Given by inspiration of God

[Mitex]

Gentlemen (and Ladies):
As far as I can tell none of the men listed below are/were KJVO and that none of the men believe/believed that anything other than the autograph was inspired, yet, in their writings, they appear to contradict themselves as I will now demonstrate in their commentary on 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

John R. Rice:
All Scripture is a reference to all the writings then accepted by the Jews as the Word of God and which now comprise our Old Testament.

Pastor Scott Estell:
Scripture here primarily refers to the Old Testament.

Kenneth Wuest:
Timothy?s sacred scriptures were the Old Testament scriptures which Paul describes. Paul says the O.T. scriptures which Timothy was taught is inspired in every part.

Benjamin B. Warfield:
All Scripture is God-breathed is a direct reference to the sacred writings which Timothy had had in knowledge since his infancy and those were of course the sacred books of the Jews.

William L. Pettingill:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God refers to every one of the sacred writings mentioned in the preceding verse (2Tim 3:15) and comprising the Old Testament books which then existed and precisely was we have them now.

Professor J. Young:
Words ending in ?-tos? in Greek (e.g. theopneustos) are generally passive in meaning. The true meaning is passive, that which is breathed out by God and the Apostle applies it to the Old Testament.

All of these men seem to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16 in the same manor as I have for well nigh 42 years of ministry. That is to say that Paul applied "is given by inspiration of God" to Timothy's then extant holy scriptures. This of course shoots a gaping hole in the theory often propagated by many good men that "only the autograph was inspired."

Can anyone explain this curiosity or apparent contradiction?

Does anyone recognize the significance of Professor Young's statement: "The true meaning is passive?"

 

[Ransom]

Does anyone recognize the significance of Professor Young's statement: "The true meaning is passive?"

Yes, because he explains it in the next sentence. "The true meaning is passive, that which is breathed out by God." Not "that which God breathed out," which would be active, not passive.

 

[Mitex]

Does anyone recognize the significance of Professor Young's statement: "The true meaning is passive?"

Yes, because he explains it in the next sentence. "The true meaning is passive, that which is breathed out by God." Not "that which God breathed out," which would be active, not passive.

Excuse me, but active would be, "God breathes out all Scripture", "The inspiration of God gives all Scripture" or "God inspires all Scripture." Note the present tense. The meaning doesn't change, but the emphasis does. The argument is the present tense copula versus present tense passive. I take it as a present tense copula, not that the meaning would be that much different either way.

 

[Ransom]

Excuse me, but active would be, "God breathes out all Scripture", "The inspiration of God gives all Scripture" or "God inspires all Scripture." Note the present tense.

Blah blah. I gave an example of active voice. Your own example doesn't nullify mine.

 

[FSSL]

This of course shoots a gaping hole in the theory often propagated by many good men that "only the autograph was inspired."

Can anyone explain this curiosity or apparent contradiction?

The contradiction is all your own mind.

That is why you agree with the men above and not a phrase taken to argue for an exclusive position. Your position regarding the autographs only makes this harder for you to understand.

The concept is simple... The autographs were inspired (God's very voice). Any copy or genuine translation of those means that you still hear God's very voice.

 

[Mitex]

...
The concept is simple... The autographs were inspired (God's very voice). Any copy or genuine translation of those means that you still hear God's very voice.

The good doctors in the O.P. stated that given by inspiration of God is  "a direct reference to the sacred writings which Timothy had had in knowledge since his infancy" in direct opposition to your inflated opinion. Timothy did not have the autograph, but every one of the sacred writings he knew from his youth were given by inspiration of God. So, says the Apostle Paul, Dr. Warfield, Dr. Pettingill, etc. No extant manuscript, compilation, edition, or version is a genuine translation of the autograph. The Scriptures are not determined by diligent comparison to the autograph (impossible) or even to the English AV (impossible historically). There are other criteria for recognizing the Scriptures in any generation or language.

I know it must grate on your bloated opinion of yourself, but the Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by the Church of God (a consensus of born again Spirit filled members) in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form given by inspiration of God ? true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

 

[Ransom]

The Scriptures are not determined by diligent comparison to the autograph (impossible) or even to the English AV (impossible historically). There are other criteria for recognizing the Scriptures in any generation or language.

Yeah, we've already read your macro a dozen times.

