Inspired Translations

[Mitex]

2Tm 3:12 - 2Tm 4:2 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 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.  I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

I. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - there is no other kind of Scripture that is profitable for doctrine.

II. Timothy had the Holy Scriptures from a child - Timothy did not have anything Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, John, or Peter wrote originally, but he did have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Timothy's Scriptures were at best very late copies of copies and may very well have been a translation - at least that's what the scholars on this board and others purport when it is convenient for them.

III. The only defense against evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse is Scripture given by inspiration of God - it's an axiom that Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

IV. If you do not have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God you cannot have Scriptural doctrine, nor can you preach the word of God, nor can you reprove, rebuke or exhort with Scriptural authority.

V. Mark and Luke were not Apostles.

VI. Extant manuscripts with Greek characters scrawled upon them are not the autographs originally penned by Apostles, Mark, Luke and other scribes. Our English, Polish, Spanish, etc. Bibles are every wit the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - as the original finger of God written 10 Commandments or Paul's original Epistle to Timothy.

VII. Scripture given by inspiration of God did not cease, die or fade away with the last breath or pen stroke of the Apostle John.

Therefore preach the word of God with all longsuffering and doctrine which comes from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are true in all their parts - every book, chapter, verse and word. The Scriptures are God's authority, truth, and doctrine. Therefore preach the word of God with full assurance and confidence. Don't let the skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt cause you to disbelieve any word of it.

 

[Boomer]

While we are on the subject, did God promise to preserve His word perfectly in the King James Version? If so, what verse says so? I was a KJVO all of my life until about 2 years ago when I asked myself, "What promise from God am I claiming for this translation?" I found that preservation in a particular translation is not mentioned, much less promised in Scripture.

Aren't you aware that what Timothy had in his posession as a child was a copy of the Holy Scriptures?
                      - Nobody denies that...But I'm pretty sure the Septuagint had some errors in it. It was inspired because it derived its inspiration from its source. Like any other translation, it was not directly inspired by God and lacking any human error.

I realized that I was claiming a promise God never made...I was no different than a Word of Faith preacher who says God promises prosperity and health to every believer.

God did promise to preserve and keep His word:
          - I said as much in my post. You missed the point.

Psalm 12:6-7
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
     

Let me ask you; who inspired David to pen those words (Psa. 12:6-7).?
  Let me ask you; what language or translation is mentioned in Psalm 12?
  Let's make it more direct. Does Psalm 12:6-7 promise that God would preserve His Word in the KJV? The answer is No. God does say His
  words are pure (and I believe they remain so). Then, in verse 7, God promises to preserve the poor and oppressed (see context - v. 5).
  This passage says nothing about inspired translations. It says nothing about the KJV, English, or translations in general.

Was it not the Holy Ghost?
      What language did the Holy Spirit inspire David to write? Was it not the Hebrew?

I would say that passage of Scripture right there is a promise on Scripture preservation. It is the LORD that will keep and preserve His pure words.
                I agree. The problem is that that passage of Scripture right there is NOT a promise on Scripture preservation in the English language or the KJV specifically. How can you completely miss this? I'm not trying to berate you. I just cannot comprehend how
you can take the promise of preservation and add "in English" where it does not appear in the text.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

I would say that passage of Scripture right there is a promise on Scripture preservation. It is the LORD that will keep and preserve His pure words.
                I agree. The problem is that that passage of Scripture right there is NOT a promise on Scripture preservation in the English language or the KJV specifically. How can you completely miss this? I'm not trying to berate you. I just cannot comprehend how
you can take the promise of preservation and add "in English" where it does not appear in the text.

I would say both of you are confused. The "them" in Psalm 12:6,7 refers back to the "poor" and "needy" people of verse 5.

The Hebrew grammar will allow no other understanding. Even the KJV of 1611 admits the same thing. The marginal note tells us that. Observe the (†) symbol in verse 7 (between the words "preserve" and "them"): "Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou shalt preserve †them, from this generation for ever."

