The translation cannot give power, authority, credence, or inspiration to its underlying sources or texts. The derived nature of a translation does not permit it to be an independent, final authority, superior to its sources.[ /quote]
From the teaching of the Scriptures, a translation can be better than its original source.
Each time a translation shows up in the Scriptures, it is an improvement overits original condition.
logos1560 said:
The inherent nature and qualities of a translation after A. D. 100 cannot be greater than the inherent nature of the texts from which it was translated or the earlier translations of which it was a revision.
Sure it can. The Holy Bible teaches us that the words of the LORD is purified 7 times:
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.
When something is purified; that means it is becoming more and more pure.
Hence; your logic logos1560 is not Scriptural.
logos1560 said:
If an inherent quality is supposedly absent from the underlying original language texts, how can it be present in a translation of those texts?
Well that's simple; because the hand of God has always been involved in the keeping, preserving and translating of His holy and pure word.
In 2 Samuel 21:19 in the King James Bible, we read the following:
2 Samuel 21:19
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
The section I underlined and highlighted in blue is in italics. Why? Well because it does not appear in the Hebrew.
But even though the phrase: "the brother of" does not appear in the Hebrew, we know that it still is accurate and correct in our English Bible. How?
Well again, simple. By comparing Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor. 2:13).
By reading these following passages of Scripture, we know that it was David that slew Goliath, and not Elhanan:
1 Samuel 17:20-23
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
20 And David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took, and went, as Jesse had commanded him; and he came to the trench, as the host was going forth to the fight, and shouted for the battle. 21 For Israel and the Philistines had put the battle in array, army against army. 22 And David left his carriage in the hand of the keeper of the carriage, and ran into the army, and came and saluted his brethren. 23 And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.
1 Samuel 17:45-52
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. 46 This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand;
and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 47 And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands.
48 And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. 49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it,
and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. 50
So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone,
and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine,
and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. 52 And the men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines, until thou come to the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, even unto Gath, and unto Ekron.
Therefore; since we know from the Scriptures that it was David who slew Gliath, that must mean that Elhanan slew
the brother of Goliath.
And another Scripture you can compare 2 Samuel 21:19 to is 1 Chronicles 20:5:
1 Chronicles 20:5
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi
the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.
Notice now in this passage of Scripture that the phrase: "the brother of" is not in italics. Which means this phrase found in 1 Chro. 20:5 is found in the Hebrew. Very interesting.
Hence we see the importance of itlaicized words; and it is in the English Bible. A clear example showing you that while there may be something missing in the Hebrew (source), it can still be found in a translation of that underlying text.
Let us look at one more example:
Take Deuteronomy 8:3 in the King James Holy Bible:
Deuteronomy 8:3
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
Now you will notice that the word
"word" is in italics in Deut. 8:3, which means that it is not found in the Hebrew text.
Yet we find by reading Matthew 4:4 that Jesus quotes Deut. 8:3:
Matthew 4:4
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The word
"word" in Matthew 4:4 is not in italics. Meaning that it is in the Greek texts.
Therefore, we can see that as our Lord Jesus Christ quotes an Old Testament passage of Scripture, that He also quotes the Italicized word!
Isn't that amazing?
So again; we see that a translation can be inspired and that it can be superior to the originals.
logos1560 said:
The underlying texts or sources must have greater authority than the translation since that translation is derived from those texts and acquires its authority from them. A translation must be built on its foundation [the texts from which it was translated] and should not be separated from it. A translation rests on the foundation of its underlying texts, and not the foundation on the translation.
logos1560; quick question for you. Have you ever seen a street preacher on a corner of the streets sharing the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?
And if you have seen a street preacher; what was he preaching from? Was he preaching from a Greek text? was it a Hebrew text? Or was it an English Bible??
logos1560 said:
The words of a translation built on and made from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages is not more fixed and solid than their underlying foundation. A translation may be and should be representative of its underlying texts, but it cannot have greater authority than them or be superior to them.
Sure a translation can be superior than its source. Logos1560; we do not have the Original Autographs, what we have are the preserved English Scriptures.
logos1560 said:
By virtue of its origin as a translation by men that were not directly inspired of God and that did not receive direct revelation or Scriptures by direct inspiration, it is clear that such a translation cannot be correctly regarded to be the final authority beyond which there is no other. By the proper standard of the greater authority of the original language words, the derived authority of a translation will be justified. From the rules or laws of good and necessary consequence and of non-contradiction and from the correct and true sense of the terms “translation†and “final authority,“ it can be correctly deduced and understood that a translation is not the final authority beyond which there is no other. Translations of something must all alike be compared to that something.