The Northern Baptists say so, the Southern Baptists say so, the Eastern Baptists say so, the South-South-Western Baptists say so, the Independent Baptists say so, the Dependent Baptists say so, the Unaffiliated Baptists say so, the Free Will Baptists say so, the Freer Will Baptists say so, the Separated Baptists say so, the Separated from the Separated Baptists say so, the Separated from the Separated from the Separated Baptists but not from the Separated Baptists say so, the Seventh-day Baptists say so, the No Pink Shirts Baptists say so, the Horn-Rimmed Glasses Only Baptists say so, the Hyles Baptists say so, the Jack Schaap Pro-Kiddy-Fiddling Baptists say so, the Blue Church Buses Only Baptists say so, the Green Stage Lights Are of the Devil Baptists say so, the No Christian Rock Music Baptists say so, the No Southern Gospel Either Baptists say so, the Better Not Play Any Music at All Just to Be Safe Baptists say so, the Flat Earth Baptists say so, the Landmark Baptists say so, the Baptist Bride Baptists say so,  the We're at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb and You're Not, Neener Neener Neener Baptists say so, the Rah Rah Murrica Baptists say so, the Niech ?yje Polska baptyst?w say so, the ????????????? say so, blah blah blah . . . [falls over in an overwhelming fit of foam-at-the-mouth consensus]

 

[FSSL]

No extant manuscript, compilation, edition, or version is a genuine translation of the autograph.

Yep! Old agnostic Mitex does not believe that we have an idea as to what the originals were because they do not exist.

Preservation is denied.
Soul Liberty is flushed.
Scriptural authority is only real and practical when a consensus of people make it real.

 

[Mitex]

No extant manuscript, compilation, edition, or version is a genuine translation of the autograph.

Yep! Old agnostic Mitex does not believe that we have an idea as to what the originals were because they do not exist.

I'm not an agnostic. You goofed when you stated, "Any copy or genuine translation of those [the autographs] means that you still hear God's very voice." There are no extant copies or genuine translations of the autographs. All copies and genuine translations are copies of copies or translations of non-original compilations. Your misinformation and false accusation is noted.

Preservation is denied.

I do not deny preservation. I deny your wanky and erroneous theory about preservation.

You have a running habit of ignoring the facts, so please allow me to remind you of this salient fact.
Fact: The autographs are no longer extant, they are in fact not preserved, certainly not in their original jot and tittle form.

Moses cast the original tables out of his hands and broke them beneath the mount, they became the habitat of worms. Jehudi took his penknife and cut out portions of the original autographs and cast them into the fire. The original Proverbs were expanded by Hezekiah's men. 2 Corinthians, according to genuine scholars (not you), wasn't really Paul's 2 epistle to the Corinthians, but a compilation of his writings to those in Achaia. Scriptural preservation has never been about identifying original jots and tittles, but rather the preservation of God's authority in written form recognizable and readily available to the people of God. Scriptural preservation should never be compared to grandpa's coin collection preserved in the vaults down at 1st Jerusalem Bank & Trust for every generation to come take a peek at the exact same pristine coins. Scriptural preservation is more like grandma's pickles, the form has changed, but all that is of nutritional value is preserved.

Soul Liberty is flushed.

Perhaps so. Heretics and apostates are indeed "flushed" from the Church of God when they attempt to impose their sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred opinion upon the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth.  When you or your buddies attempt to add or subtract from the Canon (Standard) you will be "flushed out" being properly labeled as heretics or apostates by the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth. The Apostle Paul warned the Church of God about apostasy in the last days, men would be lovers of their own selves (2Tm 4). Those promoting their sectarian, peculiar, private and personal preferences in an attempt to overthrow the collective voice of the Church of God  under the guise of "soul liberty" do indeed need to be "flushed."

Scriptural authority is only real and practical when a consensus of people make it real.

More misinformation and fallacious straw man arguments. I've repeatedly stated the contrary, so, your continued false statements demonstrate more about your character than you probably intended. For the sincere Reader:

? 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. Putting ?Standard? on the cover of a book doesn?t make it the Standard.
? Free, genuine agreement establishes authority and when agreement reaches consensus the authority is final as in ?beyond dispute?.

 

[Ransom]

No extant manuscript, compilation, edition, or version is a genuine translation of the autograph. The Scriptures are not determined by diligent comparison to the autograph (impossible) or even to the English AV (impossible historically). There are other criteria for recognizing the Scriptures in any generation or language.

And in a more serious tone than my previous post, what we have here is skepticism in its purest form: not merely, as we use the term skepticism today,  an attitude of questioning knowledge or belief, but the impossibility of knowing anything for certain. KJV-onlyism is as skeptical as anything you see from a postmodern theorist. KJV-onlyists don't come by their KJV-onlyism by reason; it is a quantum leap from the lower story of reason to the upper story of "faith." The generic KJV-onlyist comes by this through pure fideism. Mitex does it through fictitious Baptist infallibility.

 

[Ransom]

Consensus cannot make something that is false become true, nor can it make something that is true become false.

