Inspired Translations

Biblebeliever

New member
Elect
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
892
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Acts 22:1-21
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


22 1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. 4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13 came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; 18 and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 20 and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.




IN this passage of Scripture; what we have is Paul the apostle speaking to the Jews in the Hebrew tongue. Yet when Luke pens the original autograph of this passage, he writes it in Koine Greek. So right here we have a translation from Hebrew To Greek in the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21.


Many Christians today are being taught by the Alexandrian Cult that no translation is inspired. Or that no translation can be inspired.

Well if that is the case; well then not even the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21 is inspired. Now consider that!

Of course; the Original Autograph of Acts 22:3-21 is inspired as well as all the other Original Autographs of the Holy Scriptures.


Let us look at another Inspired Translation:


Acts 26:14-18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, 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. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.



In the passage of Acts 26:14-18; where Jesus is speaking to Paul (words that are bolded), Luke translates the words that the Lord Jesus speaks to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, into the Greek tongue.

We see therefore; that this is another example of an inspired translation, and it takes place also in an Original Autograph.


How about one more example of an inspired translation in the Original Autographs:


Ezra 4:7-18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: 9 then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, 10 and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.

11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king;

Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time. 12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. 13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. 14 Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 15 that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed. 16 We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.

17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river,

Peace, and at such a time. 18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.




What we see in this passage of Scripture; is a letter that was written in the Syrian tongue and yet Ezra pens it in inspired Hebrew. Therefore, the Original Hebrew Autograph of Ezra included a portion (verses 11 to 16 of Chapt. 4) that was both a copy as well as a translation of another foreign language (Syrian).  And yet; again, this translation from the Syrian tongue into the Hebrew tongue is the inspired words of God Almighty (2 Tim. 3:16).


So don't be deceived by the Alexandrians out there who claim that no translation can be inspired. They simply don't know what they are talking about. If a translation cannot be inspired, then neither can the Original Autographs be inspired, since there are at least 66 inspired translations given in the Original Autographs!

And that is why their very standard of the "Originals Only" as only being the inerrant and inspired word of God, this very argument of theirs falls apart in the light of what the Holy Scriptures teach.


 
Many Christians today are being taught by the Alexandrian Cult that no translation is inspired. Or that no translation can be inspired.

Well if that is the case; well then not even the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21 is inspired. Now consider that!


Luke's translation of Paul's Hebrew speech is itself recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No such assertion is made for the Way Cool King Jimmy Ultra-Nifty Authorized Holy Moly Bible.

Dear KJV-onlyists: Start making sense.
 
Ransom said:
Many Christians today are being taught by the Alexandrian Cult that no translation is inspired. Or that no translation can be inspired.

Well if that is the case; well then not even the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21 is inspired. Now consider that!


Luke's translation of Paul's Hebrew speech is itself recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No such assertion is made for the Way Cool King Jimmy Ultra-Nifty Authorized Holy Moly Bible.

Dear KJV-onlyists: Start making sense.

You ask for that which cannot be done!
 
This has to be the worst argument for "Inspired Translation" that I have ever seen. When Luke penned the Holy Scripture, he was not translating anything. He was writing as the Holy Spirit moved him.

Translators take one document in a particular language, study it, and then record it as faithfully as possible in a receptor language. Luke did not take a copy of Paul's speech and translate it. He wrote and the Holy Spirit moved him. Apples & Oranges.


While we are on the subject, did God promise to preserve His word perfectly in the King James Version? If so, what verse says so? I was a KJVO all of my life until about 2 years ago when I asked myself, "What promise from God am I claiming for this translation?" I found that preservation in a particular translation is not mentioned, much less promised in Scripture. I realized that I was claiming a promise God never made...I was no different than a Word of Faith preacher who says God promises prosperity and health to every believer.
 
Biblebeliever said:
Many Christians today are being taught by the Alexandrian Cult that no translation is inspired. Or that no translation can be inspired.

In disobedience to what the Scriptures teach, you bear false witness with your unproven and actually bogus, false accusation "the Alexandrian cult."  According to a consistent application of your incorrect accusation, the makers of the KJV would have to have been part of that so-called "Alexandrian cult," and therefore, KJV-only advocates are promoting the translation work of members of that claimed "cult."

Where do those who disagree with a man-made KJV-only theory assert that any claimed translating that was part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God is not inspired?

Claimed translating that was part of the words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God to the NT prophets and apostles by inspiration gives no support for the inconsistent modern KJV-only claim that suggests or implies that translating by only one exclusive group of Church of England critics of pre-1611 English Bibles that was not given by direct inspiration of God is to be claimed to be inspired. 

