Back to Rick

[Mitex]

logos1560 http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?action=post;quote=57672;topic=3535.0
Are you unaware of the fact that the apostle Paul used a different Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:15 than he did in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Conjecture on your part. Perhaps you mean extant manuscripts written in Greek used two different Greek words in 2Tim 3:15 & 16. You don't possess Paul's original autograph and therefore it is conjecture on your part that Paul used two different words and that they were originally written in Greek.

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed:  “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42).  Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Strouse noted:  “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.”  Strouse added:  “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.).
Why would it supposedly make no sense for Paul to refer to the copy of the Scriptures that Timothy possessed [perhaps only a copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew] and then also make a reference to the process by which all Scripture is given?

Is this your final answer and your unequivocal position? Do you really want to say that there is a distinction between the Holy Scriptures (γράμμα gramma) which Timothy possessed from his childhood and all Scripture (γραφή graphe) which is given by inspiration of God? The former able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus and the latter is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.? Really? Sacred writings aren't given by inspiration of God, but they are able to make us wise unto salvation? Please tell us Rick, what were these sacred writings that weren't the Scriptures? 

• “ALL Scripture means that all the writings, then accepted by Jews as the Word of God and which now comprise our Old Testament, are counted as inspired of God.” Our God Breathed Book, John R. Rice, pg 91.
  
  
• “While ‘Scripture’ here [2Tm 3:16] primarily refers to the Old Testament, by extension [derivative!] it also refers to the New Testament.” Pastor Estell of FaithWay Baptist Church, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
  
  
• “(2Tm 3:16,17) After exhorting Timothy to hold fast to the sacred scriptures he was taught, and those were the Old Testament scriptures, Paul now proceeds to describe them. ‘All’ is pas, which when used with the singular substantive without the article, means ‘every,’ not ‘all.’ ‘Scripture’ here is graphe, ‘a writing, thing written,’ used of the writings of the O.T. prophets (Matt. 26:56) and of the O.T. scriptures in general (Matt. 26:54). The expression pasa graphe (‘every scripture’) speaks, not of the O.T. as a whole, but of each separate passage considered as a unit. The first thing Paul says about the O.T. scriptures which Timothy was taught, is that every part of them is inspired of God… The context in which Paul is writing is limited to the O.T. scriptures. One could translate, ‘Every scripture is God-breathed.’ The context limits these writings to the O.T. writings. Thus, does Paul declare the divine inspiration of the O.T. The N.T. had not yet been completed, and Paul does not refer here to its divine inspiration. Wuest’s Word Studies, The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, Kenneth S. Wuest, 1982, pgs. 149-151.
  
  
• “The New Testament testimony is to the Divine origin and qualities of ‘Scripture’; and ‘Scripture’ to the writers of the New Testament was fundamentally, of course, the Old Testament. In the primary passage, in which we are told that ‘every’ or ‘all Scripture’ is ‘God-breathed,’ the direct reference is to the ‘sacred writings’ which Timothy had had in knowledge since his infancy, and these were, of course, just the sacred books of the Jews (2 Tim. iii,16). What is explicit here is implicit in all the allusions to the inspired Scriptures in the New Testament. Accordingly, it is frequently said that our entire testimony of the inspiration of Scripture concerns the Old Testament alone. In many ways, however, this is overstated. Our present concern is not with the extent of ‘Scripture’ but with the nature of Scripture; and we cannot present here the considerations which justify extending to the New Testament the inspiration with the New Testament writers attribute to the Old Testament. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Benjamin B. Warfield, pg. 163.
  
  
• “The word which for our purpose is of supreme importance is the word theopneustos, translated in the English Bible, ‘inspired of God.’ It is a compound, consisting of the elements theo (God) and pneustos (breathed). Now, it is well to note that the word ends in the three letter -tos. In the Greek language, words which 1) end in -tos and 2) are compound with theo (God) are generally passive in meaning…The true meaning is passive, ‘that which is breathed out by God’ and it is this strange designation that the Apostle here applies to the Old Testament.” Thy Word is Truth, Professor J. Young of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, pg. 20-21.
  
  
• "'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God' (II Tim. 3: 16); or if the reading of the Revised Version is preferred, 'Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,' it only makes the affirmation the stronger, because it refers to every one of the sacred writings mentioned in the previous verse, and comprising the Old Testament books which existed then precisely as we have them now. The testimony is not that the writers were inspired, but the writings; and writings are made up of words and the letters which form the words." Bible Questions Answered, William L. Pettingill, p. 8
  
  

All of these non-KJVO scholars contradict your suppositions.

Are you ignoring the fact that all New Testament Scripture was not yet given at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16?

No, I am not, but then again, this points out the fact that in the context of 2Tim 3:15-17 given by inspiration of God is directly applied to Timothy's then extant Scriptures and only derivatively applied to the future New Testament autographs! Think about that the next time you belittle our English Scriptures as "only derivatively inspired".