And yet, we have seen that you are extremely reluctant to admit that the consensus of born-again Christians can be wrong. Hence we might easily conclude that you believe "consensus cannot make something that is false become true" merely because there would never be consensus on something false; hence consensus must be true by definition.

 

[Mitex]

No extant manuscript, compilation, edition, or version is a genuine translation of the autograph. The Scriptures are not determined by diligent comparison to the autograph (impossible) or even to the English AV (impossible historically). There are other criteria for recognizing the Scriptures in any generation or language.

And in a more serious tone than my previous post, what we have here is skepticism in its purest form: not merely, as we use the term skepticism today,  an attitude of questioning knowledge or belief, but the impossibility of knowing anything for certain. KJV-onlyism is as skeptical as anything you see from a postmodern theorist. KJV-onlyists don't come by their KJV-onlyism by reason; it is a quantum leap from the lower story of reason to the upper story of "faith." The generic KJV-onlyist comes by this through pure fideism. Mitex does it through fictitious Baptist infallibility.

More fallacious blather from our resident Fallacy Meister. The autograph is no longer extant. No direct translation or copy of the autograph exists. ALL (absolute consensus) translations and copies are made from non-original copies and translations.  Facts are stubborn things. My antagonists apparently aren't interested in facts. They prefer their fideism and peculiar fiats. They rail against my stated position, build fallacious straw men arguments, and insult my integrity and faith, but one thing they will not do, and apparently can't do, is articulate their own position on the definition of the Scriptures and identity of the Canon.

 

[Mitex]

Consensus cannot make something that is false become true, nor can it make something that is true become false.

And yet, we have seen that you are extremely reluctant to admit that the consensus of born-again Christians can be wrong. Hence we might easily conclude that you believe "consensus cannot make something that is false become true" merely because there would never be consensus on something false; hence consensus must be true by definition.

More fallacious straw man argumentation from our resident Fallacy Meister. I stated that a small consensus could indeed be wrong, but a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers across all denominational lines could NOT be wrong on such immutable doctrines as the identity of the Scriptures, the scope of the Canon, salvation by grace without the works of the law, etc.

Tell us, Scott, is the Church of God (a consensus of born again Spirit filled believing members) wrong on the Canon?
Please inform the Reader, Scott, is the Church of God (a consensus of born again Spirit filled believing members) wrong on Salvation by grace without the works of the law?
State your case, Scott, is the  Church of God (a consensus of born again Spirit filled believing members) wrong on the deity of Christ?
Let her rip, Scott, where all Bible Versions agree (absolute consensus), are those Versions wrong in those places?

I've asked before, what would it take to get believers across all denominational lines to agree on one Standard English Bible? The answer was: the evident hand of God if not an outright miracle. 

I don't believe the the Church of God is wrong, nor can be wrong, about salvation, the deity of Christ or the identity of the Scriptures, no matter how many hypotheticals you can come up with.

 

[FSSL]

Yes, Scott... you and I do have to admit that the 10s of thousands of mss we have today (Old and New) are not a product of God's providential preservation of His word.

In fact, with so many mss, one has to wonder what it will take for a historical document to actually be preserved. Does it require 1 million preserved copies of an original to finally have some adequate assurance that God actually preserved His word?

I do not share Mitex's agnostism/skepticism regarding the autographs. The KJVO violates the doctrine of Preservation by assuming that we cannot have what God originally wrote (even while God preserved a multitude of copies spanning centuries and countries).

 

[Ransom]

More fallacious blather from our resident Fallacy Meister. The autograph is no longer extant. No direct translation or copy of the autograph exists. ALL (absolute consensus) translations and copies are made from non-original copies and translations.  Facts are stubborn things. My antagonists apparently aren't interested in facts. They prefer their fideism and peculiar fiats. They rail against my stated position, build fallacious straw men arguments, and insult my integrity and faith, but one thing they will not do, and apparently can't do, is articulate their own position on the definition of the Scriptures and identity of the Canon.

You just proved my point. Thank you.

 

[Ransom]

I stated that a small consensus could indeed be wrong, but a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers across all denominational lines could NOT be wrong on such immutable doctrines as the identity of the Scriptures, the scope of the Canon, salvation by grace without the works of the law, etc.

You assert the consensus of the English-speaking church is that the Scriptures are currently the King James Version, which has only existed for four centuries.

Something that could only have been true in recent history is hardly an "immutable doctrine."

Tell us, Scott, is the Church of God (a consensus of born again Spirit filled believing members) wrong on the Canon?

Speaking of fallacies, here we have a loaded question. I do not accept your definition of the church as a "consensus," and the question is unanswerable until you correct your error.

