Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Inerrancy...Is the Holy Bible inspired?

Expand Messages
  • brandplucked
    ... believe God providentially and *PURPOSELY* preserved various ... evidence to show ... passed on ... WHICH words ... Only 2% of all NT texts (about 400
    Message 1 of 12 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Five major variants exist for John 1:18-



      > >> So across the entire breadth of 5,366 greek manuscripts,
      > >> every single word in the original manuscripts is preserved. I
      believe God providentially and *PURPOSELY* preserved various
      > manuscripts of the NT so that we'd have a legit amount of
      evidence to show
      > the lack of corruption of the message in the Word of God being
      passed on
      > from 2000 years ago to today.
      >
      > Text critics
      > >> make it their job to try to find out (by differing methods)
      WHICH words
      > > are
      > >> more probable to be the original words of scripture.


      Only 2% of all NT texts (about 400 words) are in question as to
      what the
      > >> exact wording of the original reading was.

      These are just a few of the statements in your posts.

      These points raise several questions to my mind.

      The more I compare the different bible versions, the more I see
      they contradict each other - in hundreds of verses. (no
      exaggeration)

      So, Kerry, I was wondering, 1. which versions do you personally
      consider to be "reliable"? Just name a few or even one if you
      wish.

      2. Do we have an inspired, infallible Bible today, or just best
      guess approximations, which disagree with each other?

      In His grace,

      Will
    • Nikolai
      Will, ... Any examples? (from the mainstream versions that is, there are out there to be sure all kinds of translations ) ... We have translations, in various
      Message 2 of 12 , May 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Will,
        > The more I compare the different bible versions, the more I see
        > they contradict each other - in hundreds of verses. (no
        > exaggeration)

        Any examples? (from the mainstream versions that is, there are out there to
        be sure all kinds of 'translations')

        > 2. Do we have an inspired, infallible Bible today, or just best
        > guess approximations, which disagree with each other?

        We have translations, in various languages, of the inspired and infallible
        Word of God.

        > In His grace,

        In whose grace? How do you know there's He and there's grace if there's no
        infallible Word of God at your disposal?

        Nikolai
      • will j. kinney
        From: Nikolai ...Is the Holy Bible inspired? Will, ... Any examples? (from the mainstream versions that is, there are out there to be sure all kinds of
        Message 3 of 12 , May 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Nikolai ...Is the Holy Bible inspired?


          Will,
          > The more I compare the different bible versions, the more I see
          > they contradict each other - in hundreds of verses. (no
          > exaggeration)

          Any examples? (from the mainstream versions that is, there are out there to
          be sure all kinds of 'translations')

          Hi Nikolai, thanks for getting back to me on this. I will answer your
          questions in reverse order, after asking another in response to your
          comment. OK?



          > 2. Do we have an inspired, infallible Bible today, or just best
          > guess approximations, which disagree with each other?

          Nikolai>>>>We have translations, in various languages, of the inspired and
          infallible
          Word of God.

          Nikolai, Can a translation be the inspired words of God? If there are, say,
          5 English translations like the KJB, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and they all
          disagree both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses, how can they all be
          right?

          > In His grace,

          In whose grace? How do you know there's He and there's grace if there's no
          infallible Word of God at your disposal?

          Well, Nikolai, I do believe we have the infallible words of God. Infallible
          means there are no errors. If there are proven errors in a version, then it
          is not the infallible word of God, right? So, I can eliminate quite a few
          of them right there. The grace I'm speaking of is the grace of the living
          God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          Now for some examples, and believe me, I have a whole lot more.

          Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

          Many preachers will stand in the pulpit or Christian authors will write
          books in which they say "The Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God."
          But what exactly are they referring to when they say this? There are
          presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the
          general public and none of them agree with the others in both text and
          meaning in hundreds of verses. I can easily prove this and it is well noted
          by many atheists, Muslims and other Bible bashers on the internet.

          So, which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words
          of God? Or has the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been somehow lost
          in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised?

          Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we
          don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how
          can we then say the Bible is the inspired words of God? Shouldn't we be
          saying, the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

          I believe, along with thousands of other Christians, that God has kept His
          promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Bible.

          Modern versionists will say they are examining the evidence and trying to
          come up with the best text to restore the words of God. I believe God has
          already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the
          King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His
          words and carry out the great modern missionary movement, there is no need
          to do it again, unless He decides to put His words into another language
          other than English.

