Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Preservation & Inspiration


Salyan

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

I'm starting this thread because I have a question to ask, and didn't want to hijack the IFB forums any further.

 

RMSTCB1611 said:

 

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

 

Okay, never mind Ruckman for a sec. I have a question. You said above that you believe that the KJV is 'superior to all other texts and therefore able to correct them all.'  How can the KJV be superior to all other texts? That would mean it was superior to - better than - the texts that it was translated from. That doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm not arguing the superiority of the AV, I'm arguing that it cannot be superior to the TR.  If the TR was not preserved, the AV is not reliable. If the TR was preserved, it cannot be corrected by its offspring. That's the logical progression to me, anyways. :twocents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

I'm starting this thread because I have a question to ask, and didn't want to hijack the IFB forums any further.

 

RMSTCB1611 said:

 

 

Okay, never mind Ruckman for a sec. I have a question. You said above that you believe that the KJV is 'superior to all other texts and therefore able to correct them all.'  How can the KJV be superior to all other texts? That would mean it was superior to - better than - the texts that it was translated from. That doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm not arguing the superiority of the AV, I'm arguing that it cannot be superior to the TR.  If the TR was not preserved, the AV is not reliable. If the TR was preserved, it cannot be corrected by its offspring. That's the logical progression to me, anyways. :twocents:

 

I listed a few reasons why the KJV is superior to the Greek. The main reason is you can't read or speak koine Greek. And if you could you wouldn't use it to preach or go soul winning. Try getting someone saved from the Textus Receptus. (Technically, the Textus Receptus didn't come into existence until 1633).

 

The only other verse in the bible that mentions inspiration tells you what it means and it isn't the same as revelation:

 

Job 32:8-  But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

 

For the KJV translators to preserve the words of God without error in a different language they would need inspiration to pull it off. They had to add a lot of words to the KJV that weren't in the Greek as well as punctuation and capitalization. Guidance would have been needed for the translation/transliteration of certain words many Greek words can be translated different way. Have you ever seen a "literal translation" of a Greek text? It would make absolutely no sense to the modern English reader if you translated certain passages literally. So inspiration would have been needed.  If we are to say that it's without error then some degree of inspiration was needed to pulled that off. And following the law of first mention (i.e.. that the first mention of a word in scripture defines it's meaning throughout) than inspiration is equated with understanding in a man's spirit. The mistake people make it equating the word "revelation" with "inspiration" as if the KJV translators were receiving new revelations from God. This is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I listed a few reasons why the KJV is superior to the Greek. The main reason is you can't read or speak koine Greek. And if you could you wouldn't use it to preach or go soul winning. Try getting someone saved from the Textus Receptus.

 

Purely for a conjectural point...doesn't that mean the TR would be superior to KJV in a Greek-speaking culture?  By this assertion alone the KJV is only superior in English-speaking countries. (I apologize, I don't know where the original thread was where you mentioned the other reasons, so I'm just interacting with this particular one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Purely for a conjectural point...doesn't that mean the TR would be superior to KJV in a Greek-speaking culture?  By this assertion alone the KJV is only superior in English-speaking countries. (I apologize, I don't know where the original thread was where you mentioned the other reasons, so I'm just interacting with this particular one).

The modern Greeks don't speak koine Greek. It is a dead language. It would be like Old English to us. By the way, the KJV is NOT Old English despite what people say. It is considered Early Modern English.

 

Even if the Greeks did speak koine Greek it's beside the point because we are trying to establish where the pure word of God is in the English language.

 

Also, some argue that God did not have to preserve his word in every language. This is the argument of most scholars. That God's word was only inspired in the original languages. The scriptures don't say anything concerning what language(s) God's word must be inspired in. But if I was a betting man I would say it would be in the most popular language on the planet. The official language of the U.N., the Olympics, International travel, the language that every other country teaches as a second language; English. 

 

The mindset seems to be that God could only inspire his word in the original languages which very few people read, writes or speaks anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good question. Apart from the fact that the AV text is in the modern universal language of the end times there are other reasons why it is superior to all other texts.

 

It is important to realize that the AV is not a direct translation of one greek/hebrew text. There are areas in which they drew from other translations, even the Vulgate and the Rheims NT. We can't therefore hold to the superiority of Beza's Greek text (which was their chief source) because the AV contains readings that are not found in that text. There exists no single critical text from which the translators drew from. The underlying text of the AV is eclectic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good question. Apart from the fact that the AV text is in the modern universal language of the end times there are other reasons why it is superior to all other texts.