Of course, you knew this already, so you are being deceitful. It is fruitless to argue truth with unrepentant liars like you.

 

[logos1560]

I do not deny preservation. I deny your wanky and erroneous theory about preservation.

The inconsistent, wanky, erroneous theory about preservation is the KJV-only theory.

You have not demonstrated that you hold and advocate a consistent, sound, scriptural view of preservation.

 

[logos1560]

The sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, but it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration.  There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse.  Inspiration is a term for the way, method, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4).  This verse in 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or regiving of the Scripture by inspiration of God each time it is copied or each time it is translated into a different language. 

It has not been soundly demonstrated that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original language Scriptures are copied or are translated into other languages.  The term Scripture refers to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition.  The term Scripture refers to words given by inspiration of God, but the process of the giving by inspiration is not stated to be its definition. 

    Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated ?Scripture??  While an adjective can describe a noun, an adjective is not the definition of that noun.  For example, while all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being ?profitable? is not the definition for the term Scripture.  Something can be ?profitable? without it being Scripture.  While the words of Scripture are pure (Ps. 19:8, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 12:6), being pure is not the definition of the term Scripture.  Something can be pure without it being Scripture.  The word of the LORD is tried (Ps. 18:30), but that does not mean that being ?tried? would be the definition of Scripture.  Being ?perfect? is not the definition of scripture even though the word of God is perfect (Ps. 19:7).

 

[logos1560]

Sound understanding of some Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages.  The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures.    Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?  These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language.  Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages.  These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages.  These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it.  These commands would suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.  For a king or whoever copied them to be able to ?keep all the words,? they would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19). 

    A copy of Scripture should have the exact, same words as the source from which it was copied, and it could be tested or evaluated by its source (Exod. 34:1, Deut. 10:2, 4, Deut. 17:18, Deut. 27:8, Jer. 36:28, John 17:8, Jer. 23:28).  Greg Bahnsen noted:  ?God provided for the rewriting of the words of the original tablets (Exod. 34:1, 27-28), and Scripture makes the point that these second tablets were written ?according to the first writing? (Deut. 10:2, 4).  Here is a significant model for all later copying of the biblical autographs; they should reproduce the words that were on the first tablet or page? (Geisler, Inerrancy, p. 165).  KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted:  ?The model for preservation of inspired Words is also included in the Bible.  God made the first copy of His inspired Words as the model.  He copied the exact same Words that were on the first tablet containing the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:1).  He commanded Jeremiah to make a copy of the exact Words He gave him to record in the scroll that King Jehoiakim cut-up and destroyed with a penknife and by burning the manuscript (Jer. 36ff)? (Hearing the Voice of God, pp. 194-195).  Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8). 

    A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies of it would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished.  The truth stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Jer. 26:2, Rev. 22:18-19) could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the perfect word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken or given by inspiration (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:35). 

It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not spoken words added by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18).  Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles?  Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of the LORD are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:100), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God.  It would be a sound, righteous judgment based on scriptural truths to maintain that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words inspired by God.  Therefore, any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies of Scripture can be and should be corrected.  It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken or given by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16).  Just as the source would definitely have to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11).  Would not the preserved original language Scriptures given by inspiration be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing? 

 

[logos1560]

The scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures also provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture.  The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9).  The scriptural principles of using just measures and not using unjust measures would be timeless and would not be limited to a specific situation or time period.  These instructions to use just measures and not use unjust measures are not in conflict with other scriptural teaching, but instead they are in agreement with other scriptural teaching.  The use of inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards could be connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). 

Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be good, true, upright, and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 19:9, Ps. 119:39, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, Ps. 119:66, 1 Thess. 5:21, Ps. 119:137).  According to what the Scriptures state and teach, it would be clear that the holy, just God would oppose the wicked perverting or wresting of righteous judgment by use of unjust measures (Job 34:12, Job 8:3, Exodus 23:7, Exodus 23:2, Rev. 15:3).  Every false way including that of the making of inconsistent, unrighteous judgments and the use of unjust measures should be hated or abhorred by believers (Ps. 119:104, Ps. 119:128, Ps. 97:10, Rom. 12:9).  Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17).  The making of sound, true, righteous judgments would be considered a weighter matter (Matt. 23:23).  A failure to use consistent, ?altogether just? measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result.  Should someone who would use unjust measures or would be unjust concerning textual differences that are considered least be trusted in greater textual differences (Luke 16:10)?  In order to be faithful and just in that which is least, one would need to use consistent, just measures.  That the preserved copies of the Scriptures in the original languages as searched, evaluated, and discerned by use of just measures should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture state or indicate.