          Some speak of the same general message and principles being found in all
          valid versions. Yet we can point out many direct contradictions concerning
          these basic principles.

          The "any bible will do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief.
          There are a multitude of contradictory versions, several whole verses being
          found in some that are not in others. (17 entire verses omitted from the New
          Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV - when compared to the
          KJB, NKJV, TMB.)

          Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB? "Go ye
          up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet
          full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also
          up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." KJB, NIV, RV,
          NKJV. But the NASB has Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But
          when His brothers had gone up to the feast,then He Himself also went up".

          Or did Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22
          NASB, NIV, or did He have "origens from ancient times" in Micah 5:2 NIV,
          RSV, NWT, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the KJB, NKJV, NASB
          teach.

          Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? NASB says the
          children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV,
          RV, ASV all say they flattered God with their mouths and lied unto Him.

          Does God take away life, as many verses teach, or does God NOT take away
          life, as the NKJV, NIV, NASB teach in 2 Sam. 14:14?

          Can man speed up the coming of the day of God, as the NKJV, NIV, NASB teach
          in 2 Peter 3:12, or is that day already determined and marked on the
          calendar?

          Is the God of the Bible the one who thought something would happen, but it
          didn't and he was mistaken, of the NASB, NIV in Jeremiah 3:7?

          God is "no respecter of persons", but the NKJV, NASB, NIV say God is not
          partial. Which one is the truth? The phrases do not mean the same thing.
          Exodus 4:11 "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who
          maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the
          LORD?". "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them
          all." Proverbs 22:2.

          Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not
          do, as His word clearly testifies. Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary defines
          "respecter of persons" as a person who regards the external circumstances of
          others in his judgment, and suffers his opinions to be biased by them. In
          other words, God's dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance,
          position, rank, wealth or nationality.


          The phrase "to accept the persons of men" or "to respect persons" does
          not mean, as the modern versions have translated it, "to show partiality" or
          "to show favoritism".

          Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed in the
          righteousness of Christ. He alone is our righteousness. Revelation 19:8
          speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine
          linen, clean and white. "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints".
          Yet the NKJV, NIV, NASB say: "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the
          saints." So, which one is true?

          Does the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6 end with "For thine is the kingdom, and
          the power and the glory for ever. Amen" as in the KJB, NKJV, or did Christ
          never say these words, as in the NIV, NASB?

          Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his
          countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In
          other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture.
          The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are
          'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day
          long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god."

          Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish:
          "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for
          WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's
          truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and
          unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe
          "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?

          1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is
          the meaning found in the NIV, NKJV too. However the NASB says: "there is no
          such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

          Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, NKJV teach or is Judah unruly
          against God as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

          These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one
          guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit
          confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as
          to what he said or meant.

          So if you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure
          words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue
          to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

          Wasn't there something written in the Bible that told us of the falling away
          from the faith in the last days?

          Has Satan changed in his hatred and opposition to the words of God?

          Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these last days and so now he can
          think more clearly?


          If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and
          this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely
          different meanings in scores of verses, many verses found in some but not in
          others, then how do we know the gospel of which they speak is true?

          If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know
          God will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

          Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? And if so, what are you
          referring to when you say this?

          Will Kinney




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Nikolai
          Will, ... I don t know. Can you tell me? Is KJ inspired? ... They can t, if there s a contradiction, at least one half of it *must* be false. And before I
          Message 4 of 12 , May 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Will,

            > Nikolai, Can a translation be the inspired words of God?

            I don't know. Can you tell me? Is KJ inspired?

            > If there are,
            > say, 5 English translations like the KJB, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and they
            > all disagree both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses, how can they
            > all be right?

            They can't, if there's a contradiction, at least one half of it *must* be
            false.

            And before I forget, what version (or revision if you like) of the King James
            version are you referring to throughout this post? Which one is an inspired
            KJ, the 1611 one or one of the many later ones? And since the 1611 edition
            contained Apocrypha (up to 1629 edition I believe), do you accept it as God's
            word also?

            > Many preachers will stand in the pulpit or Christian authors will write
            > books in which they say "The Bible is the inspired, infallible word of
            > God." But what exactly are they referring to when they say this?

            You should ask them, what I'm referring to is this:

            The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of
            God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the
            writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately
            inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all
            ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the
            church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues
            are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in
            the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search
            them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every
            nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in
            all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and
            comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

            > Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we
            > don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how
            > can we then say the Bible is the inspired words of God?


