Inspired Translations

[rsc2a]

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.

Actually it said:

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

There is neither an "is" or a "was". In fact, it was added by the translators and probably could (should?) be ignored?

 

[Mitex]

Actually it said:

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

There is neither an "is" or a "was". In fact, it was added by the translators and probably could (should?) be ignored?

Is it your position that Bibles in English, Spanish, Polish, etc. are not the Scriptures?

The Apostle Paul said, "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Scholar Kenneth Wuest after looking at the Greek text said,
“(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.

After looking at the Greek text scholar Benjamin Warfield said,
“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.

ProfessorYoung took a look at the Greek text and said,
"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.

Dr. Robinson and Professor Vincent to a peek at the Greek text in question and stated emphatically,
“There is no copula (estin) in the Greek and so one has to insert it either before the kai or after it. If before, as is more natural, then the meaning is: “All scripture (or every scripture) is inspired of God and profitable.” In this form there is a definite assertion of inspiration. That can be true also of the second way, making “inspired of God” descriptive of “every scripture,” and putting estin (is) after kai: “All scripture (or every scripture), inspired of God, is also profitable.” Dr. Roberson, Online Bible Commentary.

“From θεὸς God and πνεῖν to breathe. God-breathed. The word tells us nothing of the peculiar character or limits of inspiration beyond the fact that it proceeds from God. In construction omit is, and rend. as attributive of γραφὴ every divinely-inspired Scripture. Vincent’s Word Studies, Online Bible Commentary.

These two distinguished gentleman bring up the argument about adjectives being (1) an attribute (the faithful servant – adj. modifies the noun) or (2) as a predicate (the servant is faithful – adj. modifies the subject) as well.

Dr. Wallace be well versed in the Greek tells us the following,
"2) Grammatically: (a) The fact that v 16 is asyndetic (i.e., begins without a conjunction) cannot be due to new subject matter, but to the solemnity of the statement because the author had been discussing the holy writings in v 15. Thus seeing θεόπνευστος as predicate fits in better with the solemn tone established at the beginning of the verse. (b) Since the copula is lacking, it needs to be supplied in English. And the most natural place to supply the equative verb is between the subject and the first word that follows it. It is in fact significant that an author typically leaves out the copula when he assumes the audience knows where it naturally should go. (c) The fact that καί means “and” twelve times as often as it means “also,” as well as the fact that it is unnatural to translate it adverbially as “also” between two adjectives in the same case, argues for a predicate θεόπνευστος. (d) Since the article may be anaphoric when referring back to a synonym, and since the author has been discussing the scriptures with three different synonyms in this context (vv 15, 16, and 4:2), it seems likely that the article is anaphoric in 4:2 when he declares, “Preach the word!” (κήρυξον τὸν λόγον). If the writer had said that only inspired scripture was profitable in 3:16 and then tells his reader(s) to preach all scripture (= “the word”), it might be a misleading statement, for [Timothy] might inadvertently preach some scripture that was not inspired. But since the writer leaves λόγον unqualified apart from the fact that it referred back to γραφή of v 16, it is perhaps likely that he meant to make an assertion about all scripture in v 16, viz., that it is inspired. (e) Finally, what bears on the relation of adj. to noun most directly: In the NT, LXX, in classical and Koine Greek, the overwhelming semantic force of an adj.-noun-adj. construction in an equative clause is that the first adj. will be attributive and the second will be predicate"

The Scholars who translated the following versions disagree with you assessment:

Geneva For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God
Bishops All scripture is geuen by inspiration of God
AV       All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
NKJV     All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
RSV      All scripture is inspired by God
NRSV   All scripture is inspired by God
NASB    All Scripture is inspired by God
NIV      All Scripture is God-breathed
ESV      All Scripture is breathed out by God

They all inserted the verb. Are all these genuine scholars in danger of having their part taken from the book of life as Rick interprets?

So, who are the multitude of born again Christians who have no knowledge of Greek to believe? The Scriptures in their language? The esteemed scholars listed above? Or you? I'm afraid that later isn't even a possibility. I say that with kindness and charity and a little red cherry on top as well.

