The "Originals"

[RaptureReady]

Everyone talks about the "Originals." My question is, were the originals perfect, without flaw? Were they inspired, infallible, inerrant, the perfect word of God?

I say yes. What say ye?

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Everyone talks about the "Originals." My question is, were the originals perfect, without flaw? Were they inspired, infallible, inerrant, the perfect word of God?

I say yes. What say ye?

Yeah, verily, and God hath chosen to preserve His Word for English speaking peoples in various translations today, not only the KJV1611. Of course the actual Originals no longer exist, probably so some won't worship them, as some seem to worship a particular translation today, even though it's Original no longer exist either.

 

[LarryN]

I say "Yes, the original autographs of Scripture were inerrant & perfect".


Now, someone like Peter Ruckman would say that they were not, but required "correction" during the translation of the KJV.

 

[Scott J]

Yes. And the reason they were is a compelling proof against KJVOnlyism. The were perfect in message and wording because they were a direct act of God's creative power. Copies and translations are a result of God's providence.

A parallel is creation. God made everything perfect. Man's sin corrupted what God had made perfect... but Romans 1 tells us that nature reveals enough of His eternal power and Godhead that even those who only have nature's witness are without excuse.

Nature is not pristine like when God created but by His providence it is perfect to the degree that it reflects not only that original perfection but also the Creator.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
Everyone talks about the "Originals." My question is, were the originals perfect, without flaw? Were they inspired, infallible, inerrant, the perfect word of God?

I say yes. What say ye?

Yeah, verily, and God hath chosen to preserve His Word for English speaking peoples in various translations today, not only the KJV1611. Of course the actual Originals no longer exist, probably so some won't worship them, as some seem to worship a particular translation today, even though it's Original no longer exist either. </font>[/QUOTE]An excellent point: the original Autographs of God's Word aren't known to exist.


But then neither are the original manuscripts of the KJV Translation Committee known to exist either. Some/Many believe they were lost (burned up) during the great London fire of 1666.


When differences exist between versions of the KJV (and they have from 1st publication)- what is the standard of reference to resolve those differences, without the original translation manuscripts being around to compare with?

 

[RaptureReady]

Thanks for the replies. Here's a thought, if there were only one original, why must we have 200+ translations?

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Thanks for the replies. Here's a thought, if there were only one original, why must we have 200+ translations?

God inspired the original Autographs. The Word itself makes that clear.

God did not/does not inspire *translations* of those original Autographs. Such an idea cannot be found in Scripture, and in fact opposes Scripture, since all translations have identifiable flaws. When any of these flawed translations are deemed to be inerrant/perfect, such a claim invalidates Scripture's clear statement that God inspired the original writers. Extremists such as Peter Ruckman explain this problem away by making the claim that when differences exist between the KJV & the originals (and he acknowledges that such differences exist), that the KJV "corrects" the original Autographs! (Apparently, God was having some "off-days" when He inspired the originals!)

Since man-made errors will exist in any translation, and since changes in words & the meanings of words occur over time, the necessity of new translations exists. Although you mention 200+ translations, to most Christians we're talking about the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, and perhaps a few others. No fundamental doctrines are challenged or omitted in any of the widely accepted versions used by fundamentalist or evangelical Christians, contrary to what the fanaticism of some would have us to believe.

 

[HankD]

Here's a thought, if there were only one original, why must we have 200+ translations?

Because of the "Great Commission".

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

[robycop3]

I agree, Homebound, yes, they were. I don't know exactly how God communicated with His writers, by audio waves, telepathy, or what. But they wrote exactly what He wanted written, IN A LANGUAGE IN WHICH EACH OF THEM WAS PROFICIENT.

Homebound:Thanks for the replies. Here's a thought, if there were only one original, why must we have 200+ translations?

First, because of the changes over time within the language. Second, because of the discoveries of more Scriptural mss over time. Third, because of the opinions and beliefs of various translators.

Which leads me to ask: We know God has preserved His word & provided it in English for hundreds of years. As time passed, new Bibles in English were made to replace older ones. Each one is different from any other. Are all the old valid Bibles still valid? After all, each is different from any other.

 

[RaptureReady]

Yes but just because they have found older mss does not make them correct. If God can preserve his word perfectly in the originals, why not a translation?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
... were the originals perfect, without flaw?

If we are to presume that a translation which came from the originals is perfect and without flaw, then one MUST presume that the source text is perfect and without flaw.

Were they inspired, infallible, inerrant, the perfect word of God?

If one presumes that a translation which came from the originals is inspired, infallible, and inerrant, then the source text must be likewise.

I myself don't consider any TEXT to be infallible or inerrant. I do, however, consider the MESSAGE contained in the text to be all those things. There's a difference between the Word of God, and written text. Too many people confuse the two. A translation from source texts must endeavor to keep the MESSAGE of the source texts intact as perfectly as possible. Due to linguistic variations between Greek/Hebrew and English, there are many translations that do it well, but none that do it perfectly.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
If God can preserve his word perfectly in the originals, why not a translation?

