

 

Genesis 3

1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Jim,

Eve’s sin was not questioning the work of the translators of the King James Version! Eve did not question any TRANSLATION of the Bible, she questioned God and the words that He actually spoke, and she did what He told her not to do. There is absolutely no comparison!

The truth is the truth no matter from whose lips it is spoken or by whose hands it is written. The exact same thing applies to falsehood. God never said that the translators of the Kings James Version were inspired, nor did God ever say that the King James translation of the Bible is an inspired work. Therefore the honest man will look at the facts and learn from them if he is to know the truth.

Many Godly men who have spent a lifetime studying the Bible have written that the translators who produced the King James translation of the Bible gave us a translation which in many places is at variance with both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. I have personally studied the New Testament for many years and I know for a fact that in some cases the translators of the King James Version made grammatical errors when translating Greek verb tenses. And I know for a fact that they made other errors. Therefore, I know, not only from the counsel of many Godly men, but from my own studies, that the King James translation of the Bible, as very good as it is, is imperfect. And I know that my God is perfect and all that He does is perfect. Therefore I know that the King James translation of the Bible is not an inspired work. Yes, some of the translators were undoubtedly helped by the Holy Spirit as they prayed and asked for His help, but they were still just as human as you and I, and they made mistakes. And neither the translators nor God made any claim to the contrary.

Perhaps in a few cases the progression has gone like that, but in other cases it has gone like this:

1st) Get saved and live like it, and then Very carefully and prayerfully:

2nd) Thoroughly learn the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages, as well as Latin, French and German, and in some cases also the Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic languages.

3rd) Study linguistics, translation theory, and master the English language.

4th) Read and re-read a multitude of times the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

5th) Consult for thousands of hours with friends and colleges who are doing the same thing.

6th) Examine and compare the best Latin, English, French, and German translations of the Biblical texts, and in some case also the ancient Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic translations of the Biblical texts.

7th) Translate the book or portions of the Bible that one has personally specialized in the study of over a period of many years.

8th) Submit the proposed translation to the committee of scholars that one is working with to produce the translation of the entire Bible.

9th) Attend very many committee meetings over a period of several years where the proposed translations of individual passages are examined, compared, and finalized.

10) Submit the completed work to the publisher.

The errors in their finished work is proof that the work is a translation made by human hands and human minds

Not when the translation committee does their work carefully and prayerfully.

You are confusing your translation of the Bible, made by human hands and human minds, with the Bible itself.

Throughout history God has preserved the knowledge of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages so that those who choose to read the Bible rather than a translation of the Bible can learn how to do so. He has also given those who choose not to do so many fine translations of the Bible in a multitude of different languages, and in the case of the English language, He has given us new and revised translations in keeping with details that He has allowed us to learn from archeology and others disciplines, and in keeping with changes in the English language.

Let’s all pray for Jim that God will help him to be more willing to OBEY what He said, and open his mind to the truths about the KJV and other translations.

Our great God, in His infinite wisdom, has given to His people a multitude of different callings. Let each of us be faithful to our individual calling.

 

I do not believe that any words in any translation of the Bible, whether in the text or in margin, are inspired in the sense that the Bible itself was inspired.