If all the translating by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the Bishops' Bible was not inspired and could be changed, revised, and corrected, what supposedly changed in 1611 that translating supposedly became inspired?
 
Ransom said:
Luke's translation of Paul's Hebrew speech is itself recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And while that is the case; it is still a TRANSLATION. Therefore if a translation in the Original Autographs is inspired, then so can an English Translation.

 
Boomer said:
This has to be the worst argument for "Inspired Translation" that I have ever seen. When Luke penned the Holy Scripture, he was not translating anything. He was writing as the Holy Spirit moved him.


Yes Luke was writing what the Holy Spirit move him to write. But the very words which the Holy Ghost moved him to write were a translation from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek tongue.


Boomer said:
Translators take one document in a particular language, study it, and then record it as faithfully as possible in a receptor language. Luke did not take a copy of Paul's speech and translate it. He wrote and the Holy Spirit moved him. Apples & Oranges.


Let me ask you; which was inspired, what Paul spoke to the Jews, or what Luke penned down?


Boomer said:
While we are on the subject, did God promise to preserve His word perfectly in the King James Version? If so, what verse says so? I was a KJVO all of my life until about 2 years ago when I asked myself, "What promise from God am I claiming for this translation?" I found that preservation in a particular translation is not mentioned, much less promised in Scripture.


Aren't you aware that what Timothy had in his posession as a child was a copy of the Holy Scriptures?



Boomer said:
I realized that I was claiming a promise God never made...I was no different than a Word of Faith preacher who says God promises prosperity and health to every believer.


God did promise to preserve and keep His word:


Psalm 12:6-7
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


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


Let me ask you; who inspired David to pen those words (Psa. 12:6-7).?

Was it not the Holy Ghost?

I would say that passage of Scripture right there is a promise on Scripture preservation. It is the LORD that will keep and preserve His pure words.
 
logos1560 said:
Where do those who disagree with a man-made KJV-only theory assert that any claimed translating that was part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God is not inspired?


What I was showing in the OP is that there are several places in the New Testament where there are inpsired translations from Hebrew over to Greek.

You do realize that each time one of the apostles wrote down a OT quotation, that they had to translate it into Greek?

Would that not be considered an inspired translation?? Of course it is an inspired translation.

Therefore, the modern day teaching that there is no such thing as an inspired translation by those who deny the infallibility of the Authorized King James Holy Bible, is non Scriptural. Because by their same criteria, if a translation (King James Bible) cannot be inspired, then neither were plenty of those Original Autographs which contained translations from Hebrew to Greek.


logos1560 said:
Claimed translating that was part of the words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God to the NT prophets and apostles by inspiration gives no support for the inconsistent modern KJV-only claim that suggests or implies that translating by only one exclusive group of Church of England critics of pre-1611 English Bibles that was not given by direct inspiration of God is to be claimed to be inspired. 


The King James Translators were working with what they had at the time. The very purpose of their work was to give 'one principal translation.' And that principle translation was to be the Final Authority in the English Language.

God's word was being purified in the English Language all the way up til 1611.


logos1560 said:
If all the translating by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the Bishops' Bible was not inspired and could be changed, revised, and corrected, what supposedly changed in 1611 that translating supposedly became inspired?


Again, God's word was being purified in the English Langauge from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Bishop's, Geneva, etc.

The English Bibles which preceeded the King James Bible of 1611 which I just listed above were still pure Bibles, and they were blessed by God. The only difference is they were simply not yet perfect Bibles since the English Language itself had not been perfected (completed) yet.

You need to get the difference between purity and perfection.
 
Biblebeliever said:
Ransom said:
Luke's translation of Paul's Hebrew speech is itself recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And while that is the case; it is still a TRANSLATION. Therefore if a translation in the Original Autographs is inspired, then so can an English Translation.

You mean like the NKJV or the NIV....wow thanks!
 
Biblebeliever said:
The English Bibles which preceeded the King James Bible of 1611 which I just listed above were still pure Bibles, and they were blessed by God. The only difference is they were simply not yet perfect Bibles since the English Language itself had not been perfected (completed) yet.

And the English language was perfected (completed) in 1611????

Why aren't you typing in that language then?
 
Biblebeliever said:
And while that is the case; it is still a TRANSLATION.

A translation made by an apostle under inspiration.

The Super-Awesome-King-James-Was-A-Fairy-Not-That-There's-Anything-Wrong-With-That-Authorized-Holy-Bible was neither translated by an apostle, nor inspired by the Holy Spirit.

All you and all your KJV-only friends just keep making the same categorical errors. If you want to convince me, you'll have to do better.