 

[logos1560]

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). 

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.

I did not claim or assert that Mark and Luke had to be apostles as you tried to twist or distort what I actually said.  Therefore, your claim "V" does not deal with nor refute what I actually stated.

Are you unaware that there were New Testament prophets?

The word "prophets" could include both Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets or one or the other.  There are places in the New Testament where "prophets" is used clearly to refer to prophets in the New Testament days.

Ephesians 3:5 and other verses would indicate that along with the apostles that there were also prophets in the New Testament times to whom part of the new revelation was given by God.  That faith once delivered or given to the apostles and prophets and then to the saints is now more commonly known as the New Testament. 

Some Bible scholars associate Mark with or under the apostlic authority of Peter and Luke with or under the apostlic authority of Paul in their case for their writings being part of the New Testament.  I have seen no sound, scriptural case for asserting that Mark and Luke as receivers of New Testament divine revelation or Scripture could not be accurately considered "prophets."

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). 

 

[logos1560]

- it's an axiom that Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

According to an English dictionary, an "axiom" is defined as "an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements."

Could that suggest that your claimed "axiom" is your mere assumption or private interpretation that you have not demonstrated to be sound and scriptural and that may involve using fallacies such as begging the question?

Mitex, you have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that your claim that some translations are given by inspiration of God is actually stated or taught there.  You merely assume that your subjective opinions that you read into verses that do not teach them agree with Scripture, but you do not actually demonstrate that your claims are true and scriptural.

 

[logos1560]

It is undeniably true that God's preserved Word in the original languages must govern the translation since by definition the translation cannot govern that from which it was translated.  The very term "translation" by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, requires its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is dependent.  By reason of its exact definition concerning what constitutes it being a translation, it is unequivocally and univocally termed a “translation.“  Of what is it a translation?  A translation is a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language.  What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived?  By definition, a translation is in a different state, classification, or order of being than untranslated texts.  A correct analytic statement is true by virtue of the accurate meanings of its terms alone.  By definition, a translation would not be the translation of nothing.  By definition, a translation is not the source or cause of itself.  There could not be a translation without a source or sources from which it is translated, to which it is related, and to which it may be compared and evaluated for accuracy.  A translation without any underlying texts or sources to which it is related by being translated from them would not by definition be a translation.  Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its source or sources; otherwise, by definition it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate. 

    A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities.  By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages.  The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it.  Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent.  Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes.  Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause?  Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed?  According to the rules or laws of good and necessary consequence and of non-contradiction, the original language texts cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time. 
In his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon observed:  “There is no possibility of the effect being higher and better than the cause” (p. 44).  Francis Turretin asserted:  “That which has a fallible foundation cannot be infallible because the effect cannot be greater in every respect than its cause” (Institutes, I, p. 39).  A cause would need to be first in time, order, and authority over its effect.  The necessity of a translation being dependent or being an effect or consequence indicates that it derives or acquires its authority from a greater authority than itself.  A translation that is not direct revelation from God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on its antecedent underlying texts for its authority.

    The term translation would maintain that there is both a difference and a relationship between the translation and its source or sources that can be compared and evaluated.  A translation can be evaluated or tested for its accuracy in presenting the in-context meaning of the original language words from which it is translated.  A translation can be and will be either accurate or inaccurate since it is in a dependent, proportional relationship to its source or sources from which it is translated. In any places where a translation is inaccurate in relationship to its underlying texts or sources, it can be and should be corrected. 

   

 

[Mitex]

- it's an axiom that Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

According to an English dictionary, an "axiom" is defined as "an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements."

Could that suggest that your claimed "axiom" is your mere assumption or private interpretation that you have not demonstrated to be sound and scriptural and that may involve using fallacies such as begging the question?

Mitex, you have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that your claim that some translations are given by inspiration of God is actually stated or taught there.  You merely assume that your subjective opinions that you read into verses that do not teach them agree with Scripture, but you do not actually demonstrate that your claims are true and scriptural.