That symbol connects the word "them" to the marginal note: " †Heb. him. i. every one of them." Thus, the KJV's own translators state the Hebrew word here actually means him (so it's impossible for it to refer to the word, "words" in verse 6). Then they explain why it was translated as "them" (the little "i." is short for 'i.e.' or: that is): Because "him" represents "every one of them" (an obvious reference to the poor and needy in verse 5), so they decided to make it plural. What's the plural of 'him' in English? It is: 'Them.' Unfortunately, Bibles without this note from the King's Translators, make it difficult for those who have no knowledge of Hebrew to know the word "them" here must refer to the people in verse 5. And, of course, NO KJVO ever bothered to learn Hebrew grammar. If they did they would no longer be KJVO.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I would say that passage of Scripture right there is a promise on Scripture preservation. It is the LORD that will keep and preserve His pure words.
                I agree. The problem is that that passage of Scripture right there is NOT a promise on Scripture preservation in the English language or the KJV specifically. How can you completely miss this? I'm not trying to berate you. I just cannot comprehend how
you can take the promise of preservation and add "in English" where it does not appear in the text.

I would say both of your are confused. The "them" in Psalm 12:6,7 refers back to the "poor" and "needy" people of verse 5.

The Hebrew grammar will allow no other understanding. Even the KJV of 1611 admits the same thing. The marginal note tells us that. Observe the (†) symbol in verse 7 (between the words "preserve" and "them"): "Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou shalt preserve †them, from this generation for ever."

That symbol connects the word "them" to the marginal note: " †Heb. him. i. every one of them." Thus, the KJV's own translators state the Hebrew word here actually means him (so it's impossible for it to refer to the word, "words" in verse 6). Then they explain why it was translated as "them" (the little "i." is short for 'i.e.' or: that is): Because "him" represents "every one of them" (an obvious reference to the poor and needy in verse 5), so they decided to make it plural. What's the plural of 'him' in English? It is: 'Them.' Unfortunately, Bibles without this note from the King's Translators, make it difficult for those who have no knowledge of Hebrew to know the word "them" here must refer to the people in verse 5. And, of course, NO KJVO ever bothered to learn Hebrew grammar. If they did they would no longer be KJVO.

Concise succinct easily understood explanation of the passage that is one of the capstones of the KJVO heresy.

 

[Boomer]

I would say that passage of Scripture right there is a promise on Scripture preservation. It is the LORD that will keep and preserve His pure words.
                I agree. The problem is that that passage of Scripture right there is NOT a promise on Scripture preservation in the English language or the KJV specifically. How can you completely miss this? I'm not trying to berate you. I just cannot comprehend how
you can take the promise of preservation and add "in English" where it does not appear in the text.

I would say both of your are confused. The "them" in Psalm 12:6,7 refers back to the "poor" and "needy" people of verse 5.

The Hebrew grammar will allow no other understanding. Even the KJV of 1611 admits the same thing. The marginal note tells us that. Observe the (†) symbol in verse 7 (between the words "preserve" and "them"): "Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou shalt preserve †them, from this generation for ever."

That symbol connects the word "them" to the marginal note: " †Heb. him. i. every one of them." Thus, the KJV's own translators state the Hebrew word here actually means him (so it's impossible for it to refer to the word, "words" in verse 6). Then they explain why it was translated as "them" (the little "i." is short for 'i.e.' or: that is): Because "him" represents "every one of them" (an obvious reference to the poor and needy in verse 5), so they decided to make it plural. What's the plural of 'him' in English? It is: 'Them.' Unfortunately, Bibles without this note from the King's Translators, make it difficult for those who have no knowledge of Hebrew to know the word "them" here must refer to the people in verse 5. And, of course, NO KJVO ever bothered to learn Hebrew grammar. If they did they would no longer be KJVO.

If you'll read more than that one section of my post, you'll see that I interpret verse seven the same way you do.

 

[logos1560]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God 

It says given by inspiration of God, but it does not say "translated" by inspiration of God. 