Not that I think you're capable of it. You certainly haven't shown yourself to be capable of plain reason.
 
All translations (with the exception of those deliberately corrupted by cults) are inspired, derivatively. The original manuscripts were given by direct inspiration. The copies of those manuscripts preserved the inspired message of the originals. Those copies were then translated into the receptor language (in this case English).

The obvious conclusion is that the history of the English bible is inspired history.

The prophecy of the English bible is inspired prophecy.

The promises of the English bible are inspired promises.

So, ALL translations (with the exception as noted above) are derivatively inspired. :)
 
Are the errors found in translations whether introduced by copiers, translators, printers, or whomever "inspired derivatively"?

Did the translation decisions of men (after the end of the giving of the Scriptures by the miracle of inspiration with the completion of the New Testament) proceed directly from the mouth of God by inspiration?

KJV defender D. A. Waite wrote:  “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1).  H. D. Williams wrote:  “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20).  In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16.  Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2).  Waite added:  “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).   

    H. D. Williams quoted Waite as noting:  “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’).  Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’  It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma.  It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (Cleaning-Up, p. iv).  Ralph Earle asserted that the Greek word “literally means ‘God breathed’--theos, ‘God,’ and pneo, ‘breathe’” (Word Meanings, p. 409).  Marvin Vincent also maintained that this word comes from the Greek noun for God and the Greek verb ‘to breathe’ and meant “God-breathed” (Word Studies, IV, p. 317).  E. W. Bullinger defined the Greek word as “God-breathed, God-inspired” (Lexicon, p. 414).  Waite concluded:  “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma).  This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine.  It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (Cleaning-Up, p. iv).   
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
All translations (with the exception of those deliberately corrupted by cults) are inspired, derivatively. The original manuscripts were given by direct inspiration. The copies of those manuscripts preserved the inspired message of the originals. Those copies were then translated into the receptor language (in this case English).

The obvious conclusion is that the history of the English bible is inspired history.

The prophecy of the English bible is inspired prophecy.

The promises of the English bible are inspired promises.

So, ALL translations (with the exception as noted above) are derivatively inspired. :)

Obviously your comments apply to ALL translations to an equal degree, Tom, whether in English, German, Spanish, French, Latin or any other language.

KJVO types in general prefer to ignore the issue that each man's native language is just as significant to him, in terms of its ability to convey  precision of meaning and of emotional content of the Scriptural messages, as is the English of the KJV to English-speaking KJVOs.

Of course, one or two KJVOs (e.g., Matthew Verschuur aka "bibleprotector" from Australia) insist that the KJV in English preempts in authority and accuracy all other possible translations or versions, even superceding such witnesses as the extant original-language manuscripts (!), and this to the frankly ridiculous extent that he recommends that those whose native language is other than English must and should study and learn English, including those forms of Elizabethan/Jacobean English in which the KJV is couched, or else they won't/can't properly and thoroughly understand the Scriptures!

Talk about crazy-silly-superstitious ideas!

Derivative inspiration is what each and every responsibly-produced Bible translation has; not more, not less.
 
SAWBONES said:
Obviously your comments apply to ALL translations to an equal degree, Tom, whether in English, German, Spanish, French, Latin or any other language. [snip]

Derivative inspiration is what each and every responsibly-produced Bible translation has; not more, not less.
Yep. :D
 
SAWBONES said:
Thomas Cassidy said:
All translations (with the exception of those deliberately corrupted by cults) are inspired, derivatively. The original manuscripts were given by direct inspiration. The copies of those manuscripts preserved the inspired message of the originals. Those copies were then translated into the receptor language (in this case English).

The obvious conclusion is that the history of the English bible is inspired history.

The prophecy of the English bible is inspired prophecy.

The promises of the English bible are inspired promises.

So, ALL translations (with the exception as noted above) are derivatively inspired. :)

Obviously your comments apply to ALL translations to an equal degree, Tom, whether in English, German, Spanish, French, Latin or any other language.

KJVO types in general prefer to ignore the issue that each man's native language is just as significant to him, in terms of its ability to convey  precision of meaning and of emotional content of the Scriptural messages, as is the English of the KJV to English-speaking KJVOs.

Of course, one or two KJVOs (e.g., Matthew Verschuur aka "bibleprotector" from Australia) insist that the KJV in English preempts in authority and accuracy all other possible translations or versions, even superceding such witnesses as the extant original-language manuscripts (!), and this to the frankly ridiculous extent that he recommends that those whose native language is other than English must and should study and learn English, including those forms of Elizabethan/Jacobean English in which the KJV is couched, or else they won't/can't properly and thoroughly understand the Scriptures!