            You mean unless we say one *translation* alone is inspired, and then we pick
            one with the best leather cover.

            > Shouldn't we be
            > saying, the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

            No we shouldn't. The authors who wrote down God's words were inspired, and of
            this and this alone we have proof in the Bible. You believe KJ translators
            were inspired too, do you not? on what basis? Where's your argument?


            > I believe, along with thousands of other Christians, that God has kept His
            > promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Bible.

            You forgot to write "alone", in KJ alone. I would agree with you if you show
            me your argument, deduced from the Bible of course.


            > Modern versionists will say they are examining the evidence and trying to
            > come up with the best text to restore the words of God. I believe God has
            > already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the
            > King James Bible.

            How do you know it's KJ and not Today's Bible or Russian Synodal Version?

            > There are a multitude of contradictory versions, several whole verses being
            > found in some that are not in others. (17 entire verses omitted from the
            > New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV - when compared to
            > the KJB, NKJV, TMB.)

            The word "omitted" only has force if it is shown that the manuscripts used for
            KJ are either the best available or even identical to the autographs. But
            this is the issue, isn't it? And you then are simply engaged in question
            begging.


            > Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB? "Go
            > ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not
            > yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he
            > also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." KJB, NIV,
            > RV, NKJV. But the NASB has Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast...
            > But when His brothers had gone up to the feast,then He Himself also went
            > up".

            I will only address a couple of your examples, it's bed time down here..
            Jesus would be lying if NASB put it "I wouldn't go up to the feast." "I do not
            go up to this feast *because* My time has not *yet* fully come." does not
            have to mean "I wouldn't go, at all." unless you read into the text what you
            want it to mean when in fact two verses below we read that he went up to the
            feast. His words allow a different interpretation to yours and therefore can
            be accepted.

            > Or did Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22
            > NASB,

            To be cleansed from sin, no, but neither did he need to be baptised if you're
            correct.

            And finally, is this what you argue?-

            All modern Bibles are different from each other
            Therefore, none of them is the word of God

            Nikolai
          • will j. kinney
            From: Nikolai ...Is the Holy Bible inspired? Will, ... I don t know. Can you tell me? Is KJ inspired? Hi Nikolai, Yes, a translation can be inspired. The
            Message 5 of 12 , May 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              From: Nikolai ...Is the Holy Bible inspired?


              Will,

              > Nikolai, Can a translation be the inspired words of God?

              I don't know. Can you tell me? Is KJ inspired?

              Hi Nikolai, Yes, a translation can be inspired. The Whateverists, like some
              on this board presently are (but there is still hope :-) , usually affirm
              "No translation can be inspired" They did not get this from the Bible, did
              they?

              I will address this translation issue in another post.



              > If there are,
              > say, 5 English translations like the KJB, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and they
              > all disagree both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses, how can they
              > all be right?

              They can't, if there's a contradiction, at least one half of it *must* be
              false.

              Very good, brother. I agree. A false witness may often tell the truth, but
              he betrays himself as a false witness by the lies he makes. The same is
              true with the Bible. God can and does use other versions, like the NASB,
              NIV, RSV, NKJV, etc. because there is much that is the correct words of God
              and the gospel is still there. However they are not God's perfect words
              since they suffer from many omissions and wrong translations. They all
              teach to varying degrees false doctrines.

              The NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all depart from the inspired Hebrew Masoretic text
              scores of times. I can prove this. Of the popular versions in English
              today, only the KJB is totally based on the Hebrew texts (except the few
              portions where they use the Aramaic)



              Nikolai>>>And before I forget, what version (or revision if you like) of the
              King James
              version are you referring to throughout this post? Which one is an inspired
              KJ, the 1611 one or one of the many later ones? And since the 1611 edition
              contained Apocrypha (up to 1629 edition I believe), do you accept it as
              God's
              word also?

              Nikolai, this is an old one that is always brought up. There have been
              revisions only in the sense of changing the text type from Gothic to Roman
              letters, spelling changes in the English language like from Sonne to Son,
              and the correction of printing errors. The underlying Greek and Hebrew
              texts have not changed at all. The same cannot be said for the NASB (they
              have changed both the texts and the words from one edition to the next), the
              NKJV, NIV both have changed hundreds of words in their successive editions,
              and these are not "printing errors", but intentional word changes.