 

It is important to realize that the AV is not a direct translation of one greek/hebrew text. There are areas in which they drew from other translations, even the Vulgate and the Rheims NT. We can't therefore hold to the superiority of Beza's Greek text (which was their chief source) because the AV contains readings that are not found in that text. There exists no single critical text from which the translators drew from. The underlying text of the AV is eclectic. 

Didn't they use about six different texts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Whether or not anyone can speak or understand ancient Greek today is a straw man.  The question goes to correcting the Greek text from the KJ.  Why is the translation so much better than the original that it can correct the original? It seems that in order to do so, the original would have to be tainted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In his book, The King James Version Defended, Edward Hills writes:

The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

 

As I stated before, there is no single text from which we can say the King James was translated. Therefore we can't go to a single text and use it to correct the AV because it differs. What we have is an English received text that has been used by God for 400 years. I trust completely in His ability to give me the words he wants me to have. Therefore when a text differs with the AV readings, I can safely rest assured that what the English says is correct and the others are in error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The modern Greeks don't speak koine Greek. It is a dead language. It would be like Old English to us. By the way, the KJV is NOT Old English despite what people say. It is considered Early Modern English.

 

Even if the Greeks did speak koine Greek it's beside the point because we are trying to establish where the pure word of God is in the English language.

 

Also, some argue that God did not have to preserve his word in every language. This is the argument of most scholars. That God's word was only inspired in the original languages. The scriptures don't say anything concerning what language(s) God's word must be inspired in. But if I was a betting man I would say it would be in the most popular language on the planet. The official language of the U.N., the Olympics, International travel, the language that every other country teaches as a second language; English. 

 

The mindset seems to be that God could only inspire his word in the original languages which very few people read, writes or speaks anymore.

 

A true point indeed.  I should have specified Koine-Greek-speaking, but you're correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Whether or not anyone can speak or understand ancient Greek today is a straw man.  The question goes to correcting the Greek text from the KJ.  Why is the translation so much better than the original that it can correct the original? It seems that in order to do so, the original would have to be tainted.

How can you say that is a straw man? What use is the word of God in a dead language? How can that be called preservation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It's a straw man because it's raising a non-issue rather than answering the OP. No one here would argue that it is easier for English speakers to understand a Greek text than an English one. It's not an issue, and it's not the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Whether or not anyone can speak or understand ancient Greek today is a straw man.  The question goes to correcting the Greek text from the KJ.  Why is the translation so much better than the original that it can correct the original? It seems that in order to do so, the original would have to be tainted.

Again, because nobody speaks or read the originals anymore. Human language has come a long ways since the time of the apostles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It's a straw man because it's raising a non-issue rather than answering the OP. No one here would argue that it is easier for English speakers to understand a Greek text than an English one. It's not an issue, and it's not the question.

It's is an issue. It's an issue of being able to read the bible in your own language. It's an issue of preservation. What good does the word of God do in a language nobody can read or speak anymore? How you don't think that isn't an issue I don't understand. Maybe you should try to go soul winning with the "originals" and then you'll see how much of an issue it is. We either have the words of God in English or we don't. And where it differs from the Greek texts we have to decide whether it is in error or that God "inspired" the translators to preserve his words exactly the way he wanted them translated for the English speaking people of the world. It's a matter of faith.

 

What is a non issue is which Greek text is the pure word of God. That is the straw man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The issue is you can't run to an edition of the TR and say well this disagrees with the AV so the AV is wrong. The AV is not a direct translation of any one edition of the TR and it shouldn't be viewed that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Again, because nobody speaks or read the originals anymore. Human language has come a long ways since the time of the apostles.

 

That's not what was implied in the opening quote. 

 

It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all.

 

Understanding and correcting are two different things.  
 

 

 

And where it differs from the Greek texts we have to decide whether it is in error or that God "inspired" the translators to preserve his words exactly the way he wanted them translated for the English speaking people of the world. It's a matter of faith.

 

If the KJV is not based on the preserved Greek texts, it is worthless. God inspired the original writers (2 Pet. 1:21) and preserved His Word (Ps. 119:89). He didn't just preserve it for us English speakers - He must have preserved it for the Greeks and those of the in-between times that did not yet have it in their own language. Therefore there must be preserved Greek texts as we have a preserved English text.  God would still have to have had His hand in preserving His Word through the translation from Greek to English.  However, if the translation could not be done directly because there were no extant preserved Greek texts, and God had to give the translators original inspiration to 're-create' the accurate Word of God - that is a double inspiration, and denies the doctrine of preservation.  If that's not what you mean, you need to clarify your words, cause that's what's coming across.

 

 

 

rmstcb1611, said:
The issue is you can't run to an edition of the TR and say well this disagrees with the 
AV so the AV is wrong. The AV is not a direct translation of any one edition of the TR and it shouldn't be viewed that way.

 

This does not jive with what I remember studying, but it really goes beyond my knowledge. Would someone else be able to speak to it?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Quote

 

This does not jive with what I remember studying, but it really goes beyond my knowledge. Would someone else be able to speak to it?
 

My understanding is that there are minor differences between the various editions of the TR, but for the most part they are on the level of the differences between say a 1611 edition KJV and a 1769 edition KJV. In other words pretty much the same thing. When you get into other text lines though obviously the differences get much bigger very quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My understanding is that there are minor differences between the various editions of the TR, but for the most part they are on the level of the differences between say a 1611 edition KJV and a 1769 edition KJV. In other words pretty much the same thing. When you get into other text lines though obviously the differences get much bigger very quickly. 

This is basically correct. The difference between the various editions of the TR are minor. However, the AV sometimes departs from the TR in favor of readings from the Vulgate, the Bishop's Bible, The Great Bible etc. For example, in Luke 23:42 the TR reads "Lord, remember me when Thou comest IN Thy kingdom" while the AV and previous English bibles contain the Vulgate reading of "Lord, remember me when Thou comest INTO Thy kingdom". There are other examples as well.

 

We therefore see that the AV is not a direct translation of any edition of the TR. It drew off of other sources frequently. Therefore to hold that the AV is simply a accurate translation of the "pure TR" is a faulty position. What do we do with these differences? My answer is simple, I trust the text God has used for 400 years above all others and disregard the others where they differ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The KJV translators did their job literally, word for word.
The ORDER of the words within phrases was changed where necessary to fit with the differences of sentence structure between the four languages.
Where words were added FOR CLARITY those words are written in an italic font to denote that these particular words were added by the translators.

If you were to translate the Bible into another language, which base text would you use and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed a few reasons why the KJV is superior to the Greek. The main reason is you can't read or speak koine Greek. And if you could you wouldn't use it to preach or go soul winning. Try getting someone saved from the Textus Receptus. (Technically, the Textus Receptus didn't come into existence until 1633).

 

The only other verse in the bible that mentions inspiration tells you what it means and it isn't the same as revelation:

 

Job 32:8-  But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

 

For the KJV translators to preserve the words of God without error in a different language they would need inspiration to pull it off. They had to add a lot of words to the KJV that weren't in the Greek as well as punctuation and capitalization. Guidance would have been needed for the translation/transliteration of certain words many Greek words can be translated different way. Have you ever seen a "literal translation" of a Greek text? It would make absolutely no sense to the modern English reader if you translated certain passages literally. So inspiration would have been needed.  If we are to say that it's without error then some degree of inspiration was needed to pulled that off. And following the law of first mention (i.e.. that the first mention of a word in scripture defines it's meaning throughout) than inspiration is equated with understanding in a man's spirit. The mistake people make it equating the word "revelation" with "inspiration" as if the KJV translators were receiving new revelations from God. This is not true.

 

 

God promises preservation of His Word

 

 

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is basically correct. The difference between the various editions of the TR are minor. However, the AV sometimes departs from the TR in favor of readings from the Vulgate, the Bishop's Bible, The Great Bible etc. For example, in Luke 23:42 the TR reads "Lord, remember me when Thou comest IN Thy kingdom" while the AV and previous English bibles contain the Vulgate reading of "Lord, remember me when Thou comest INTO Thy kingdom". There are other examples as well.

 

We therefore see that the AV is not a direct translation of any edition of the TR. It drew off of other sources frequently. Therefore to hold that the AV is simply a accurate translation of the "pure TR" is a faulty position. What do we do with these differences? My answer is simple, I trust the text God has used for 400 years above all others and disregard the others where they differ. 

 

 

In and into have overlapping meanings in english. I can say "I went into my house" or I can say "I went in my house". Both can mean the same thing. Into might be a little clearer way of saying it, but it is still saying the same thing. If that is the sort of difference your talking about that is no difference at all. I imagine greater differences than that arise simply in trying to find a word in a different language that is as close to being equivalent as possible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...