Mitex, you have not clearly demonstrated that your interpretation or understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 is sound, true, and consistent to what the Scriptures teach overall concerning themselves.  Your private interpretation conflicts with other scriptural truths and reads into 2 Timothy 3:16 more than it actually states and misinterprets it.  You also seem to ignore what is considered the parallel passage to 2 Timothy 3:16-- 2 Peter 1:21.

KJV-only author David Cloud indicated that inspiration concerned “the divinely-guided writing of the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 45).  Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17, David Cloud wrote:  “The term ‘given by inspiration’ applies directly only to the original process of the giving of Scripture.  The same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Faith, p. 54).  He added:  “No translation can lay claim to this process.  No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (pp. 55, 593).  Evangelist Harold Boyd, a KJV-only advocate, asserted:  “If you want a  good definition for inspiration, I believe you will find this in 2 Peter 1:21” (Flaming Torch, August, 1981, p. 3).  D. A. Waite wrote:  “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3).  Homer Massey wrote:  “The primary Scripture passage describing how inspiration was accomplished is found in 2 Peter 1:21” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Oct., 1980, p. 2).  R. B. Ouellette wrote:  “There is a second passage used as a parallel to 2 Timothy 3:16--2 Peter 1:21” (More Sure Word, p. 30).  Ouellette then cited 2 Peter 1:21 for “the method of inspiration” (p. 32).  Ouellette acknowledged that “inspiration was completed in the past” (p. 34). Referring to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21, Gail Riplinger wrote:  “The two verses most often used in a discussion of the Bible’s inspiration are parallel” (Hazardous, p. 1184). 

Mitex, you have not demonstrated that the Scriptures assert that the translation decisions of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the makers of the Geneva Bible, the makers of the Bishops' Bible, or the makers of the KJV proceeded from the mouth of God or were given by inspiration of God.

    The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44).  The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56).  God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70).  All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3).  While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses.  Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). 

A logical and sound deduction from verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies of Scripture would need to be carefully examined, 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 in context was not diminished.  These verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.   Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies can be and should be corrected.  Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so 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). 

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 copies [likewise translations] would be wrong according to the Scriptures (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, Lev. 10:10, Deut. 16:20, Ps. 19:7-9).  A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15) in comparing or trying translations would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that will result.  That the preserved copies of the Scriptures in the original languages 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 indicate. 

 

[prophet]

I'm always amazed at scholars, like Bill Clinton, who can't admit the meaning of "is", when they are cornered.

The Scripture dwells in present tense, always,...eternally, if you would...He "is" given.

Preservation isnt an issue, He doesn't expire.

Jn 6:63
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jn 6:63
63 It is the sprete that quyckeneth the flesshe proffeteth nothinge. The wordes that I speake vnto you are sprete and lyfe.
(TyndaleBible)

Jn 6:64
64 It is the spirit that quykeneth, the fleisch profitith no thing; the wordis that Y haue spokun to you, ben spirit and lijf.
(WYC)

See, 700 years of English...
'Is' is still 'is'

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

The Scripture dwells in present tense, always,...eternally, if you would...He "is" given.

"The Scripture" is not a "He." Personifying a non-person is idolatry.

 

[prophet]

The Scripture dwells in present tense, always,...eternally, if you would...He "is" given.

"The Scripture" is not a "He." Personifying a non-person is idolatry.

Jn 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Use your Superior Canuck English skills to determine the antecedent to this pronoun:

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in "his" sight:but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.


Anishinaabe

 

[T-Bone]

The Scripture dwells in present tense, always,...eternally, if you would...He "is" given.

"The Scripture" is not a "He." Personifying a non-person is idolatry.

Jn 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Use your Superior Canuck English skills to determine the antecedent to this pronoun:

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in "his" sight:but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.


Anishinaabe

Not sure if you are saying that these two passages are calling the Bible God....so I will just say for the sake of putting it out the John speaks of the eternal Word who became flesh, not in reference to the written Scripture (because the Bible does not equate to God)... & the Hebrews passage is not saying the "word" in vs 12 is the "he" in vs 13.  If you are not saying otherwise then ... Never mind.