              Here is a good article showing how the text of the KJB has not changed, and
              what the nature of these so called "revisions" really were.

              http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/best.htm

              > Many preachers will stand in the pulpit or Christian authors will write
              > books in which they say "The Bible is the inspired, infallible word of
              > God." But what exactly are they referring to when they say this?

              You should ask them, what I'm referring to is this:

              The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of
              God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the
              writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately
              inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all
              ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion,
              the
              church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues
              are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in
              the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search
              them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every
              nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in
              all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and
              comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

              Nikolai, what does this come from? Isn't it the Westminster confession?
              And what Bible were they referring to? It was the King James Bible. They
              believe it had been kept pure and authentical.

              Now, if you are referring to the multiplicity of conflicting versions out
              there today, then you are merely mouthing pious sounding words signifying
              nothing.

              > Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we
              > don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how
              > can we then say the Bible is the inspired words of God?



              > Shouldn't we be
              > saying, the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

              No we shouldn't. The authors who wrote down God's words were inspired, and
              of
              this and this alone we have proof in the Bible. You believe KJ translators
              were inspired too, do you not? on what basis? Where's your argument?

              Nikolai, I believe you have two things wrong here. The authors were not
              inspired. The words were inspired. And secondly, no, the KJB translators
              were not inspired; they were providentially guided to preserve what God has
              already inspired. God's words are like water. If we place the same water
              into another vessel of a different shape, without addition or subtraction,
              it is the same water. So too with God's inspired words when place from one
              language into another.





              > Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB? "Go
              > ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not
              > yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he
              > also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." KJB, NIV,
              > RV, NKJV. But the NASB has Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast...
              > But when His brothers had gone up to the feast,then He Himself also went
              > up".

              I will only address a couple of your examples, it's bed time down here..
              Jesus would be lying if NASB put it "I wouldn't go up to the feast." "I do
              not
              go up to this feast *because* My time has not *yet* fully come." does not
              have to mean "I wouldn't go, at all." unless you read into the text what you
              want it to mean when in fact two verses below we read that he went up to the
              feast. His words allow a different interpretation to yours and therefore can
              be accepted.

              Again, notice you added the word "yet" to your example so that the nasb
              would come out right. That word "yet" is missing from the nasb and makes
              Jesus contradict Himself.

              > Or did Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22
              > NASB,

              To be cleansed from sin, no, but neither did he need to be baptised if
              you're
              correct.

              This is not a Biblical answer. Look up the passage in Leviticus 12 it
              refers to. ONLY the woman was to offer a sin offering and the LORD made an
              atonement for her - not the child.

              And finally, is this what you argue?-

              All modern Bibles are different from each other
              Therefore, none of them is the word of God

              Nikolai

              No, all of them are sometimes radically different from each other, so not
              all of them can equally be the true words of God. Either God has preserved
              His words here on this earth or He hasn't. I believe He has and they are
              preserved in the KJB. I have many reasons for believing this.

              Thank you for your thoughts, comments and questions.

              Kept by the power of God,

              Will


              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
              http://theologicallycorrect.com
              1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • will j. kinney
              Can a Translation be Inspired? I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were
              Message 6 of 12 , May 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Can a Translation be Inspired?

                I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no
                translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This
                may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they
                happen to admire, but is it the truth?

                Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and
                practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say
                the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not
                referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands
                and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God
                WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is
                hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

                It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were
                inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one
                single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were
                inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to
                actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His
                words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would
                pass away but His words would not pass away.

                So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach
                us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an
                emphatic Yes, it does many times.

                In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's
                reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is
                evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for
                he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his
                words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be
                the inspired words of God.

                A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over
                into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the
                God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of
                another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is
                still the inspired word of God.

                God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out
                into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there
                is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same
                water.

                Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses
                confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak
                Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal
                exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in
                another inspired translation.

                In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the
                inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him
                licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the
                people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE
                HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21
                entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this
                sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon
                inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon
                into another language.

                If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this
                unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New
                Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost
                took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired
                language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly
                literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or
                explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a
                new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us
                about inspired translations.

                Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth,
                Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for
                sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His
                words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the
                ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,
                Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against
                the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the
                Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is
                translated into another language.

                " 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.
                ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for
                doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2
                Timothy 3:15,16.

                It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he
                had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case
                of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people
                read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

                So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation
                can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he
                didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing
                Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired
                translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible
                itself.