Why is it hard for you to understand that 2 Timothy 3:16 can refer to the processing [sic] of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles without having to include the different processes of copying, translating, and printing the Scriptures?

You yourself evidently assert that the process of the printing of the Scriptures is not by inspiration of God while you seem to try to imply that the process of translating should be implied to be by inspiration of God.

Well, Rick, if you want to insist that 2Timothy 3:16 is a "process" you are forcing the grammar to be passive and not an adjective describing the character of the all Scripture. I'll grant you that is certainly a possible interpretation (Young), but not held by most scholars (Wallace, Robertson, Barry, etc.), for that would mean the inspiration of God gives all Scripture when placed in the active. And that puts you into a conundrum that you'll never figure out. And you will be found fighting for the very thing in which you so vehemently fight against!

Here's another quote for you:

"Inspiration is not revelation...Inspiration is not illumination...inspiration is not subject to degrees [context: like illumination, ed.], being in every case the breath of God, expressing itself through a human personality...When we speak of the Holy Spirit coming upon the men in order to the composition of the books, it should be further understood that the object is not the inspiration of the men but the books - not the writers but the writings. It terminates upon the record, in other words, and not upon the human instrument who made it." The Fundamentals, Vol 1, pgs 10-11.

 

[christundivided]

Conjecture on your part. Perhaps you mean extant manuscripts written in Greek used two different Greek words in 2Tim 3:15 & 16. You don't possess Paul's original autograph and therefore it is conjecture on your part that Paul used two different words and that they were originally written in Greek.

No variant text exists that shows Paul didn't use two different words.(or the same words). Its called... "textual evidence".

You really need to add a few more things to your portfolio. You're embarrassing yourself. You really shouldn't be on any translation committee.

 

[Mitex]

^ what he said.

Denying we have the original words in this passage, without variants, is neoorthodoxy...

Interesting profession there Barry. The denial of a CONSENSUS reading is neoorthodoxy!
Writing Barry's profession in notebook for future reference. Is it also your profession that there are absolutely no variants in the original (that's original language manuscripts and not the autograph) and that no future discovery will overthrow the consensus reading?

"In their analysis of the early papyri, Kurt and Barbara Aland have noted four kinds of fidelity, which they call normal, free, strict and at least normal. I assume the Alands are speaking of textual fidelity to an exemplar and not to the original [autograph] , for no one could know for certain how close a MS copy is to the original [autograph]. And regarding textual fidelity to an exemplar - how can one know for sure if a scribe has produced a strict copy of his exemplar? Thus, the Alands' designations must be taken with caution...Of course, all these designations of 'kinds' of texts are spoken of with respect to fidelity to a exemplar, not necessarily to the original text.  Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, Philip Wesley Comfort, p. 7.

"It is important to note, too, that no one copy or translation perfectly121 reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents. This is the case simply because the original documents do not presently exist, and the extant manuscripts which do are, in each case, unique, no two fully agreeing in every detail. Therefore, without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible." A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Volume One, Rolland McCune, p 97.

Hence, my use of the word conjecture - assumption. Scholars use Scott's weasel words, "almost certain", "most likely", "highly probable", "not likely", etc. For they know, even if you don't, that without the original (autograph) it is impossible to be certain the exact reading of the original text. Scholar's deal in probabilities and acknowledge that their science is an art.

 

[Mitex]

Conjecture on your part. Perhaps you mean extant manuscripts written in Greek used two different Greek words in 2Tim 3:15 & 16. You don't possess Paul's original autograph and therefore it is conjecture on your part that Paul used two different words and that they were originally written in Greek.

No variant text exists that shows Paul didn't use two different words.(or the same words). Its called... "textual evidence".

You really need to add a few more things to your portfolio. You're embarrassing yourself. You really shouldn't be on any translation committee.

Do you really want to say that there is a distinction between the Holy Scriptures (γράμμα gramma) which Timothy possessed from his childhood and all Scripture (γραφή graphe) which is given by inspiration of God? The former able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus and the latter is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly christundivided, what were these sacred writings that weren't the Scriptures? 

 

[FSSL]

This is just slimy maneuvering... just like your term "consensus."

Moving back and forth between the textual variant issue and synonyms Paul used is dishonest on your part. These are two separate issues.

 

[FSSL]

"It is important to note, too, that no one copy or translation perfectly121 reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents.

Are you even able to comprehend English? He said, "no one copy." He did not say that there is nothing in the Bible that we can be confident is not what God originally wrote. He is saying that there is not a single translation or copy, opposite KJVOnlyism.

Where there are no variants, or other Scriptures conflicting, certainly we can have confidence that this is what God originally wrote.

As McCune ALSO wrote in his unpublished syllabus: "But God in His good providence has seen to it that while we do not have the original codex (manuscript) of the Bible, we do have the original text (words) among all of the manuscript evidence, for all practical purposes." (mine emphasis)

 

[Mitex]

This is just slimy maneuvering... just like your term "consensus."