 

[Boomer]

The Scripture dwells in present tense, always,...eternally, if you would...He "is" given.

"The Scripture" is not a "He." Personifying a non-person is idolatry.

Jn 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Use your Superior Canuck English skills to determine the antecedent to this pronoun:

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in "his" sight:but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.


Anishinaabe

Not sure if you are saying that these two passages are calling the Bible God....so I will just say for the sake of putting it out the John speaks of the eternal Word who became flesh, not in reference to the written Scripture (because the Bible does not equate to God)... & the Hebrews passage is not saying the "word" in vs 12 is the "he" in vs 13.  If you are not saying otherwise then ... Never mind.

This

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

And the Word was made flesh

"The Word" in John 1 is not the Scriptures, but the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.

The Logos (Word) was a Greek term whose literal meaning was "word" or "discourse," but was also used of the animating principle of the universe. The latter connotation was introduced into Jewish thought by Philo. Hence John, who obviously has at least a surface familiarity with Hellenistic Jewish thought, identifies the Logos as the One through whom all things were made. He expects us, his readers, to understand that he means Jesus, because that is who his book is about.

John is not deifying the God-breathed Scriptures, nor is he identifying Jesus as the Bible. As I said: Deifying a non-person is idolatry.

Use your Superior Canuck English skills to determine the antecedent to this pronoun:

Got nothing to do with English grammar, but Jewish thought. Learn some hermeneutics.

 

[Mitex]

...
    A logical and sound deduction from verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies of Scripture would need to be carefully examined, 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 in context was not diminished.  These verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.   Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies can be and should be corrected.  Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so 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).
... 

Rick,

Using just weights, true balances, consistent measures, fair and true judgments, righteous standards in evaluating, judging, trying your stated position above, a logical and sound deduction leads one to conclude that you have somewhat possibly implied that every Copyist and Translator in history is a liar, in danger of plagues and of having his part taken out of the book of life. For you and your ilk have stated or implied that 1 John 5:7 and verses similar to it are an "addition to the word of God" thus condemning the innocent authors of the Westminster Confess, early Baptist and Reformed Confessions of faith that all quoted 1 John 5:7 as the very word of God and in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. You and your ilk seem to imply by sound logical deduction of your stated position that every Translator and Copyist in history "added to or diminished" the word of God. Word counts are not the same in any two copies or translations. You are on record stating that the words baptism, bishop, etc. are erroneous translations and diminish from the word of God thus condemning both ancient and modern translators alike. Rick not only condemns all Copyists and Translators, but printers, typesetter and publishers as well. God forbid that their presses should roll out a version with blank pages, misspelled words or italicized words for Rick would place them all under the curse of Rev 22:18-19.

The Reader would do well to check Rick's verse citations and see for himself what the Scriptures really say. Rick is a blatant Original Language Onlyist. He doesn't believe any translation in any language or period of time can properly be called the Scriptures which by axiom is defined as "given by inspiration of God".

Deut. 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deut. 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Beware of these birds that would take the word of God out of your hands and replace it with what they speculate to be the original. We have the Scriptures today in our Standard Translations. Don't let these lurking Original Language Onlyists, skeptics and purveyors of doubt cause you to lose faith in the Scriptures that God Almighty has given to you in your language. You my dear Reader have the very word of God, the Scriptures, available to you in your language. You don't need to learn Greek, Hebrew or Arabic to recognize and understand the Scriptures. Don't allow these pious Original Language Onlyists to tell you otherwise.

 

[SAWBONES]

...you and your ilk...
You and your ilk...
...a blatant Original Language Onlyist.
Beware of these birds...
...lurking Original Language Onlyists...
...skeptics and purveyors of doubt...
...pious Original Language Onlyists...