                Will Kinney




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • will j. kinney
                From: Nikolai And since the 1611 edition contained Apocrypha (up to 1629 edition I believe), do you accept it as God s word also? No, I do not accept it as
                Message 7 of 12 , May 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: Nikolai

                  And since the 1611 edition
                  contained Apocrypha (up to 1629 edition I believe), do you accept it as
                  God's
                  word also?

                  No, I do not accept it as God's word.

                  Here is some info about this common objection to the KJB. It is ironic that
                  usually those who object to the Apocrypha in the earlier KJBs, promote the
                  bibles based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which actually contained the
                  Apocyrphal books plus some others like the Shepherd of Hermes mixed in among
                  the canonical books, not separate from them.


                  The following quotations from reformation-era sources will indicate why the
                  > Protestants included the Apocryphal books in their versions, though they
                  > did not accept them as canonical.
                  >
                  > Luther Bible (1534).
                  > Title to Apocrypha: "APOCRYPHA, that is, Books which are not to be esteemed
                  > like the Holy Scriptures, and yet which are useful and good to read."
                  >
                  > Coverdale Bible (1535).
                  > Title to Apocrypha: "APOCRYPHA: The books and treatises which among the
                  > Fathers of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other
                  > books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of Hebrew."
                  >
                  > Geneva Bible (1560).
                  > Preface: "The books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New
                  > Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, books which were not received by
                  > a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither
                  > yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they
                  > had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the
                  > same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as books proceeding from
                  > godly men they were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance
                  > of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners: which
                  > books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and
                  > left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in
                  > the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that those calamities
                  > that God sent to his Church were according to his providence, who had both
                  > so threatened by his prophets, and so brought it to pass, for the
                  > destruction of their enemies and for the trial of his children."
                  >
                  > Dring the eighteenth century the Apocrypha was dropped from printings of
                  > the KJV because Protestant leaders perceived that its inclusion (even as an
                  > appendix) was misunderstood by many people, who could not appreciate the
                  > distinctions made above.
                  >


                  Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, ³Now of the many issues raised
                  against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the
                  Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the
                  sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: ³It is also interesting-and
                  perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized
                  Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!²

                  Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James
                  Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What
                  Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were
                  careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by
                  inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no
                  misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to
                  be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.²

                  The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, ³Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the
                  King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes.
                  EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the
                  original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises
                  its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual
                  picture.
                  First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was
                  accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as
                  Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James
                  translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its
                  historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old
                  Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

                  That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven
                  reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as
                  follows:

                  1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the
                  inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
                  2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
                  3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish
                  Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
                  4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first
                  four centuries of the Christian Church.
                  5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not
                  only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of
                  Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as
                  many different places.
                  6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for
                  the dead and sinless perfection.
                  7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and
                  magical incantation.

                  If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as
                  authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from
                  Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously
                  didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated
                  its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with
                  Scripture.²

                  http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/advanc01.htm

                  >4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611
                  version contained the apocrypha?

                  Who rejects the Apocrypha? I most certainly do not, nor did the translators
                  of the Authorized Version or any other early English version reject it.
                  Martin Luther did not reject it. Calvin did not reject it. The Reformers did
                  not reject it. However, rejecting it and not accepting it as holy scripture
                  are two different things. The Apocrypha is not to be rejected because it
                  contains valuable historical records of the time between the Testaments.
                  This does not mean that we must accept it as having been given by
                  inspiration. Since historical books were not in abundance for the common man
                  in the 17th century, it was the practice of Bible translators to include the
                  Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments for purposes of historical
                  record. This is illustrated in the preface to the Apocrypha of the Geneva
                  Bible and the various notations provided by the KJV translators.

                  Further, two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual
                  criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all
                  of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of
                  Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as
                  well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New
                  Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix,
                  Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland,
                  Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

                  QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the
                  Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the
                  basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your
                  question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for
                  having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial
                  manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • kjcj
                  Thanks Will for many thought provoking comments... If I may serve you and others as a friendly foil to develop a more robust argument for this position,
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Will for many thought provoking comments... If I may
                    serve you and others as a friendly foil to develop a more
                    robust argument for this position, please...

                    In particular, I think that what we must pursue in this
                    discussion of God's word is what you assert in your, quote,

                    "...Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew ... yet his
                    words are translated and recorded in another language [and
                    we are told so in the Bible]... A translation does not have
                    to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another
                    language for it to be the inspired word of God... God's
                    words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is
                    poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different
                    shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter
                    or subtraction of substance, it is the same water... we see
                    the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 ... In Acts
                    22 we see another clear example ... God also inspired the
                    translation of this sermon into another language."

