Does any Church claim God inspired the Bible translations?

[Enterprise]

In a display of what queer routes my brain takes when it’s not being fed, I stumbled through recollections of various funny TV shows through the Colbert Report’s upstaging of a U.S. congressman who couldn’t remember all the Ten Commandments to considerations of the various translations of the bible, thinking how in English it’s “love thy neighbor”, whereas in German it’s “liebe deinen Nächsten”, which I consider to be close, but not quite the same thing.

Anyway, I was wondering if any church makes any claims that their everyday use translations of the original Biblical texts are also divinely inspired?

[matt_mcl]

I seem to recall that the Septuagint was considered divinely inspired, on the grounds that all seventy-two translators, working independently, miraculously came up with the same translation of the Old Testament into Greek.

[Sage_Rat]

There’s a thread here about some people’s belief that the King James Bible is the actual word of God, above probably even the original Greek/Hebrew/what-have-you language versions.

[kanicbird]

Few churches are sola-scripture (that the Bible contains everything God wants us to know totally and completely), many believe in spiritual gifts that are talked about in scripture as real and active today, so that would exclude a great many of the churches from the OP.
There is the King James Only ‘movement’ which I don’t think it really related to a ‘single’ church, but they believe that the KJV (also called the Authorized Version) is the only english version that is divinely inspired or at least the most accurate translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only:

The King-James-Only Movement is a position, usually of Fundamentalist Protestant Christians of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern versions of the Bible, accepting only the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), as the most accurate and reliable.

[Chief_Pedant]

[QUOTE=Enterprise]
In a display of what queer routes my brain takes when it’s not being fed, I stumbled through recollections of various funny TV shows through the Colbert Report’s upstaging of a U.S. congressman who couldn’t remember all the Ten Commandments to considerations of the various translations of the bible, thinking how in English it’s “love thy neighbor”, whereas in German it’s “liebe deinen Nächsten”, which I consider to be close, but not quite the same thing.

Anyway, I was wondering if any church makes any claims that their everyday use translations of the original Biblical texts are also divinely inspired?
[/QUOTE]

Many modern fundamentalist groups consider something close to that. Basically their position is that the “original” is a verbal plenary (dictated and complete) God-inspired text. They then extend that position to the “Authorized King James Version.” Their theological argument is essentially that God wrote the original Scripture; God wanted man to have Scripture, and that the mechanism of getting this Scripture to English-speaking peoples is the Authorized King James.

I’m sure some group somewhere has extended this concept to an insistence that the Authorized King James was as specifically inspired as the original texts, but this is less common. Part of the practical reason for that is that every group needs wiggle room to explain away texts that are difficult for them. An example might be explaining why “wine” is actually non-alcoholic grape juice in Jesus’s first recorded miracle, for instance.

Here are a couple of typical statements around this from a site listing KJV Baptist ministries Baptist Ministries Standing for Authorized King James Version :

“Furthermore, we believe that the King James Version of the Bible is God’s preserved word in English and therefore, it shall be the official and only translation of the Holy Scriptures used by this Church and all of its ministries.” —Doctrinal Statement. 2/2007"

and

“We believe in THE HOLY SCRIPTURE: accepting the writings of the Old and New Testaments as the very Word of God, verbally inspired in all parts and, therefore wholly without error and altogether sufficient in themselves as our only infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practice. We believe that God has preserved His Word for the English-speaking peoples in the King James Version.”

In my opinion these groups tend to have very limited scholarship around the available texts, their hundreds of translations through the ages (including the Septuagint) and the incompleteness or absence of actual original texts. Their scholarship tends to start with the Authorized King James, and in that sense they functionally believe it to be the original Word of God. Its accuracy is taken on faith and not developed by scholarship.

[Harmonious_Discord]

The ones I know about don’t believe translations are inspired by the word of God. During classes they will drill into your head that your version is the accurate one, and the one other’s use is the wrong one. They tell you this happens because men have translated the text through the centuries. There will always be a case of extremes, and there always has to be a group that would hang you for doubting that God translated.

[TokyoBayer]

The Mormon church has a translation which is claimed to inspired by God, but is not taken as offical scripture.

A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible in English, which the Prophet Joseph Smith began in June 1830. He was commanded by God to make the translation and regarded it as part of his calling as a prophet.
Although Joseph completed most of the translation by July 1833, he continued until his death in 1844 to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for publication. Though he published some parts of the translation during his lifetime, it is possible that he would have made additional changes had he lived to publish the entire work. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints published the first edition of Joseph Smith’s inspired translation in 1867. They have published several editions since that time.
The Prophet learned many things during the translation process. Several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were received because of his translation work (such as D&C 76, 77, 91, and 132). Also, the Lord gave Joseph specific instructions for the translation, which were recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 37: 1; 45: 60-61; 76: 15-18; 90: 13; 91; 94: 10; 104: 58; 124: 89). The book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew, now included in the Pearl of Great Price, were taken directly from the Joseph Smith Translation.
The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (1 Ne. 13). Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[Kizarvexius]

I had what passed for a theological discussion once with a fellow of some Fundamentalist Christian sect who made this very claim. I can’t recall which bit of verse we were talking about, but I put forth the argument that a fuller understanding of the text’s underlying meaning required an examination of the Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek idiom chosen by the author. The gentleman vehemently disagreed with this approach, stating emphatically that the English translation found in the King James Version was “divinely inspired”. Clinging to this line of reasoning, he swept away any and all points of linguistic complexity, cultural context, and literary analysis, declaring that any biblical text prior to the KJV was flawed, erroneous, and irrelevant. Extrapolating further, he come to the “obvious” conclusion that God had turned His back on the unholy heathen Joos, idolatrous papists, and all them other furners who didn’t speak the King’s English. :dubious:

I found myself quite enlightened by this conversation, but not quite in the way the other fellow imagined.