So, the KJV is once again held up as the one absolutely perfect standard, and one who argues honestly and convincingly, with evidence, in favor of reference to the original language sources and against the superstition of KJV perfection in the study of the Scriptures is called a variety of defamatory names...[yawn] [/yawn]

 

[Mitex]

...you and your ilk...
You and your ilk...
...a blatant Original Language Onlyist.
Beware of these birds...
...lurking Original Language Onlyists...
...skeptics and purveyors of doubt...
...pious Original Language Onlyists...

So, the KJV is once again held up as the one absolutely perfect standard, and one who argues honestly and convincingly, with evidence, in favor of reference to the original language sources and against the superstition of KJV perfection in the study of the Scriptures is called a variety of defamatory names...[yawn] [/yawn]

Yawn! Once again Sawbones goes scurrying into pettiness and by missing the point makes much-to-do about nothing. The Scriptures in any language or time period were exalted in my posts. Which, if Rick is correct, neither you, nor he have ever seen, for Rick insists that "inspired Scriptures" were given ONLY to the Apostles and prophets - read his post before commenting and wandering off into Swaziland.

We are to read, believe and preach the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the only source of doctrine. The Scriptures have the character of being “given by inspiration of God” and that this character of the Scriptures is true in all generations and languages, not being limited to the autographs, originals or original language documents as Rick proposes. Timothy had the Scriptures - he did NOT have the autographs - which rips a hole in Rick's Original Language Onlyism. You yourself once defined the term Scriptures as found in the New Testament as:

“The term γραφή (graphe) – Scripture – as used in the Scriptures 51 times in the NT refers to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative.”

That is to say, Jesus read the divinely inspired Scriptures in his day (He was not readying the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets), as did the Bereans, the Eunuch and everyone else where the Scriptures were read in the New Testament. "Divinely inspired" each and every instance and not one instance was the autograph mentioned.

Now, would you care to revise your statement? That's what I thought. Go back to bed and deal with your bedbugs.

 

[bgwilkinson]

...you and your ilk...
You and your ilk...
...a blatant Original Language Onlyist.
Beware of these birds...
...lurking Original Language Onlyists...
...skeptics and purveyors of doubt...
...pious Original Language Onlyists...

So, the KJV is once again held up as the one absolutely perfect standard, and one who argues honestly and convincingly, with evidence, in favor of reference to the original language sources and against the superstition of KJV perfection in the study of the Scriptures is called a variety of defamatory names...[yawn] [/yawn]

Yawn! One again Sawbones goes scurrying into pettiness and by missing the point makes much-to-do about nothing. The Scriptures were exalted in my posts. Which, if Rick is correct, neither you, nor he have ever seen, for Rick insists that "inspired Scriptures" were given ONLY to the Apostles and prophets - read his post before commenting and wandering off into Swaziland.

We are to read, believe the Scriptures and preach the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the only source of doctrine. The Scriptures have the character of being “given by inspiration of God” and that this character of the Scriptures is true in all generations and languages, not being limited to the autographs, originals or original language documents as Rick proposes. Timothy had the Scriptures - he did NOT have the autographs - which rips a hole in Rick's Original Language Onlyism. You yourself once defined the term Scriptures as found in the New Testament as:

“The term γραφή (graphe) – Scripture – as used in the Scriptures 51 times in the NT refers to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative.”

That is to say, Jesus read the divinely inspired Scriptures in his day (He was not readying the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets), as did the Bereans, the Eunuch and everyone else where the Scriptures were read in the New Testament. "Divinely inspired" each and every instance and not one instance was the autograph mentioned.

Now, would you care to revise your statement? That's what I thought. Go back to bed and deal with your bedbugs.

Mitex,

You know what happens when you don't take your MEDS.

Take a deep breath hold it a few seconds and then let it out slowly.

See now don't you few better?

Now maybe you won't be so mean.

Try a little kindness, it might set better with you.

 

[Mitex]

Mitex,

You know what happens when you don't take your MEDS.

Take a deep breath hold it a few seconds and then let it out slowly.

See now don't you few better?

Now maybe you won't be so mean.