                    Couple of points:

                    1) What you are describing here is that it is the
                    *PROPOSITIONAL* meaning of declarative sentences that
                    counts, *not* the form of declarative sentences! The
                    declarative sentence "All dogs bark" in English, Hebrew,
                    Greek, Chinese or Zulu or in two-hundred other languages,
                    whether it contains three or thirty three words, in whatever
                    order and form, makes absolutely no difference to the one
                    propositional meaning in the categorical form of "All x
                    is/are y". For any particular set of declarative sentences,
                    there is always but the one and same, identical
                    propositional meaning. If this is your point, then I could
                    not agree with you more.

                    2) It is a starting article of faith that what we have
                    recorded in the Bible as translations of various declarative
                    sentences from one language to another languages has God's
                    imprimatur so to speak, as being legitimate and accurate
                    translations of that one propositional meaning. Since I
                    insist that each & every person must and does always start
                    all their thinking on some articles of faith or other, on
                    some presuppositions, again I have no problem with this: my
                    own axiom is TBAITWOG as defined in the WCF.

                    That is, this being true about propositional meanings, then
                    the word of God is *NOT*, most definitely is *not* some
                    black ink marks on paper or some blips on a computer screen.
                    Hence, here we are confronted immediately with our differing
                    *epistemological* starting points; what is knowledge, how we
                    know, what is faith, what are Biblical apologetics.

                    3) When I read that Jesus and the Apostles accepted and
                    ratified the Scriptures of the OT, IMO and on my starting
                    axiom, this give us a warrant to accept the Hebrew (and
                    Aramaic or even Greek) translations as authentic.

                    4) Even in Jesus and Apostles' day there was the Septuagint
                    translation. Where Jesus or the Apostles used the Septuagint
                    rendering, we can infer that they have accepted as
                    legitimate and authorised also that *particular* translation
                    of the relevant passage: BUT we can ***not*** now infer that
                    thereby they authorised *all* of the Septuagint translation
                    as a whole, as an acceptable or wholly faithful and accurate
                    translation.

                    5) However, in the post-Apostolic church, we do *not* have
                    such explicit imprimatur for *any* common language
                    translations, since we have no Jesus or Apostles to appeal
                    to (unless you accept, which I do not, the RC pope's
                    authority or the legitimacy of the many heretical modern-day
                    counterfeits, so-called "apostles" and false "prophets"!)

                    6) While you claim that, quote, "if the Bible itself is our
                    rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation
                    can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic
                    Yes, it does many times", (and I agree with you in
                    principle), your claim is somewhat, if not highly
                    misleading, and *misses* the main problems.

                    a) One issue here is that the translation of the *whole*
                    Bible is in view, and not just this or that lone passage.
                    Yet, nowhere in the Bible is the term "Bible" defined.
                    Personally I love the verse you quote on Scripture, 2
                    Timothy 3:15,16. But NOTE WELL...

                    When the term "Scripture" in *any* one such verse is used to
                    designate the word of God, these verses *never* ever say
                    which book is in and which book is out. At *best*, in 2
                    Timothy 3:15,16, you could conclude that the OT is in view,
                    for that is all what Timothy maybe had (and I agree probably
                    did have)! Where does that leave the NT then? But, besides
                    that, in principle the main problem remains!

                    This is because *nowhere* in the Bible in a list setting out
                    the *authorised* books of the Bible. My point: The
                    definition of the term "Bible" is a starting article of
                    faith, and part of our starting position; e.g. WCF, Chp. 1
                    for me.

                    b) *Nowhere* in the Bible do we have infallibly stated for
                    us that, say, "The translation of 1611 or 1911 from
                    language/s x/y/z into p/q/r will be accurately translating
                    inspired words of God." My point: This is yet another
                    starting article of faith, and which must be admitted and
                    articulated up front what its terms and warrants etc. are.

                    c) The implied form of your argument is essentially this:

                    - Bible records for us individual instances of authorised
                    and endorsed uses of translations in the past.
                    - The Bible incorporates these individual instances into the
                    body of texts we call the Bible.
                    - This proves that *some* past translations *can* be the
                    inspired word of God.
                    - THEREFORE, some modern-day translation/s of the *whole*
                    Bible *are* the inspired word of God.

