Featured Translating OT from Septuagint

Again from another place in the preface of The 1611 King James Version.

The Translators to the Reader

An Answer to the Imputations of Our Adversaries

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.

 

Jerome did not like the septuagint version and instead used the Hebrew and Greek versions of the 2nd century Jews

 

Most certainly not!

 

No copy of the Bible or translation in any language can be Inspired by God

 

This is very difficult issue as we don't have the originals that alone as the Inspired Word of God however this does not mean that the copies are not Inerrant to some extent

 

Are you suggesting that the copies of the original documents are also equally Inspired as the Autographs by the writer of the Books of the Bible

 

So which is it? The KJV uses a different text to the NASB for example and there are differences. Both cannot be right

 

Take a couple of examples. 1 Timothy 3.16 and 1 John 5. 7. Which version is the Inspired Word of God

 

In 1 Timothy 3.16 God has been removed which makes the Greek Grammar inconsistent. The same is in 1 John 5. 7 with the removal of the Testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses the Greek Grammar is wrong. Also in Acts 8.37 the testimony of the Eunuch has been removed. Again which is the Inspired Word. Your reasoning is wrong

 

It is clear that you don't understand textual studies. If you were right then there would not be so many Bible versions

 

I think the LXX operates like a rosetta stone, helping scholars understand the meaning of both Hebrew and Greek words and phrases. But because the LXX is not inspired, some of the translation choices miss the mark. So it is a fallible aid.

 

Indeed but there are some who cannot understand this

 

While the sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Quen Suan Yew wrote: “Argument from silence is very dangerous and can lead to all kinds of wrong doctrine” (Kwok, VPP, p. 53). Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to advocate personal opinions based on unproven assumptions involving the use of fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3). Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament?

This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration.

It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or for the way or process by which they are translated into other languages including into English.