Try a little kindness, it might set better with you.

Ok, I took my meds, I feel better. Now would you like to address the issue which Rick & his kind so often avoid?

I. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - there is no other kind of Scripture that is profitable for doctrine.

Do you believe there exists Scripture that is not given by inspiration of God?
Where in the Scriptures are the Scriptures ever considered: Not given by inspiration of God?
Can Biblical doctrine be taught without Scripture? Scripture is defined in context as given by inspiration of God.

II. Timothy had the Holy Scriptures from a child - Timothy did not have anything Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, John, or Peter wrote originally, but he did have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Timothy's Scriptures were at best very late copies of copies and may very well have been a translation - at least that's what the scholars on this board and others purport when it is convenient for them.


Would you be so kind as to address this salient point? Did Timothy have the Scriptures? Timothy did NOT have the autographs. Paul said and genuine scholars agree that Timothy's Scriptures were "given by inspiration of God" even though they were NOT the autographs. Please address this salient point.

III. The only defense against evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse is Scripture given by inspiration of God - it's an axiom that Scripture is given by inspiration of God.


Please kindly explain from Scriptures what God gave the Church in 2014 as a defense against evil men and seducers? Was it anything other than Scripture given by inspiration of God?

IV. If you do not have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God you cannot have Scriptural doctrine, nor can you preach the word of God, nor can you reprove, rebuke or exhort with Scriptural authority.

Do you have the Scriptures? Have you ever read them? Preached them? Used them as the only viable source of Biblical doctrine? We are command to read, search, believe and preach the Scriptures. In your humble opinion has any American who has absolute no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew ever read, searched, believed and preached the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God?

V. Mark and Luke were not Apostles.

In your kind heartedness would you be so charitable as to confirm or deny this fact? Mark and Luke were not Apostles, yet their books are part of the Canon of Scriptures. To use Rick's twisted wording - the Scriptures were given to Mark and Luke who were NOT Apostles.

VI. Extant manuscripts with Greek characters scrawled upon them are not the autographs originally penned by Apostles, Mark, Luke and other scribes. Our English, Polish, Spanish, etc. Bibles are every wit the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - as the original finger of God written 10 Commandments or Paul's original Epistle to Timothy.

You being completely sound of mind and not on any type of medication - would you be so kind as to confirm or deny these facts? No extant manuscript with Greek characters scrawled upon them are the autographs. Are our English, Polish, Spanish, etc. Bibles every with the Scriptures as the original finger of God written 10 Commandments or Paul's original Epistle to Timothy?

VII. Scripture given by inspiration of God did not cease, die or fade away with the last breath or pen stroke of the Apostle John.

You being of sound mind and off medications, would you be so kind and charitable as to affirm or deny the above statement?

Therefore preach the word of God with all longsuffering and doctrine which comes from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are true in all their parts - every book, chapter, verse and word. The Scriptures are God's authority, truth, and doctrine. Therefore preach the word of God with full assurance and confidence. Don't let the skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt cause you to disbelieve any word of it.

Are we to allow skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt to cause us to disbelieve words, phrases and verses in our Holy Scriptures?

Thank you for you patience and kindness in addressing these salient points.

 

[SAWBONES]

Every so often, Mitex' sense that nobody respects the Scriptures as much as he does bubbles to the surface and gets the better of his more reasonable nature, and then he posts stuff like the above.

 

[Mitex]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God 

It says given by inspiration of God, but it does not say "translated" by inspiration of God.

It says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
You are correct the verse doesn't say, "translated", but then it again it doesn't say, "copied" either. Is it your position that Bibles in English, Spanish, Polish, etc. are not the Scriptures? That's most certainly what you imply.

I note that it doesn't say, "All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles" As you so erroneously stated. You read into the verse what you wanted it to say. I'll repeat: It does NOT say, "All Scripture WAS given by inspiration of God...". It says, All Scripture IS given by inspiration of God..."

