Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges  If you believe the meanings are inspired, then you do not necessarily have to hold on to the words. This is evident in practice: We see the NIV, ESV, NASB, the Good News, etc. all of which claim to teach the meaning of Scripture, but using different words. |
Using different words from what? The KJV?
The words of the original manuscripts were inspired. The manuscripts we have are "inspired" words in so much as they are accurately copied from the original manuscripts. Regardless of differences, I think it is evident that we can clearly see the word of God preserved in the mss we have today.
Different people translate from the Hebrew and Greek using different synonyms, syntax, etc. But each of the Bibles above (well, I don't know the Good News Bible) are accurate to the manuscripts, which means they teach the meanings of Scripture and are the very words of Scripture.
This is most evident if you speak a language other than English. I visited a KJV-only church last week, and since I couldn't find my KJV, I brought my French Bible. When I read along in that language, it definitely had different words than what the preacher was saying. Yet I believed what I was reading to be the very words of God preserved. In my head, I could translate the French word "ombre" in Ecclesiastes 1 as "shade" or "shadow" or "obscurity", and I would say any of these would be the preserved word of God. I would be foolish to pick, say, "shade", and declare any translator who used "shadow" to be translating meaning and not words.