Moving back and forth between the textual variant issue and synonyms Paul used is dishonest on your part. These are two separate issues.

Is this a sly and coy way for you to admit that the Holy Scriptures (γράμμα gramma) which Timothy possessed from his childhood and all Scripture (γραφή graphe) are referring to the same thing? Why that would mean that you agree with me and against Rick and his gang who insist that they are different and are referring to different "scriptures".

Why, using just measures we must conclude that all of Timothy's Holy Scriptures which he possessed from his youth had the CHARACTER of being "given by inspiration of God" even though Timothy did not possess the autographs from his youth. My, that is coy!

 

[Mitex]

"It is important to note, too, that no one copy or translation perfectly121 reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents.

Are you even able to comprehend English?

Yes, I can comprehend English. In fact I can comprehend English much better than you can comprehend Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

He said, "no one copy." He did not say that there is nothing in the Bible that we can be confident is not what God originally wrote. He is saying that there is not a single translation or copy, opposite KJVOnlyism.

Lol! Comprehension problems there Barry? Professor McCune said that unique copies or translations can adequately represent the message of the original, but cannot perfectly represent the message (much less the words) because the original documents do not presently exist and no two extant manuscripts fully agree in every detail, THEREFORE, without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible. Most genuine scholars, not you apparently, agree that exact representation (McCune's perfectly) of original words is impossible without an extant autograph. Not to worry as the Christian can believe the Bible in his hand as the very word of God without essential loss (McCune adequately). Let me know when you catch up.

"In their analysis of the early papyri, Kurt and Barbara Aland have noted four kinds of fidelity, which they call normal, free, strict and at least normal. I assume the Alands are speaking of textual fidelity to an exemplar and not to the original [autograph] , for no one could know for certain how close a MS copy is to the original [autograph]. And regarding textual fidelity to an exemplar - how can one know for sure if a scribe has produced a strict copy of his exemplar? Thus, the Alands' designations must be taken with caution...Of course, all these designations of 'kinds' of texts are spoken of with respect to fidelity to a exemplar, not necessarily to the original text.  Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, Philip Wesley Comfort, p. 7.

"In some passages it seems certain that the true reading has not been preserved by any ancient authority, and we are driven to conjecture in order to supply it. But such passage are infinitesimal portion of the whole and may be disregarded. The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss form generation to generation throughout the centuries." Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Sir Frederic Kenyon, G.B.E., K.C.B. pg. 3.

Where there are no variants, or other Scriptures conflicting, certainly we can have confidence that this is what God originally wrote.

My, my, my, what a profession! When there is a consensus reading (no conflict) we can have confidence that this is the word of God!

The original text is unknown and will never be known according to genuine scholars. Only where there is a consensus of reading is there any hint of “knowing the original”, but even that, according to the axioms of the Neutral Textual Theory could be overthrown with a new find of “older and better manuscripts”. Consensus cannot make something that is false become true, nor can it make something that is true become false. Consensus can rightfully be used to recognize that which is true and that which is error. Free, genuine agreement establishes authority and when agreement reaches consensus the authority is final as in “beyond dispute”. Where all versions agree (consensus) doubt is removed and authority is established (shown to be true, valid; proven).

As McCune ALSO wrote in his unpublished syllabus: "But God in His good providence has seen to it that while we do not have the original codex (manuscript) of the Bible, we do have the original text (words) among all of the manuscript evidence, for all practical purposes." (mine emphasis)

I don't doubt your quote, but I'll bet a $1 to a donut hole that McCune tells his seminary students that "the Scriptures say" or "the Scripture says" and then proceeds to quote an English Bible. I wonder what he meant by the term "Scripture(s)" and the use of present tense word "say(s)? Hmm...

 

[logos1560]

logos1560 http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?action=post;quote=57672;topic=3535.0
Are you unaware of the fact that the apostle Paul used a different Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:15 than he did in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Conjecture on your part. Perhaps you mean extant manuscripts written in Greek used two different Greek words in 2Tim 3:15 & 16. You don't possess Paul's original autograph and therefore it is conjecture on your part that Paul used two different words and that they were originally written in Greek. 

Are you claiming that the title page for the 1611 KJV's New Testament "newly translated out of the original Greek" is mere conjecture and is not true?

Are you suggesting that the makers of the KJV did not actually translate the NT words given by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets in the language that they were given to them?

Does that statement on the 1611 KJV's NT title page conflict with what is clearly indicated in the 1611 preface about the KJV not being a new translation but a revision of earlier English Bibles that are the word of God in English?

If the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have the qualities of being inspired or being 100% pure, how did they transfer those qualities to the KJV?

If one singular printed original language OT text and one singular printed original language NT text from which the KJV is claimed to be translated did not have the qualities of being inspired and being 100% pure, how did they transfer to the KJV qualities that they did not have?

Is your claim that the KJV is given by inspiration of God merely conjecture on your part since your inconsistent private interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 that you evidently do not apply to the 1560 Geneva Bible has not been demonstrated to be actually clearly taught there?