Originally Posted by dgscott4
thx. I wonder if I will get a response.
Oh, don't worry, you've got one.
Originally Posted by dgscott4
Wow, I appreciate your detailed response. Is it possible to create a thread without name-calling? I doubt it (someone will offend), but let’s try...
No problem, and we'll see how it goes.
 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
The Bible indicates that the Word of God existed before it was written in the "original languages". The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form (John 1). It existed before the creation of the World. When God gave it to man, He inspired men to write it in a language they could understand. They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read. Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration. In fact, we can see many instances throughout the Bible where God inspired translations. An example is when Joseph served in Pharaoh’s court, he spoke Egyptian but his words were translated into Hebrew when the Old Testament was written. This translation was inspired by God.
The fallacy you employed above is called equivocation, and you used it a number of times before you reached your conclusion.
You equivocated in your use of John 1:1 with Ps. 119:81. In Scripture, the context of the verse determines the meaning of the word. In John 1:1, "Word" is a reference to the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God (prior to the incarnation), as is proved from v. 14 where we read that "the Word became flesh." In Ps. 119:81, "word" is a reference to God's special revelation, given to Israel via Moses (compare with vv. 91-95, where his "word" is also termed "ordinances," "law," "precepts," and "testimonies"). The KJV itself acknowledges the difference by using a capitalized "Word" in John 1:1 (as a title for a Person) and a lowercased "word" in Ps. 119:81 (as a reference to God's spoken revelation, i.e., not a person).
You then say, "It existed before the creation of the World." What is the referent of "it"? The second Person of the Trinity, or God's spoken revelation? These two things are not the same. You have equivocated here, because the two verses are not referring to the same thing (hence "Word" and "word"). God's spoken revelation is not the same thing as the second Person of the Trinity. When God said "let there be light," he did not at that moment "create" the second Person of the Trinity. Your not distinguishing between the second Person of the Trinity, and God's temporal revelation to mankind through the spoken (and written) word, can potentially lead to any number of serious heresies.
Again, you equivocated when you said "The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form (John 1)." "Truth" is not the same as a Person. You cannot say that "truth" is "Jesus." Of course the source of truth is God, and the second Person of the Trinity is God, and so he is true and everything he says and does is true, and we can call him "Truth," and the written word that he inspired is true, but you are nevertheless equivocating on the word. I can say, "the world is round," and that is a truth statement, but that does not mean the statement "the world is round" is Jesus Christ.
You again used the same fallacy when you said, "They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read." For this statement to be true, you would have to admit that the Bible is Jesus Christ. That is the blunt way of demonstrating the equivocation you have employed, especially if you believe "truth" and "Jesus" are the same thing.
You then say, "Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration." This time you are again equivocating on the word "translation." The inspired words written down by the original biblical authors were not a "translation." A translation is a given text transformed into another language. When the biblical authors wrote the Scripture, they were not "translating" eternal truth (Jesus?) into another language. Your use of the word here may be used that way in a poetic sense, but that poetic sense of the word "translation" is not in accordance with the way the word is normally employed in speech.
Your next few sentences ("In fact, we can see many instances throughout the Bible where God inspired translations. An example is when Joseph served in Pharaoh’s court, he spoke Egyptian but his words were translated into Hebrew when the Old Testament was written. This translation was inspired by God.") are proof of what a am saying here, because Pharaoh speaking in Egyptian and Joseph translating his words into Hebrew is the ordinary use of the word "translate" (not the "poetic" sense you used in reference to inspiration). Joseph simply recorded Pharaoh's words in Hebrew, and they are inspired as written by Moses, a true account of what Pharaoh actually said. But it's the Hebrew words written by Moses that are inspired and God's word, not the original words spoken by Pharaoh.
Would you say Pharaoh's words "existed before the creation of the World"? Of course not, and yet you have already said that since the "Word" did, so must the Bible have. All this confusion is the result of your numerous equivocations.
It is not a moot point since you can't study the originals. They don't exist.
And now you are equivocating on the word "original." I was referring to the original language Scriptures, not the original autographa, which of course no longer exist. As copies of the original autographa have been made, it is through those copies that God's word has been preserved. And those copies are, of course, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek -- anything in any other language cannot be a preservation of God's written word, since God's written word was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
This is something that a lot of non-KJVO's ignore, but the original autographs have all been destroyed and all we have are manuscripts, the oldest of which date to 400 years after Christ's death.
No one is ignoring it, you are simply equivocating on the word "original" and thus misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, others' views. There were the original autographa, which were written in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The contents of the original autographa were preserved through copies, and all those copies were in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If any true preservation is taking place, it must be in the languages the Bible was originally written/inspired in (and that, obviously, cannot be English).
The manuscripts in question differ greatly, which account for the differences in the modern Bible versions when compared to the KJV.
Of course the manuscripts differ -- and thus, the discussion of preservation must surround the manuscripts. There are different views regarding preservation of God's word through the manuscripts, and one view is that the Textus Receptus represents the most appropriate preserved manuscripts. But then if that is true, any translation from the Textus Receptus would be faithful to God's word, and the Textus Receptus itself would be inspired. Translations based off the Textus Receptus would each equally be legitimately held in esteem as translations of God's word, so far as they are faithful to the original language manuscripts -- but, of course, the translations are not a preservation of God's word, the Textus Receptus is. And so, you have no ground to argue against the NKJV, for example, which is based on the Textus Receptus just as the KJV is.
Just because you study the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic doesn't mean this discussion is moot.
Yes it does, because you have taken the discussion of inspiration to translations -- discussion surrounding inspiration and, particularly, preservation must regard copies of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. You can talk about the preservation of the KJV, and that only since 1611 -- you cannot talk about the KJV preserving God's word, since God's word was written in the first century, and English didn't even exist as a language when God's word was inscripturated.
It's true that there are differences in the languages and things change when the Bible is interpreted, but God is bigger than language and translation, and can make sure that whether the Bible is being translated into Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, English, or Spanish, it says what He wants it to say. It is perfect.
When the last book of the Bible was written, God stopped inspiring men for creating inscripturated revelation with his authority. If you believe God truly "inspires" men when they translate the original language Scriptures (into, e.g., English, like the KJV), then there is no need for preservation. Preservation is an important doctrine because inspiration has ceased. No translation of the Bible is perfect; all you need to do is learn a foreign language to know that.
If God cared enough to give us the Bible, why do you find it hard to believe He would care enough to preserve the Bible in a perfect form?
I do believe he has preserved it in a perfect form; just that that form cannot be in English, because if it were, it wouldn't be preservation, it would be inspiration.