[Thudlow_Boink]

On the negative side, many Christians who believe that the Bible itself is divinely inspired specifically deny that any one particular translation is divinely inspired. From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).

[ralph124c]

I’m curious about Bible translations in general: how can something written 2000 years ago be translated in an error-free manner? It seems to me that the ancients had different expressions: take the (greek) word “pneuma”-does it mean breath, spirit, or wind? Is it meant to express the essence of the soul?
Just wondering if all the subtleties of an ancient language can be faithfully captured.

[Wallenstein]

Heck, if english was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for y’all.

[Chief_Pedant]

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
I’m curious about Bible translations in general: how can something written 2000 years ago be translated in an error-free manner? It seems to me that the ancients had different expressions: take the (greek) word “pneuma”-does it mean breath, spirit, or wind? Is it meant to express the essence of the soul?
Just wondering if all the subtleties of an ancient language can be faithfully captured.
[/QUOTE]

No they cannot.
I just finished listening to an excellent 24-part lecture series on the Story of the Bible from Luke Timothy Johnson (Emory), available from The Teaching Company if the topic interests you. Compare All Plans | The Great Courses

[miss_elizabeth]

[QUOTE=e-logic]
Heck, if english was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for y’all.
[/QUOTE]

You laugh, but I’ve seen people make this point. There are people who believe English is the language spoken in heaven, that it is the divine language, and that it is the language Jesus spoke. Somehow, the people around him heard something else, but that was part of the miracle. He spoke English. And, of course, the KJV is the literal, inspired, infallible Word Of God.

I’m not saying it terribly common, but some people (more than just one) do believe this.

[commasense]

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
I’m curious about Bible translations in general: how can something written 2000 years ago be translated in an error-free manner? It seems to me that the ancients had different expressions: take the (greek) word “pneuma”-does it mean breath, spirit, or wind? Is it meant to express the essence of the soul?
Just wondering if all the subtleties of an ancient language can be faithfully captured.
[/QUOTE]
For a very interesting book about the problems of translating scripture, I heartily recommend Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus. He describes how the earliest manuscripts of the bible date to hundreds of years after the “original” texts they purport to convey, and how every hand-made copy of every text inevitably contained numerous changes, most accidental, but some intentional. Scribes changed the scriptures for political reasons, to correct what they believed were previous errors, and for many other reasons.

Over the course of his career in textual criticism, Ehrman has come to the conclusion that it’s nearly impossible to know what the “original text” of the bible was. Over time, he also changed from a fervent fundamentalist to an agnostic.

[PBear42]

[QUOTE=e-logic]
Heck, if english was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for y’all.
[/QUOTE]
Close. I think you have in mind “English was good enough for Jesus Christ and it’s good enough for the children of Texas.” Miriam “Ma” Ferguson (Governor of Texas: 1924-27, 1933-35).

[Keeve]

AFAIK, you will not find these views among any denomination of Judaism or Islam, both of which stress the importance of learning the original languages, so as to be better able to understand God’s true meaning.

[Bridget_Burke]

[QUOTE=Keeve]
AFAIK, you will not find these views among any denomination of Judaism or Islam, both of which stress the importance of learning the original languages, so as to be better able to understand God’s true meaning.
[/QUOTE]

Some Christian Biblical scholars study the languages of the Bible. Here are some reference works.

Then, tere’s Ian Paisley’s opinion. Quite colorful language!

A return to the Apostolic Gospel comes as a result of Tyndale’s work. A return to the Apostate Gospel comes as a result of the translation of Rome’s long-hidden, perverted text and other such perverted texts in the Modem Perversions of the Scriptures.

The Authorised Version translated into English the Preserved Word of God and so preserved for the English speaking peoples of the World, the Word of the Living God, the only infallible Rule of Faith and Practice…

When Satan couldn’t destroy the Bible by fire and sword he adopted the plan to duplicate the Bible, and the AV Bible had another placed alongside it, the Revision Version of 1881. The battle of the Bibles commenced and has raged ever since. As English speaking people were directed away from the true Word of God the declension of the Gospel faith took place, paving the way for the end time apostasy of our day. Now we have increasing New English Bibles and increasing changing Bibles. The anchor is gone and the storms tear our frail barques with their destructive teeth.

[Keeve]

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Some Christian Biblical scholars study the languages of the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course. I did not mean to imply otherwise. But I can’t help wondering if there is a connection between:

(a) Though many Christian leaders do study the Bible in its original language, they don’t seem to encourage their flock to do so, at least not to the extent that Jews and Muslims do; and

(b) small minorities of people who think that English is the original language of the Bible do exist among the Christians, but not among Jews or Muslims.

[ftg]

[QUOTE=commasense]
For a very interesting book about the problems of translating scripture, I heartily recommend Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus.
…
Over time, he also changed from a fervent fundamentalist to an agnostic.
[/QUOTE]

That’s it! I’ve been trying to remember the book since this thread started.

He attended Moody Bible Institute where the “fact” that the KJV was divinely inspired was dogma. It took him quite a while to realize that it didn’t make any sense given the sources and knowledge of the time.

So, such denominations really are out there. (In more ways than one.)

[ralph124c]

I Guess the problem I have with the NT, is the differing accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels. The firts three (the “Synoptic” Gospels) agree fairly closely, but John is totaly different. The rest of the NT is mostly works by Paul, who never knew Jesus. Can these texts be reconciled? I wonder if we could find ancient enough versions (in Greek), would they tend to agree more?