The Original Manuscripts

[swathdiver]

How important to Christians today are those originals?  The users of the egyptian bibles seem to place great emphasis on them as well as those who play the greek game.

 

I wondered about what the Lord thought of them and came across Jeremiah 36.

 

The Lord tells Jeremiah to write a book and he gets another guy to actually write it.  Are both inspired?

 

Shortly thereafter this book is burned and gone forever, there is no more original.

 

The Lord has Jeremiah write it again and adds a few words.  Is this too an original or a copy of the first with an addition?

 

The Lord commanded that this one be thrown into the water and it's destroyed.

 

We wouldn't know any of this were it not for copy number three of Jeremiah!  

 

So does the Lord really care about these Greek originals?  I think not.  The Lord did promise to preserve His Word and I believe it is in the King James Bibles we have today.

 

What say you?  

[John81]

I wouldn't call a couple of those copies since to copy is to look at one and copy what is seen. In a couple of those cases there was nothing to copy, which means the Lord had to inspire those to be written as He wanted them to be preserved.

 

If originals of any of the Word were important for us today the Lord could have surely preserved them just as he caused the clothes and shoes of the Hebrews to be preserved as they wondered in the wilderness.

 

Considering we don't have the originals anymore, only various aged copies, it's clear that God chose to preserve His Word through the process of making copies and them being handed down and further copies made from those.

 

It also seems clear that part of that copying process for preservation has included making translations of the copies.

 

Considering the unparalleled track record of the KJB in the spreading, teaching and preaching of the Word I don't see how anyone could not recognize the KJB as God's Word.

[HappyChristian]

Well, it's sure sad then that no-one but English readers can have God's Word...

 

I believe that the KJB is the one to use for those who read English. However, there are other languages in the world (many, many, many).  Sadly, there are words that don't translate well from English into some of those languages.  But!  The TR does translate well.  And, since that is the stream by which the KJB came to us, we can't say it's wrong to use the TR.  And there's nothing wrong with knowing Greek...

[AVBibleBeliever]

Well, it's sure sad then that no-one but English readers can have God's Word...

 

I believe that the KJB is the one to use for those who read English. However, there are other languages in the world (many, many, many).  Sadly, there are words that don't translate well from English into some of those languages.  But!  The TR does translate well.  And, since that is the stream by which the KJB came to us, we can't say it's wrong to use the TR.  And there's nothing wrong with knowing Greek...

I think that 98% of the people in the world know some English.  It is the trade language for today.

 

You can get a good job in China teaching English as an American and you can use the Bible as a teaching tool.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I have been looking for an original inspired text of the Bible.

 

Yet I have never seen one.

 

Oh I have seen plenty of pieces of copies of the original but no original.

 

I wouldn't be able to check these copies to see if they are correct to the Original because I have never found an original.

 

I think that is why by faith I believe that God inspired and preserved his word whole and complete for us via the AV translators in the AV Bible we hold in our hands.

[HappyChristian]

Yes, AV - there is a lot of English around.  But that doesn't mean it's the only language in which one must read God's Word.  Speaking English is not the same as reading it or even understanding it...

[AVBibleBeliever]

Yes, AV - . . . .  But that doesn't mean it's the only language in which one must read God's Word.  . . .

I don't remember saying that

[HappyChristian]

AV (I can't quote...I'm on IE and it doesn't allow quoting for some reason), I didn't say you did.  However, you responded to what I said with stats of English speaking.  So, I responded to what you said.  There is a school of thought today that says that all Bibles translated into another language must be done via the KJB.  That's what my original comment was speaking to, and what my next comment continued the thought of.   That's all.

[AVBibleBeliever]

AV (I can't quote...I'm on IE and it doesn't allow quoting for some reason), I didn't say you did.  However, you responded to what I said with stats of English speaking.  So, I responded to what you said.  There is a school of thought today that says that all Bibles translated into another language must be done via the KJB.  That's what my original comment was speaking to, and what my next comment continued the thought of.   That's all.

that is a touchy subject and I think it was someone on another forum (not saying that that person is on this form mind you) and she uses a dutch version of the ASV if I am not mistaken and some of the translation does not line up with the AV of which I replied that she would do better to accept the AV translation of Isa 14:12 of Lucifer rather than the Dutch ASV translation oh bright morning star.

 

And because there was contention.  so yes I know what you are saying and I don't care what version a person prefers but the AV is the only whole and complete without error translation in English today.  and no one has to agree with me on that.

[swathdiver]

Well, it's sure sad then that no-one but English readers can have God's Word...

 

I believe that the KJB is the one to use for those who read English. However, there are other languages in the world (many, many, many).  Sadly, there are words that don't translate well from English into some of those languages.  But!  The TR does translate well.  And, since that is the stream by which the KJB came to us, we can't say it's wrong to use the TR.  And there's nothing wrong with knowing Greek...

 

 

How many languages was the Old Testament copied and passed around in in Old Testament times?  How about the New Testament?  Did the Lord have each book copied into all languages?

 

Like the inspired OT and NT books which were each primarily copied into one language (the most popular of the day for that audience) the Lord chose to preserve it in the English (the most popular language in the world) in the KJV.  

 

Now, if someone wants God's preserved Word today in Spanish, do they get a spanish translation of the TR or a spanish King James?

[HappyChristian]

You know, swath, I agree that the KJB is for English speaking peoples. Like I already said.  

 

So, by your question, I'm assuming that you think because God didn't have the copies done in several languages (most likely because it was sent to specific people, anyway) that we shouldn't bother with other languages?  Let's send missionaries into countries where there is no English, and teach them English before they can have God's Word, is that what you're implying?  Because that's certainly the implication that it seems to me.... Or are you saying that only the KJB can be used to translate into other languages?  Even though English doesn't always translate well, whereas the TR does...?

 

As to Spanish - if someone has a Spanish version translated from the KJB, that's fine.  If they have one from the TR, that's fine, too...

 

Using the TR to translate into another language is not sin.  If it were, the KJB translators would have been in sin.

[GraceSaved]

Since the Word was in the beginning, all God's words are preserved, even the ones not recorded.

[swathdiver]

My mind is not made up on whether its ok to only translate from the KJV or from the TR or both.  

 

While I have not studied it deeper, it's been shown where the KJV corrects the TR.  If that is really so, then the door would be closed on the TR.  

[HappyChristian]

Who showed that the KJB corrects the TR?

[TheSword]

My mind is not made up on whether its ok to only translate from the KJV or from the TR or both.  

 

While I have not studied it deeper, it's been shown where the KJV corrects the TR.  If that is really so, then the door would be closed on the TR.  

 

Who showed that the KJB corrects the TR?

 

I'd like to see that as well. Seems that such a position would require an a priori assumption that the TR was wrong, and if that's the case why was it used? And why weren't reliable manuscripts available? In general I disagree with secondary inspiration (i.e. the KJV translators were inspired to correct the language in the same way the original authors were inspired to write it) because I think it would reflect a poor fulfillment of God's promise to preserve His Word.  It would mean that His Word (or portions of it) were lost and unavailable for centuries. Rather, a fulfillment of that promise would make His Word available throughout history and remain so until the end of time. I have to believe God's fulfillment of that promise was manifested through faithful copying that culminated in the TR and onto the KJV. I have yet to hear a convincing argument on secondary inspiration that maintains faithful preservation of Scripture throughout history.