admin said:
... and the height of hypocrisy to suggest that we are arrogant for believing in derivative inspiration when he does as well.
I don't suggest that anyone is a hypocrite "for believing in derivative inspiration". That is a blatant falsehood on your part, whether intentional with malice or unintentional I'll leave to the Judge of all the earth to decide - and He will decide.
I have categorically stated that those who find fault with the Scriptures are arrogant.
When I stated that those who claim that all translators in history were "
too squeamish to translate correctly (i.e. Song. 7:2)" and "
purposely mistranslated" are arrogant, I didn't just suggest that they are arrogant, I unambiguously stated that they are arrogant.
When those on this board such as yourself reject the evidence presented via earlier English versions and the premier Oxford English Dictionary and then have the gall to insist that Tyndale was mistaken and that our English Scriptures are in error, I didn't just suggest that you are arrogant, I said it directly and without remorse.
The word "derivative" is not in the text (2Tm 3:14-17) nor is it implied as you suggest. The CHARACTER of Timothy's Scripture is given by inspiration of God. You want it without the verb? Ok, Scripture, given by inspiration of God, is what Timothy had knowledge of from his youth.
Timothy's Scripture wasn't any less given by inspiration of God than what Jesus read in the synagogue. The Scripture, given by inspiration of God, that Jesus read in the synagogue isn't any more or less given by inspiration of God than the finger-of-God original. The finger-of-God original isn't any more or less given by inspiration of God than Moses' first draft of the Pentateuch. Since you know this is the case, your mincing of words by trying to add "derivative" is a clever ploy in order to get the reader to think Timothy and the reader did not and do not have the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, or something less authoritative than the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God.
The autographs derived their authority from God. Ain't that true, sonny? Yet, you don't say, "the derivative autographs" or "the autographs have derivative authority", blah, blah, blah.
I know exactly why you so eagerly push for the addition of the word "derivative" to the text of 2Timothy 3:15-17 - you want to push your form of original language Onlyism. You want to push your seminarian tradition that says, "Scriptures are only considered inspired insomuch as they agree with
the originals". Then you and your scholarly friends can sit above the extant Scriptures and take pot shots at them while criticizing the John Bunyan's of the world for not "learning Greek and Hebrew" or "preaching not having the originals", blah, blah, blah.
Now, I think learning Hebrew and Greek can be used to help understand the Scriptures. But many, like you, have abused their learning. Instead of promoting BELIEF in the extant Scriptures you use your knowledge to cast doubt on words, phrases and verses in the Scriptures. When you have opportunity to actually use your knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and be of some use, you conveniently remain deafly silent while checking the political wind gauges to see if it's ok to engage in the debate.
For example, is the Hebrew word as found translated as "navel" in Song. 7:2 a valid and correct translation? We
hicks,
plowboys, and
hacks, as you describe us, would like to know. Not "is it possible", but is it or is it not correct?
For example, who do you think is correct Professor Young who insisted that the Greek is passive in 2Timothy 3:16 or Dr. Robertson who insisted that an implied copula is the correct rendering. It seems the genuine scholars haven't quite got their talking points straightened out. Would scholar Barry please step out from behind his anemometer (wind gauge) and engage himself where he can be helpful?
For example, is
Iesous the Greek word for Jesus?
Many more examples can be given. Personally, I think you are most likely a highly intelligent man and could have much to offer us
idiots,
hicks and
sons of the asphalt jungles of Detroit. I have no idea why you choose to cast doubt on the extant Scriptures instead of using your knowledge to promote faith.
For example, you could have said, "Easter" as found in our English Scriptures and earlier English versions has the meaning of passover. This is both obvious in the text and the actual meaning of the Greek word from which is was translated. You didn't, but instead chose to use your semantic anachronism as an excuse to accuse the extant Scriptures of error. When I called you down on your actions you puffed up and with one consent began to make excuse. I rightly call that pride, arrogance.
