Jump to content

Is The Translation Of The Bible Inspired?


Bsix

Recommended Posts

A young man in my ward advanced from Primary to the Aaronic Priesthood. He recited the Article of Faith that declares that we Mormons accept the Bible as it is translated correctly.

That got me thinking. Do traditional Christians believe that the Bible -- in this case English -- are inspired translations. Do they believe that every word was inspired, the grammar, the spelling, the history, the numbers, etc.

What exactly is inspired about the transmission of the Bible from the original.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Six

Link to comment

A young man in my ward advanced from Primary to the Aaronic Priesthood. He recited the Article of Faith that declares that we Mormons accept the Bible as it is translated correctly.

That got me thinking. Do traditional Christians believe that the Bible -- in this case English -- are inspired translations. Do they believe that every word was inspired, the grammar, the spelling, the history, the numbers, etc.

What exactly is inspired about the transmission of the Bible from the original.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Six

Only the original writings were inspired. Some of the oldest manuscripts show that there has been very little changes to the copies that we have today. There are a few passages that are disputed, but overall, we can have a high level of confidence that the Bible we have today is virtually the same after the authors penned them.

Now, for your question about translations, the answer is definitely "no". Some translations are better than others and none are inspired by God. The NIV translation, for example, is more of a thought for thought translation vs the New American Standard, which is more of a word for word translation. Both are reliable translations, but can have subtle differences at times that can really change the meaning of a passage. The KJV is, well, a translation from Hebrew and Greek into 16th century English. If you prefer that old language, then well, that tranlation is for you. I personally am an NASB guy.

My thoughts, anyhow...

AZBeliever

Link to comment

I ask this because I honestly don't know, but what is the oldest existing copy of the NT that is available? It is claimed that the current translations are pretty accurate (I have no reason to dispute this) I just wonder how anyone could know this and what is it that they are comparing it to?

Link to comment

Only the original writings were inspired. Some of the oldest manuscripts show that there has been very little changes to the copies that we have today.

I hope I'm not bursting your bubble, but there are hundreds of thousands of variations among just the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament alone.

Link to comment

There are variations, of course. But can anyone point to changes that completely turns a doctrine on its head?

When the DSS were discovered, scholars were more impressed with the consistency with the MT. Only later were they interested in debating the significance of the minor discrepancies. But to the dismay of many LDS, there was nothing that jumped out as unquestionably "Mormon" in the earlier, and supposedly "lesser corrupted" manuscripts.

Link to comment

But can anyone point to changes that completely turns a doctrine on its head?

The Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7-8:

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The bold part doesn't appear in the reliable Greek manuscripts, and there is no support for the doctrine of the "Trinity" without it.

Link to comment

I can just repeat what I have heard and read:

The Bible is the word of God, and God has preserved his word intact. He is God and can do anything; certainly he can preserve the Bible as he intends it to be.

He did the original writings, but since especially in latter days there have been very big

problems with mankinds interpritations, not God, but man,s. changes of it. Because some men

have decided that they know more than God, and can put text into the bible claiming that is what

God intended, then there changed bible is sold for millions of dollars of profit.

How does God stop mans evil corruption? He doesnt, he gave us free agency to do either good

or evil, and some men {and women} have used the bible for evil intent to make money.

some other changes were not ill intended but still ended up wrong and very confusing and missleading.

:P

Link to comment

What do we mean that the original writings were inspired though? Even the original authors were human, had their biases in favor of one thing and against another, probably had friends and enemies, etc. Maybe they didn't like a particular king in a country or something. Maybe their neighbors sucked, like some of ours, after al. etc. I have been reading the Bible in translation now in both Hebrew and Greek and especiallyfocusing on Isaiah 52-53, the Servant Songs, and I have to say, without equivocation, there is NO GOOD translation yet available or discussed, and nothing in sight on the horizon for getting us any closer to what the heck and who the heck this is all about.......... it is exquisitely fascinating.

Link to comment

He did the original writings, but since especially in latter days there have been very big

problems with mankinds interpritations, not God, but man,s. changes of it. Because some men

have decided that they know more than God, and can put text into the bible claiming that is what

God intended, then there changed bible is sold for millions of dollars of profit.

And what evidence do you have to support this accusation?

Link to comment

I can just repeat what I have heard and read:

The Bible is the word of God, and God has preserved his word intact. He is God and can do anything; certainly he can preserve the Bible as he intends it to be.

But what does that mean?

  1. That God did preserve His word perfectly in every Bible in every language
  2. That He perfectly preserved His word in some Bibles in all languages
  3. That He perfectly preserved His word in some Bibles in some languages
  4. That He could have done any of the above, but He didn't.

You know, I'm going to start a thread with these questions.

Link to comment
The Comma Johanneum, John 5:7-8:

QUOTE

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The bold part doesn't appear in the Greek manuscripts, and there is no support for the doctrine of the "Trinity" without it.

Actually, the Comma enters the manuscripts long after the Trinity doctrine was formulated. It was not used as a prooftext for the Trinity, but was likely added after the fact to back up the doctrine that had already been distilled out of Scripture. So the Comma doesn't apply as a variant that affects any major doctrine, since the doctrine was in place long before the Comma entered the manuscripts.

