Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/10/2021 in all areas

  1. When Hezekiah quoted Solomon's writings and put together part of the book of Proverbs - Hezekiah was a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents. Thus Hezekiah was not simply copying Scripture; rather, he himself was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to arrange Scripture. When any of the Greek-speaking and Greek-writing New Testament writers quoted the Hebrew of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures - they were holy men of God who were being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents. Thus they were not simply copying and translating Old Testament Scripture into Greek; rather, they themselves were being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate the New Testament Scriptures. When Luke quoted Paul's Hebrew speeches and testimony in the book of Acts, originally spoken in Hebrew, but quoted in Greek - Luke was a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents. Luke was not simply copying and translating speeches from Hebrew into Greek; rather, Luke himself was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate a portion of the New Testament Scriptures. Actually, this begs the question (just as I have presented in my earlier posting) - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that the King James translators were moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents? Or to put it another way - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that the King James translators were moved by the Holy Spirit of God to translate the Holy Scriptures into English in precisely the same manner that the various Old Testament penmen and New Testament penmen were moved by the Holy Spirit of God to originally author and arrange the Holy Scriptures as per 2 Peter 1:21? Furthermore, it may be asked - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that this same process of inspiration as per 2 Peter 1:21 has also occurred with other translations into English and/or that this same process of inspiration as per 2 Peter 1:21 has occurred with translations into other languages than English? (Note: If you answer "yes" to these questions, then by definition you DO hold to a "re-inspirational" viewpoint of translation.) The question here is NOT about what the Lord our God, the Almighty God, is able to do; rather, the question is about what the Lord our God has revealed concerning what He HAS done in this matter. If anyone claims a teaching that is not accurate to what God's Word itself reveals as truth, then that teaching is false, even if that teaching sounds really good. Indeed, the Lord our God, the Almighty God, HAS presented such a promise in His Word. For this reason I myself very firmly hold to the Biblical doctrines of both Biblical inspiration and Biblical preservation. Yeah, I hold very firmly to the doctrine of "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation for EVERY generation of God's people on the earth. However, as even you yourself have presented above, "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation means "every word and every punctuation mark IN THE ORIGINAL." By definition, the very moment that an individual translates from the original language to ANY other language, the jots and tittles (the words, letters, and punctuation marks) CHANGE. Thus by definition, NO translation actually fulfills the precise definition of "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation. (Note: If an individual holds only to "CONCEPT" preservation, then that individual might have room to claim that a translation could fulfill the definition of such preservation.) Actually, by definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation is all about copying under the providential work of God to preserve every "jot and tittle" of His original Word from generation to generation unto the present and into the future. Thus He most certainly did NOT say that His Word was only preserved until copied, since copying is built into the very definition of Biblical preservation. Yet the Biblical doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation does NOT indicate that ALL copying and copies would be providentially protected with "jot and tittle" accuracy. This means that deceivers CAN create copies with alterations to teach falsehood, and that there CAN be an accumulation of both truly preserved and falsely altered copies over time in competition with one another (such as exists, I believe, in our present day). On the other hand, as I have presented above, by definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation is a matter for the ORIGINAL words, letter, and punctuation. By definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation CANNOT carry to a translation, since translation by definition requires changes in the "jots and tittles." For example - (Note: I wanted to use actual Greek letters for this, but could not get them to paste over) "agape" (employing the actual Greek letters) and "love" do NOT have the same "jots and tittles." Nor would this be the case if we employed the English word "charity" in place of the English word "love." Greek letters are NOT the same as English letters. The number of letters in a given Greek word are NOT necessarily the same as the number of letters in the English word to which the Greek word is translated, and the same would hold with Hebrew words. Even so, when the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word with "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation, He by definition did NOT include the work of translation within the doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation. Now, does this mean that I do not view the King James translation has retaining any aspect of inspiration? No. Rather, I believe that the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is BOTH about "inspirational origin" (given by) and "inspirational authority" (of God). I believe that ONLY the original writings can claim "inspirational origin," but that ANY copy that is providentially preserved and protected ("jot and tittle" preserved) and ANY translation that is accurately translated from that which has been providentially preserved retains "inspirational authority" (is IN TRUTH the very Word OF GOD in whatever language). However, I most certainly do NOT hold that 2 Peter 1:21 (which clearly speaks in the past tense) can be applied to the process of copying and translating, but ONLY can be applied to the original work of the Holy Spirit in the original formulation of the Holy Scriptures (both in its original writing and original arranging).
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...