Because of variances between languages. One example is the word "love". We have only one word while Greek has several, each for a distinct and separate kind of love. Yet most English translations use only one word: love. In some cases, the word "charity" is used for "agape", but the meaning of the two words is dramatically different.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by LarryN:
God inspired the original Autographs. The Word itself makes that clear.

Show me just one verse where it says so. Such an idea cannot be found in Scripture!

God did not/does not inspire *translations* of those original Autographs. Such an idea cannot be found in Scripture, and in fact opposes Scripture, since all translations have identifiable flaws.

2 Timothy 3:15-16
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Is the "scripture" in verse 15 the same as the "scripture" in verse 16? Unless Timothy was raised with a complete set of autographs, then the "inspired" scriptures "given" in 16 are copies/translations.

When any of these flawed translations are deemed to be inerrant/perfect, such a claim invalidates Scripture's clear statement that God inspired the original writers.

Take it up with the Apostle Paul. The statement is invalidated because it is not stated in scripture at all! You (YE) have it backwards. The only way we can possibly know if the autograph was inspired is by the fruit of the scriptures copied from them. Otherwise everything Paul, Peter, Luke, Moses, etc wrote would be considered scripture.

Extremists such as Peter Ruckman explain this problem away by making the claim that when differences exist between the KJV & the originals (and he acknowledges that such differences exist), that the KJV "corrects" the original Autographs! (Apparently, God was having some "off-days" when He inspired the originals!)

Peter Ruckman says alot of things but he NEVER said that! He says that the English KJV (translation) can correct the existing Greek translations. He says that there is no such animal as an extant original autograph, and he is absolutely correct. Are you sure you know what an "autograph" is?

Since man-made errors will exist in any translation, and since changes in words & the meanings of words occur over time, the necessity of new translations exists.

But God . . .

Jeremiah 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Because of variances between languages. One example is the word "love". We have only one word while Greek has several, each for a distinct and separate kind of love. Yet most English translations use only one word: love. In some cases, the word "charity" is used for "agape", but the meaning of the two words is dramatically different.

Herb Evans blew that up years ago. I hope you will read this because you are dead wrong about "agape" and "phileo".

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/agape.html

 

[Daniel David]

It is impossible for one language to perfectly represent another.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Herb Evans blew that up years ago. I hope you will read this because you are dead wrong about "agape" and "phileo".

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/agape.html

That's not very convincing Lacy. You and Herb Evans (whoever he is) against a virtual army of Koine Greek scholars. Oh, and you nor Herb addressed the fact that God used two words and not one.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Scott J:
That's not very convincing Lacy. You and Herb Evans (whoever he is) against a virtual army of Koine Greek scholars. Oh, and you nor Herb addressed the fact that God used two words and not one.

God has been using Love (one word) pretty effectively since about 1380 (Wycliffe) in spite of the "army of scholars".

Lacy

PS Did you read the arguments made by Herb Evans? Here is a quote

AGAPE or PHILEO Thou Me?

"Jesus saith to Simon Peter. . . lovest (AGAPAO) thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (PHILEO) thee...He saith to him again the second time . . . lovest (AGAPAO) thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thoughtless that I love (PHILEO) thee. . . He saith unto him the THIRD time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (PHILEO) thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the THIRD time, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (PHILEO) thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." — John 21:15-17
Self styled Greek expositors go bonkers with this passage, seeking to get something out of the passage that is not there, while they miss the main point that Peter was asked this question three times because he denied his Lord three times. Their idea, however, is that Jesus was asking Peter, with the higher Greek word (AGAPAO), if he loved Him deeply and intimately. Supposing that Jesus thought Peter fudged by using the lower Greek love word (PHILEO), Jesus repeated the question three times to Peter.
But Bible correctors have missed something. . .

It says that Jesus said to Peter the "THIRD TIME, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me?" Now, poor ignorant Bible believers understand this to mean that the first and second time were the same as the third time. Either the Greek matching words are in error or it doesn't make a hill of beans worth a difference which Greek words, "AGAPAO" or "PHILEO," are used in either place. Selah!

 

[rsr]

Lacy Evans said:

Peter Ruckman says alot of things but he NEVER said that! He says that the English KJV (translation) can correct the existing Greek translations.

From Ruckman:

"We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew." (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

"We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)" (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. xii).

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
It is impossible for one language to perfectly represent another.

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

God represented one language (Hebrew) perfectly many many times with another language (Greek) in the autographs.

Do you think Moses' conversations with the Pharaoh (recorded in "perfect" Hebrew autographs) was in Hebrew or Egyptian?

It is impossible to move a mountain . . . without a mustard seed of faith.

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by rsr:
Lacy Evans said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Peter Ruckman says alot of things but he NEVER said that! He says that the English KJV (translation) can correct the existing Greek translations.

From Ruckman:

"We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew." (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

"We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)" (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. xii).

</font>[/QUOTE]Hey RSR! Thanks for the assist!