Any other examples?

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

I hope I'm not bursting your bubble, but there are hundreds of thousands of variations among just the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament alone.

I hope I'm not bursting your bubble, but textual criticism has done an excellent job at resolving textual discrepancies. The existence of a textual variant is only a problem is we throw our hands up in despair the second we find one. Is one responds to finding usch evidence in the way many scholars have done, by asking whether the problem can be cleared up by examination of manuscript history, linguistics, antiquity of manuscropts, etc.

Link to comment

Actually, the Comma enters the manuscripts long after the Trinity doctrine was formulated. It was not used as a prooftext for the Trinity, but was likely added after the fact to back up the doctrine that had already been distilled out of Scripture. So the Comma doesn't apply as a variant that affects any major doctrine, since the doctrine was in place long before the Comma entered the manuscripts.

Any other examples?

Take care, everyone :P

In fact, the most important defenders of the Trintiy like Sts. Athanasius and Augustine never quote it. Yet they still prove the Trinity with avalanches of other Biblical evidence.

Link to comment

I hope I'm not bursting your bubble, but textual criticism has done an excellent job at resolving textual discrepancies. The existence of a textual variant is only a problem is we throw our hands up in despair the second we find one. Is one responds to finding usch evidence in the way many scholars have done, by asking whether the problem can be cleared up by examination of manuscript history, linguistics, antiquity of manuscropts, etc.

Textual criticism has done a lot to help, except the problem is so immense anymore,

think of all the billions of people whom have gotten wrong info.

Correcting something is very good but basically its too late after the fact for billions.

And also the "misstranslations" are being printed out far faster than can be corrected nowdays.

:P

Link to comment

Mistranslations are not the oly problems though, but rather, what actually *is* included in the canon, and what was excluded. We now know the canon idea is much more complicated than we had supposed, even just within my lifetime.......

Link to comment

I hope I'm not bursting your bubble, but textual criticism has done an excellent job at resolving textual discrepancies. The existence of a textual variant is only a problem is we throw our hands up in despair the second we find one. Is one responds to finding usch evidence in the way many scholars have done, by asking whether the problem can be cleared up by examination of manuscript history, linguistics, antiquity of manuscropts, etc.

CFR that all the major and/or the majority all the minor variants in the textual discrepancies have been solved?

But, one you have said that they have been solved, that is admitting rather forcefully that the word of God hasn't been preserved throughout the centuries.

Link to comment

I'm fully aware of the Johanine Comma and so are Evangelicals. It has long since been recognized as a later addition to the text, but as has been noted, the Trinity doctrine existed long beforehand, so it cannot be used as a valid example. Further, I'm not at all certain how this would prove the Trinity anyway.

The Sons of God issue is interesting, but it would be wrong to assume this illustrates a "plain and precious" Mormon truth that was once lost in textual corruption. Evangelical scholar Michael Heiser has no problems with it, and has done an exceptional job demonstrating how it cannot be used to support unique LDS doctrines.

Few LDS can even begin to explain how this supports an LDS doctrine to begin with. So the elohim in heaven were once referred to as sons of God.

So what?

How do you deal with the fact that elohim in Mormonism is not a general name for divine beings, but its actually the personal name of God the Father? The same tradition that referred to divine beings as elohim also referred to God the Father as El Elyon or simply El.

Where is that in Mormonism?

Link to comment

Mistranslations are not the oly problems though, but rather, what actually *is* included in the canon, and what was excluded. We now know the canon idea is much more complicated than we had supposed, even just within my lifetime.......

Well, what about the books the Early Christians definitely used and taught as scripture, such as the Pastor of Hermes, but was rejected.

Which version of the OT should we accept as the perfect preservation of God's word, the MT or the Septuagint or is there another version?

Other than simply trusting a person's word that the Bible is perfect, is there any way to demonstrate that the Bible is perfect? I hear critics of the Church clamoring for the Gold Plates, well, where are the autographs of the book in the Bible, why didn't God preserve those?

---------------------------------

But if the Johanine Comma is an addition to the Bible, I thought that this was prohibited in the writing of Moses and also of John the Revelator.

Link to comment

You have to understand that biblical inerrancy is a relatively recent innovation in Christian thought (the earliest Christians seemed to have had no problems living without it). And it has gone through many variations over the past few centuries. At this point it is pretty much rejected by most Christian scholars (at least in the strict sense in which LDS apologists like to present it).

But the LDS are the ones with the burden of proof here. A fundamental premise of the restored Gospel is that Mormon truths were lost in translations. That is one of the purposes for a modern- prophet, to â??restoreâ? them. Given the quantum leaps in textual criticism since the restoration, we should expect to see various proofs pointing to Mormon doctrines that were once lost.

Yet, thus far nobody has provided an unambiguous example.

Link to comment

How do you deal with the fact that elohim in Mormonism is not a general name for divine beings, but its actually the personal name of God the Father? The same tradition that referred to divine beings as elohim also referred to God the Father as El Elyon or simply El.

Where is that in Mormonism?

Elohim is both the accepted name of God the Father, although I don't believe that is His real name and elohim is also the word used for gods as in those being who sat in on the Council of God.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...