Quote:
|
And I also think that God led the KJV translators to translated the Greek and Hebrew in a way that really provides the best definitions of words
|
The KJB is not just the best translation, it is a perfect translation, sense for sense.
Smith says, "where the Greek term is theopneustos"
We should accept that the English is right, without having to refer to some Greek monstrosity and then attempt to define the meaning of that barbarian word.
Smith says, "The word pheromenoi means"
Again, God is interesting in letting us know His message in our tongue, not an alien one.
Smith says, "1. We have His inspired Word in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus text of the New Testament."
Big problems here. First, the KJB men HAD access to the preserved words in those forms, but how can the Masoretic or Textus Receptus be the Word of God for us today, since there is no definite, correct or perfect single form of these in the original languages, and second, those are languages the world does not know today. (Those who think they know seem to disagree with the KJB to some degree.)
God did not inspire His Word in the Masoretic or Textus Receptus, these are simply collections of critical forms which attempt to reconstruct what was originally inspired. That is why Hills said that the KJB is an independent form of the Received Text.
Smith says, "We have His inspired Word preserved for us in other languages as well."
Actually WE do not have that, since WE use God's Word in English. However, we know that God's Word was preserved even in the Vulgate, and that cannot be said to be "based on the TR" as such. In reality, while there is a general preservation, where in many copies there is a sufficient giving of the Scripture, the only place which is showing the conclusion of the preservation, or an ongoing final form, is the KJB. No other Bible in the world is presenting the very TEXT and TRANSLATION as accurately as the KJB does. This is because while the Word of God itself is perfect, incorruptible, etc., the KJB actually presents it fully and utterly in English today. That cannot be found in any single form in any other language today, including the originals.
Smith says, "I love the Hebrew Old Testament! I love the Greek New Testament!"
I can love God's Word, and love the Word I know, but whatever this means (where is the extant perfect Hebrew OT or Greek NT today?) I know not.
Smith says, "But let’s also be careful that we not diminish or dismiss them either."
I think God, in His providence, has laid aside Hebrew and Greek. It is obvious that Hebrew was not used normally in the NT, and that Hebrew and Greek are not used today as a normal speech. God shows that translations are the way He has perpetuated His Word through history, and since we have the world more and more knowing English, surely the English Bible, which is conceptually perfect, is the one to uphold. We do not have to prohibit Hebrew and Greek, simply rely upon the fact that the translators of 1611 got it right, and that since that time many have vindicated the accuracy of the Scripture in our KJB with reference to the original languages generally. I do not need Hebrew and Greek to know the Scripture, or to know that the KJB is right. That is, God's providential signs do not require the originals any longer, though there remains witness of them.
Smith says, "Very simply, if there were no Hebrew and Greek Word of God, you would have no English Word of God. Remember, that’s where we got the English text (from the Hebrew and Greek)."
But since it has been fully given in English now, why defer to Hebrew and Greek in any way? (Or has God's preservation and power failed in English, so that the Hebrew and Greek are actually still required?)
Smith says, "Using the Hebrew and Greek in your study or in your preaching doesn’t make you a “Bible corrector” unless you have a mind to correct the text."
Actually, by even altering the concepts in English today on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek would be changing the meaning of Scripture, even if it is not called "correcting".
The example of referring to "theopneustos" and "pheromenoi" above is clear enough. In this case, Smith tries to build a doctrine not on what the Scripture says and means in English, but on what those babble words mean. By merely subtly deemphasising the plain English words as they stand by some false allegiance to the Hebrew and Greek, this leads to mistakes in interpretation and doctrine.
Smith says, "There is a vast difference between defining and explaining the text and correcting it."
This is true, but putting emphasis on foreign words does begin to negate that the jots and tittles as they stand in English. The English should be sufficient to communicate God’s message. In fact, we should recognise that the KJB is giving God's Word perfectly.
Smith says, "Remember, there is no conflict between the Hebrew/Greek text and the English Bible"
There is no conflict between what was inspired, but there are textual conflicts in that there is no perfect text being presented in the original languages today, as opposed to the KJB being the perfect text, which happens to be a translation.
Smith says, "we can never attain perfection, because we are mere humans ... we hold that preserved inspiration dear and precious in the King James Bible."
Therefore, the text and translation of the KJB should be seen as perfect and accurate. Every word and its meaning should be right. Why would anyone need to go to the Hebrew and Greek to interpret or understand the Scripture, if it is right there in the KJB?
Smith says, "It is a mistake to so maximize the element of humanity (the human writers, etc) to the extent that we cannot see the true source of it all. The maximum attention needs to be placed upon the divine element that has produced the text from the start."
This argument claims that God inspired originally, but does not lay enough stress on the reality that the preserved form is the correctly gathered form of what was inspired. It is not merely that God inspired once far off, but that God has been able to get the entire Word perfectly here and now by his providential preservation to us.
In other words, if we emphasise the distant source, we have no present foundation to begin from. I cannot teach the doctrine of inspiration if I do not first have an authentic record of what was inspired today. Thus, our doctrines and examinations of Scripture must be on the proper basis that God has given His Word to us today, and then see where and how it came. Then when we say that it was inspired, we can then argue successfully that since this book says it was inspired long ago, we can understand that the same God who inspired would preserve, because that the Gospel today that we know must be the same that was set in motion from its beginning.
Ro 10:8 "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach"