Another question I have.

[teylacarter91]

It's not that simple. One can't look at the dozens of different versions, all disagreeing with on another on various points, and believe they are all equal.

One also can not look at one translation and say "this is the best"

[John81]

One also can not look at one translation and say "this is the best"

Actually, one can, if they take the time to do the research.

[teylacarter91]

The only one that can truly be the "best" one is the original texts written by Moses, David, Paul, etc...

[John81]

The only one that can truly be the "best" one is the original texts written by Moses, David, Paul, etc...

Not if you believe God when He said He would preserve His Word.

[Oldtimer]

Not if you believe God when He said He would preserve His Word.

That's the point that is conveniently forgotten by many.

In the Bible there are examples of "originals" being destroyed. Starting with Moses and the ORIGINAL 10 commandments. God did preserve those by His own hand. Do we doubt the 10 commandents because we can't put the original pieces of stone back together? No, as Christians, we understand (should understand) that God did and does preserve the scriptures, even though the evidence isn't as "dramatic" as the second writing of the commandments.

[teylacarter91]

That's the point that is conveniently forgotten by many.

In the Bible there are examples of "originals" being destroyed. Starting with Moses and the ORIGINAL 10 commandments. God did preserve those by His own hand. Do we doubt the 10 commandents because we can't put the original pieces of stone back together? No, as Christians, we understand (should understand) that God did and does preserve the scriptures, even though the evidence isn't as "dramatic" as the second writing of the commandments.

I was not saying that God does not preserve His word. I was saying that we can not claim that one translation is "better" or "more right" than others...

[Guest]

I was not saying that God does not preserve His word. I was saying that we can not claim that one translation is "better" or "more right" than others...

I will say this and be done. I would never recommend someone should use one of the new EVs. Having done my own research on the subject I will always use the KJV AV.

A bucket of cool water and a ladle can provide a refreshing drink to workers on a hot day. However, you need to insure the dogs didn't get to it just before you.

[Pastor Matt]

I was not saying that God does not preserve His word. I was saying that we can not claim that one translation is "better" or "more right" than others...

If God's Word is Preserved, Which ones are? Also, which ones are not preserved?

[Salyan]

It's not just the translation, Teyla, although the translation process used can seriously affect the authenticity of the text. You'll need to look up some on dynamic equivalency - which is the translation philosophy used for the MVs - to see that. (Dynamic equivalency is the philosophy that changed "the Lamb of God" into "the seal pup of God." Excuse me. I don't think seal pups were acceptable sacrifices for sin - totally messes up the 'types' God used to foreshadow Christ in the Old Testament.) You also have to consider the manuscripts the translations were produced from - if the manuscripts were corrupted, the text is corrupted even before translation. And since there are two distinct lines of manuscripts with distinct differences - they can't both be true. :twocents:

[teylacarter91]

If God's Word is Preserved, Which ones are? Also, which ones are not preserved?

Gods word is quick and powerful. If I translated a modern version (like NIV) into a language that some tribe deep in the Amazon jungle know... Gods power does not flee from that translation just because it is not KJV.

[Pastor Matt]

Interesting, so anyone can write a version and it is Preserved by God?

[1John2:15-17]

Interesting, so anyone can write a version and it is Preserved by God?

If so, then "The Message" must be inspired.... :icon_rolleyes:

[teylacarter91]

If someone uses The Message Bible to bring someone to Christ and they accept Jesus as their savior then great!

When we say God only favors certain translations, doesin't that mean we are limiting the power of God?

[John81]

You seem to be missing the point that there are dozens of English versions and they don't all agree. That in itself means they all can't be the preserved Word of God. If one studies the history of the various translations and the sources used to bring them about, it becomes clear that a few were brought about using historically accepted ancient manuscripts while most of the others were not.

When one translates from a corrupted source, that translation will be flawed and cannot, by definition, be the preserved Word of God.

There are some good threads on this board dealing with the subject. Brandplucked has put forth some excellent examples in some threads too.

Here's one:

Edited March 31, 2012 by John81

[Seth Doty]

If someone uses The Message Bible to bring someone to Christ and they accept Jesus as their savior then great!

When we say God only favors certain translations, doesin't that mean we are limiting the power of God?

Your confusing two different things. I don't think many if any on this board would deny that the MV's contain some of the word of God, but that doesn't make them Gods inerrant preserved scriptures as a whole. For example if I were to tell a lost person "if you don't repent and turn to Christ trusting in him alone for salvation your going to one day die and go to hell" is that the word of God? Yes it is in a sense, because it accurately expresses the truth found in the scriptures. However it obviously is not scripture itself, it is merely an explanation of the truth of scripture and the accuracy of the statement depends on how well it conforms to the actual scriptures.

That is what your talking about.

Do not confuse that with the divinely & perfectly preserved scriptures themselves though. The bible itself uses the term "holy" to describe the scriptures. For example:

"2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Note that the apostle Paul calls the scriptures "holy" when speaking to timothy. Remember that they did not have the original copies of the old testament scriptures he was speaking of any more than we have the original copies of either the old or new testament scriptures. Yet in spite of that Paul, under the inspiration of God, calls the scriptures "holy" because God had and still has perfectly preserved the scriptures. In truth, most of the users of the MV's(at least if they have studied the issues enough to understand them) do not even believe what their bible says on the cover let alone the contents. It may say "holy bible" but they don't really believe that, they believe that some parts are of God & some parts contain errors and they get to pick and choose which is which. If one takes that approach I fail to see how one could possibly genuinely believe the scriptures are holy as they claim to be. Edited April 1, 2012 by Seth-Doty