Talk about crazy-silly-superstitious ideas!

Derivative inspiration is what each and every responsibly-produced Bible translation has; not more, not less.
Or, the Bible is the Spirit, no matter what language He is in.

Jn 6:63
63 El espíritu es el que da vida; la carne nada aprovecha:las palabras que yo os he hablado, son espíritu y son vida.
(RV09)

Jn 6:63
63 Duchci jest, ktory ozywia, cialo nic nie pomaga; slowa, ktore ja wam mowie, duch sa i zywot sa.
(Gdansk)

Jn 6:64
64 It is the spirit that quykeneth, the fleisch profitith no thing; the wordis that Y haue spokun to you, ben spirit and lijf.
(WYC)

63. Oшag su iu eabiziiuemuguk; kauin iu uias nin gutano inab1m7sinon: iniu su ikitouinun gaininuguk, ojijagouunon, gaie bimatiziuiuunon.

Baamaapii

Anishinaabe

 
Darkwing Duck said:
Biblebeliever said:
The English Bibles which preceeded the King James Bible of 1611 which I just listed above were still pure Bibles, and they were blessed by God. The only difference is they were simply not yet perfect Bibles since the English Language itself had not been perfected (completed) yet.

And the English language was perfected (completed) in 1611????

Why aren't you typing in that language then?

Type it? He can't even read it.  ::)
 
subllibrm said:
Darkwing Duck said:
Biblebeliever said:
The English Bibles which preceeded the King James Bible of 1611 which I just listed above were still pure Bibles, and they were blessed by God. The only difference is they were simply not yet perfect Bibles since the English Language itself had not been perfected (completed) yet.

And the English language was perfected (completed) in 1611????

Why aren't you typing in that language then?

Type it? He can't even read it.  ::)
He is typing in it, and reading it. The bibles immediately preceding the KJV were the Geneva bible (1560), favored by the people, and the Bishops Bible (1568) which was Authorized by the Church of England. Both were in Modern English.

Old English 500-1100
Middle English 1100-1500
Modern English 1500-present

:)
 
This is your brain:

brain-990x622.png



This is your brain on dope:

Biblebeliever said:
Acts 22:1-21
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


22 1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) 3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. 4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13 came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; 18 and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 20 and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. 21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.




IN this passage of Scripture; what we have is Paul the apostle speaking to the Jews in the Hebrew tongue. Yet when Luke pens the original autograph of this passage, he writes it in Koine Greek. So right here we have a translation from Hebrew To Greek in the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21.


Many Christians today are being taught by the Alexandrian Cult that no translation is inspired. Or that no translation can be inspired.

Well if that is the case; well then not even the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21 is inspired. Now consider that!

Of course; the Original Autograph of Acts 22:3-21 is inspired as well as all the other Original Autographs of the Holy Scriptures.


Let us look at another Inspired Translation:


Acts 26:14-18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, 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. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.



In the passage of Acts 26:14-18; where Jesus is speaking to Paul (words that are bolded), Luke translates the words that the Lord Jesus speaks to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, into the Greek tongue.

We see therefore; that this is another example of an inspired translation, and it takes place also in an Original Autograph.


How about one more example of an inspired translation in the Original Autographs:


Ezra 4:7-18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: 9 then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, 10 and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.

11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king;

Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time. 12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. 13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. 14 Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 15 that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed. 16 We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.

17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river,

Peace, and at such a time. 18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.




What we see in this passage of Scripture; is a letter that was written in the Syrian tongue and yet Ezra pens it in inspired Hebrew. Therefore, the Original Hebrew Autograph of Ezra included a portion (verses 11 to 16 of Chapt. 4) that was both a copy as well as a translation of another foreign language (Syrian).  And yet; again, this translation from the Syrian tongue into the Hebrew tongue is the inspired words of God Almighty (2 Tim. 3:16).


So don't be deceived by the Alexandrians out there who claim that no translation can be inspired. They simply don't know what they are talking about. If a translation cannot be inspired, then neither can the Original Autographs be inspired, since there are at least 66 inspired translations given in the Original Autographs!

And that is why their very standard of the "Originals Only" as only being the inerrant and inspired word of God, this very argument of theirs falls apart in the light of what the Holy Scriptures teach.
 
Biblebeliever said:
Ransom said:
Luke's translation of Paul's Hebrew speech is itself recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And while that is the case; it is still a TRANSLATION. Therefore if a translation in the Original Autographs is inspired, then so can an English Translation.
That's not what the issue is.  Whether God CAN inspire an English translation is moot.  The issue is: did he?  NOOOOOOOO!!!
 
Back
Top