By your imposing your tradition on the verse and changing the verb be to be a past tense copula (linking verb) you make the verse mean: We don’t know exactly when or how the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, but we do know that at some time in the past it was given by inspiration of God. We have no idea whether the Scriptures are still given by inspiration of God today (now) nor the condition or state of the Scriptures in the present. But that is exactly what it doesn't say or mean! It says, All Scripture IS given by inspiration of God..." which means: We don’t know exactly when the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, but we do know that at this very moment (now) they are given by inspiration of God (it’s condition) and that God was the one that gave it.

Now, since you won't ever come out and take a position, but instead hide behind the quotes of others, it makes it difficult for me to determine if you interpret the phrase "is given" as a copula (linking verb) or a passive tense structure ("is given by"). You birds refuse to commit yourselves. Either way you consistently misread and interpret the verse as "was given". If by off chance you interpret the verb structure as passive then, low and behold we have the following meaning:

The focus is on the action (is given) and not the person or thing (inspiration of God) which performed the action. The active would be present simple:

The inspiration of God gives all Scripture.

We use simple present passive like the simple present active, for things that are always true(!), and things that happen all the time, repeatedly, often, sometimes or never, etc.

Of course, you don't want it to read as present passive! You insist that it was a past passive and therefore your tradition teaches the meaning to be:
The focus is on the action (was given) and not the person or thing (inspiration of God) which performed the action. The active would be past simple:

The inspiration of God gave all Scripture.  We use the simple past passive like the simple past active, for complete finished actions and events. And that is precisely what you read into the verse - a one time past event!!!

My position states clearly that the state of Scriptures is always "given by inspiration of God" regardless of when or where you find them - original manuscripts, copies, translations. My position agrees with Scripture your position doesn't. Jesus read the Scripture in the synagogue, He did not read from the autograph. The Bereans searched the Scriptures they did not search the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets. Timothy had the Scriptures from his childhood he did not have the autographs. 

Mitex, you have not demonstrated that the Scriptures assert that the translation decisions of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the makers of the Geneva Bible, the makers of the Bishops' Bible, or the makers of the KJV proceeded from the mouth of God or were given by inspiration of God.

Strawman. Mirror, mirror on the wall, please show Rick how his argument falls! Rick, you have not demonstrated that the Scriptures assert that the decisions made by unknown copyists, scribes and printers proceeded from the mouth of God or were given by inspiration of God. Nor have you demonstrated the textual decision made by modern day textual critics proceeded from the mouth of God or were given by inspiration of God.


   

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mitex]Do you believe there exists Scripture that is not given by inspiration of God?[/quote]

No.

[quote author=Mitex]Where in the Scriptures are the Scriptures ever considered: Not given by inspiration of God? [/quote]

"To the rest, I say, not the Lord..."

[quote author=Mitex]Can Biblical doctrine be taught without Scripture? [/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Mitex]Please kindly explain from Scriptures what God gave the Church in 2014 as a defense against evil men and seducers? Was it anything other than Scripture given by inspiration of God?[/quote]

His Spirit.

[quote author=Mitex]IV. If you do not have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God you cannot have Scriptural doctrine, nor can you preach the word of God, nor can you reprove, rebuke or exhort with Scriptural authority.[/quote]

Blatantly false and contradicts the very Scripture you claim to uphold. "For since the creation of the world, God's qualities...."

[quote author=Mitex]Do you have the Scriptures? Have you ever read them? Preached them?[/quote]

Sure.

[quote author=Mitex]Used them as the only viable source of Biblical doctrine?[/quote]

I pray not!

[quote author=Mitex]We are command to read, search, believe and preach the Scriptures.[/quote]

We are? I thought we were commanded to preach Christ and Him crucified?

[quote author=Mitex]In your humble opinion has any American who has absolute no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew ever read, searched, believed and preached the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God? [/quote]

Sure.

[quote author=Mitex]Are we to allow skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt to cause us to disbelieve words, phrases and verses in our Holy Scriptures?[/quote]

Better the wolf outside the church than the one inside it...