While the KJV translators were not inspired. They were led by the hand of God. And they believed that they were led by the hand of God.
The KJB Translators believed they were guided by the hand of God
The KJB Translators believed they were guided by the hand of God
Published on Nov 21, 2013
In this video I address an error often repeated, and even found in Sam Gipp's work, The Answer Book', That is one, that the KJB translators did not think they were creating a perfect translation and two, that they did not claim that they were led by God in their work.
Both views are false.
The translators state clearly that their goal was to perfect the earlier English versions which were good ones that needed to be polished and thus perfected
And they believed they had done so by...' the good hand of the Lord upon us'.
Also, a translation has to be the Final Authority because we no longer have the Original Autographs. Just like we do not have the Original Hebrew OT Text, nor do we have the Original Greek NT Text.
So therefore; a translation of the Hebew OT Text and Greek NT Text has to be the Final Authority. And that Final Authority is the King James Holy Bible.
God has used and blessed the precious Authorized Version English Holy Bible for over 403 years now. It is the ultimate and absolute Standard of written truth.
logos1560 said:
A fundamental fallacy in the KJV-only view is the assumption that a lower, lesser, dependent, or secondary authority (a translation) can act as the final authority over a higher or greater primary authority (God's preserved Word in the original languages).
It is not a fallacy.
It is a fact.
I already told you that we do not have the Original Hebrew OT Text. Nor do we have the Original Greek NT Text. Therefore; the Final Authority is a translation. It is the 1611 English Translation; which is the Holy Bible.
logos1560 said:
The backwards reasoning of the KJV-only view denies the greater authority of the antecedent sources while it tries to assert the authority of the consequent translation. The extent of authority claimed for the KJV usurps for it a superior or greater appointment and designation than for its underlying original language texts. The KJV-only view reverses the proper order of authority when it implies that a translation printed in 1611 is greater in authority than its underlying, antecedent original languages texts. This reversal is clearly evident in the fact that no meaning is permitted to be understood from the preserved words in the original languages that is not in effect sanctioned by the interpretation of the actual secondary authority [the KJV]. If KJV-only advocates actually begin with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper and greater authority before 1611 and before coming to its translation into various languages, the KJV-only view’s claim that a translation (the KJV) should now be considered the final authority is denied in the very process.
Logos1560; if your final authority is the original Hebrew and Greek texts and manuscripts, then your final authority does not exist. Hence, your own mind and preferences automatically become the final authority.
The Holy Scriptures which Timothy had in his posession as a child were not the Original Hebrew OT Texts. What Timothy had in his possesion was a copy, a translation of the OT Hebrew texts. And yet; what he had were the Holy Scriptures:
2 Timothy 3:15-17
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
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. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
logos1560 said:
The Bible does not teach that the Scriptures that God gave in the original languages by inspiration to the prophets and apostles will be nullified and replaced by a subsequent translation in 1611.
Logos1560; for the 20th time, we don't have the original Hebrew OT autographs. Neither do we have the Original Greek NT autographs.
logos1560 said:
It is God who chose and determined in which languages He would give the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
And God also chose the language in which He would preserve His word and also guide the translation of His words.
logos1560 said:
Thus, it was God who established the source of authority from which translations were to be made. It is the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that grants, substantiates, or establishes the proper derived authority of a translation. God never ordained the irrational, incoherent, ludicrous, or contradictory idea of a supposed absolute infallible translation that does not need to conform to the sources from which it was translated.
Logos1560; the original autographs no longer exist. They have not existed for many centuries now.
Therefore, the English Scriptures that we have today (King James Holy Bible) is the Absolute Final Authority.
logos1560 said:
According to the law of non-contradiction, would a translation need to be compared to and evaluated by its underlying texts from which it was translated and from which it derives its authority or would a translation need to be made irrationally into an independent and final authority?
Logos1560; how do you compare the English Bible to the original autographs when you do not have the original autographs???
logos1560 said:
If KJV-only advocates have submitted themselves properly to the authority of the Scriptures, why do they reject scriptural truths in order to cling to the fallacies, unjust divers measures, and opinions of men evident in KJV-onlyism and why do they avoid presenting any positive, consistent, sound, scriptural case for their KJV-only claims?
Logos1560; we King James Bible believers do submit ourselves to the authority of the Scriptures, which is the King James Bible. We have a Final Absolute Authority which we submit to and judge ourselves by.
It is the Alexandrians and the "no Bible is inerrant" crowd that refuses to submit themselves to the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
By the way; KJV Onlyism does have Scriptural grounds and basis:
I suggest you read this really good article which Will Kinney wrote on this matter:
Is King James onlyism Scriptural?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyismscriptural.htm