                    Or more generally:

                    - IF *some* translations can be inspired (and inerrant and
                    infallible) for *another*, THEREFORE *all* of *my*
                    translations are inspired (and inerrant and infallible). (I
                    add "inerrant and infallible", for in a sense all
                    translations are "inspired", that is determined to exist
                    under God's providence and solely according to his good
                    pleasure. But I do not wish to side-track here, as that is
                    not the main discussion, albeit very interesting and
                    important in its own right. For now please ignore.)

                    Or even more generally:

                    If some [plants] are [roses] THEN all [plants] are [roses].

                    At best your argument maybe an enthymeme, (albeit I do not
                    yet see how so), otherwise I am sure that you will admit
                    this is an invalid and fallacious mood of an argument.

                    So, can you tighten up the logic and provide the missing
                    premises? Or simply admit and articulate what exactly here
                    is another starting article of faith.

                    d) Even IF you make valid the argument from "some past" to
                    "some today", you must make one further argument stick: Why
                    *your translation* and not someone else's!!! Again, your
                    argument and details here *must* be clearly articulated.

                    7) Therefore, overall, it requires that we must introduce
                    and clearly *articulate* the details of another, general
                    starting article of faith (such as Preservation of Scripture
                    etc.) if you wish to argue for a position, that you appear
                    to be arguing for.

                    8) So, while I have sympathy (and even I may concur with
                    your final conclusion in general), what I would like to see
                    from you, in order for your argument to be valid, robust and
                    consistent, is that the crucial missing bits in your sorites
                    be detailed and articulated more fully. Would you, please?

                    9) You ask rhetorically, "If no translation can be inspired
                    of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position
                    explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New
                    Testament?"

                    But this, in the general context, is *not* what the likes of
                    Nikolai or I would argue against. Let's ignore those who
                    reject the Bible as a whole or in parts (which to me amounts
                    essentially to the same thing.) Nikolai, as I do, starts
                    with TBAITWOG. We both accept that *some* translations *are*
                    inspired, for this is what the Bible teaches by clear
                    examples. And...

                    10) You then state, "They were originally inspired in Hebrew
                    but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and
                    translated them into another inspired language. Not only
                    that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly
                    literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a
                    little more detail or explains further or makes a different
                    application of the original verse to a new situation. This
                    is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about
                    inspired translations."

                    Absolutely! And that is the whole point! Based on our
                    starting axioms, we accept that *GOD* does it. It is not
                    about translations but about what God can do. Even when God
                    alters or changes or adds to a past text, this is *not* at
                    all about translations, but that God has the right to speak
                    His word as it pleases Him.

                    What we see authorised in the NT use of OT texts is not at
                    all about translations or giving us a warrant to do what
                    only God may do: for the OT and NT are His words, not ours,
                    not the prophets', not those of the translators.

                    So, the perplexing issue before us how do we apply, what we
                    accept in principle, to the modern-day situation of
                    modern-day translations? What I am looking to hear for you,
                    is what *you* would argue and offers as a valid, robust and
                    consistent argument, say, for KJV only. I may have my view
                    (and even agree with you in our conclusions), but I wish to
                    see how *you* got to your conclusion. Is your argument
                    robust, persuasive and sound? As it stands, for now it is at
                    best incomplete!

                    Therefore your final conclusions,

                    "So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No
                    translation can be inspired. Only the originals were
                    inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching
                    out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian
                    chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired
                    translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples
                    in the Bible itself"

                    ... however, does *not* strengthen or advance your real
                    argument or conclusion that I believe you wish to propose.

                    Yes, you are right! To argue against any and all inspired
                    translations is false: For the Bible (and as you have
                    demonstrated) insists and ratifies that at least *some* past
                    translations *were* inspired. "Some" implies at least one or
                    more. Hence, to assert that "No translations are inspired"
                    flatly contradicts the Bible. And, Yes, such a teaching that
                    "None are" was not obtained from the Bible.

                    But, then, so what? Unless I am mistaken, this was not and
                    is not what the point or context of the present discussion.
                    Moreover, in the context of the discussion, and in my
                    understanding of your propose at any rate, it is not what
                    you presumably want to argue for.

                    I look forward to edification from your and others' further
                    interaction and clarification.

                    God bless, k.
                  • will j. kinney
                    From: kjcj Can a translation be inspired? Couple of points: For any particular set of declarative sentences, there is always but the one and same, identical
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      From: "kjcj" Can a translation be inspired?



                      Couple of points:
                      For any particular set of declarative sentences,
                      there is always but the one and same, identical
                      propositional meaning. If this is your point, then I could
                      not agree with you more.

                      Hi kj, Yes, that is my point. God has spoken and He purposed a specific
                      meaning. Only God knows exactly what He inspired and intended, and so only
                      God can guide as to the accurate translation of His words into another
                      language. The examples in the Bible itself show us that He can and does do
                      this. I believe God guided the KJB translators both as to the correct texts
                      and the correct meaning. God knew what would become of the English language
                      and how He would use the KJB to work in the great missionary outreach to
                      carry His words to other nations and translate the KJB into hundreds of
                      other languages.





                      While you claim that, quote, "if the Bible itself is our
                      rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation
                      can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic
                      Yes, it does many times", (and I agree with you in
                      principle), your claim is somewhat, if not highly
                      misleading, and *misses* the main problems.

                      a) One issue here is that the translation of the *whole*
                      Bible is in view, and not just this or that lone passage.
                      Yet, nowhere in the Bible is the term "Bible" defined.


                      Yes, but the biblical principle is the same. The canon of 66 books was also
                      guided by God, even though there were many learned saints who disagreed
                      among themselves as to which books should be included and which not. God
                      guided the process and the faith of many believers recognized the hand of
                      God in ordaining 66 books.



                      b) *Nowhere* in the Bible do we have infallibly stated for
                      us that, say, "The translation of 1611 or 1911 from
                      language/s x/y/z into p/q/r will be accurately translating
                      inspired words of God." My point: This is yet another
                      starting article of faith, and which must be admitted and
                      articulated up front what its terms and warrants etc. are.


                      True, nowhere does the Bible say "I will preserve My words in the 1611 KJB".
                      Neither does the Bible say "there are or will be 66 books in the canon", or
                      "the originals were written in Hebrew and Greek", nor "I will preserve My
                      words in a multitude of conflicting versions, and hide some of them in the
                      sand of Egypt till the late 20th century". It does say God will preserve
                      His words till heaven and earth pass away. The question then is Where are
                      they today?

                      God has born ample testimony to the KJB as being where all His pure,
                      inerrant words are and have been for almost 400 years.



                      I do not believe All translations are God's perfect words. The only one I
                      know of and believe wholeheartedly is the KJB. Some or even most of God's
                      words are contained in the mvs, but they are a mixed bag. Why settle for an
                      inferior version, when you can have the best?



                      God's inerrant words, by definition, have no proveable errors. I know there
                      are several difficult passages where we need to explain various numbers that
                      on the surface seem to contradict, but there are explanations for these.
                      What the NIV, ESV, NASB have frequently done is reject the Hebrew texts
                      (believing them to be copyist errors) and in turn have either adopted some
                      LXX, Syriac or Vulgate readings, or else have made up a textual number. See
                      1 Samuel 13:1 for an example.





                      What we see authorised in the NT use of OT texts is not at
                      all about translations or giving us a warrant to do what
                      only God may do: for the OT and NT are His words, not ours,
                      not the prophets', not those of the translators.

                      Very true. I agree.



                      Hence, to assert that "No translations are inspired"
                      flatly contradicts the Bible. And, Yes, such a teaching that
                      "None are" was not obtained from the Bible.

                      Good, we agree on this biblical principle. The point is, how can some
                      recommend the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Green's interlinear all at the same time
                      as being "reliable" translations and at the same time say he believes in the
                      inspired, inerrant words of God?

                      It seems they are giving a new definition to inerrancy. For example (one of
                      hundreds), God either inspired and Christ said "For thine is the kingdom,
                      and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen" in Matthew 6:13 or He didn't.
                      If God inspired this portion of Scripture, then those "bibles" that do not
                      contain these words have taken away from the words of the Book. If God did
                      not inspire them, then the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Youngs, TMB, Green,
                      etc have added to God's words. Both the reading and the non reading cannot
                      be equally true at the same time.


                      Those who pride themselves on their learning and place their own minds as
                      the Final Authority, will resort to arguments about "textual variants,
                      manuscript evidence, church fathers, new findings, and the so called
                      "science of textual criticism" - which is a total joke to anyone who
                      actually has eyes to see what is going on with this "science falsely so
                      called"

                      They have no sure words of God and only promote confusion and uncertainty,
                      but they do it with a smile, a pat on the shoulder, and the assurance that
                      we can be at least 85 to 90% sure of what God really said.



                      Thanks for your input and comments,

                      Will



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.