Axiom
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom?s=t

1. A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well-established or universally-conceded principle; a maxim, rule, law.
Oxford English Dictionary

Axiom
1. A self evident truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight, that no process of reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; as, "the whole is greater than a part."
2. An established principle in some art or science; a principle received without new proof; as, "things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to one another."
Websters

Axiom
noun
1. a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim
2. a universally established principle or law that is not a necessary truth  ⇒ "the axioms of politics"
3. a self-evident statement
Collins English Dictionary

Jack-legs are a dime a dozen down at Walmarts. You've been exposed.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God", that's a quote from our English Scriptures, which you apparently don't believe.
Our English Bible is most certainly the Scriptures in English. Your doubt or unbelief won't change this fact.

 

[logos1560]

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God", that's a quote from our English Scriptures, which you apparently don't believe. 

Your accusation is false and bears false witness.  I believe all that the Scriptures actually state and teach about themselves. 

Disagreeing with your subjective opinions or private interpretation or misinterpretation is not disbelieving what the Scriptures actually say.

Our English Bible is most certainly the Scriptures in English. Your doubt or unbelief won't change this fact.

The KJV is a translation of the Scriptures and is the Scriptures in English in the same derived sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible or and in the same derived sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

My view of Bible translations is based on what the Scriptures actually state and teach, and it is the same view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators and by the Reformers.  Mitex, you have not sound basis for your bogus, false accusation that improperly attempts to call belief in the Scriptures and what they teach "doubt and unbelief."

Are you demonstrating that you use inconsistent unjust measures in the unproven and incorrect accusations that you throw out and refuse to apply consistently including to the makers of the KJV? 

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

According to a consistent application of your bogus accusations and smear tactics, the makers of the KJV were "skeptics, critics, and purveyors of doubt."

As inconsistent critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles, the makers of the KJV evidently disbelieved words, phrases, and verses that they removed from one or more of those English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

 

[Mitex]

Pretty sneaky of you Rick to ignore and avoid the exposure of your slight of hand with the word "axiom". All Scripture is given by inspiration of God is indeed a self-evident truth and NOT "an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements" as you slyly insinuated. You sly fox you.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God", that's a quote from our English Scriptures, which you apparently don't believe. 

Your accusation is false and bears false witness.  I believe all that the Scriptures actually state and teach about themselves. 

Disagreeing with your subjective opinions or private interpretation or misinterpretation is not disbelieving what the Scriptures actually say.

My statement was and is correct: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God", that's a quote from our English Scriptures, which you APPARENTLY don't believe."
Here's why it is correct:

1. The ENGLISH Scriptures state and teach about themselves that they are given by inspiration of God. You don't believe that.

2. You don't believe ANY translation is given by inspiration of God. For you are a superstitious Original Language Onlyist.

3. You believe all translations have additions and have been diminished by translators. And according to a consistent application of your statements you also believe all translators are liars (Pr 30:6), will suffer the plagues found in Revelation (Rev 22:18) and are in danger of having their part taken out of the book of life (Rev 22:19).

4.  In reply to my statement, "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." you said that the Scripture given by inspiration of God is an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements. You were quite insidious when you defined "axiom as "an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements."

5. I gave the correct translation of the word AXIOM in the context that I used it. You on the other hand resorted to trickery, slight of hand and mirrors in order to deceive the reader and make yourself look better.

6. I didn't state directly that you don't believe the Scriptures, I deliberately said that you "APPARENTLY" don't believe the Scriptures. I did so deliberately because I thought you'd enjoy a taste of your own medicine. 

Our English Bible is most certainly the Scriptures in English. Your doubt or unbelief won't change this fact.

The KJV is a translation of the Scriptures and is the Scriptures in English in the same derived sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible or and in the same derived sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

My view of Bible translations is based on what the Scriptures actually state and teach, and it is the same view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators and by the Reformers.  Mitex, you have not sound basis for your bogus, false accusation that improperly attempts to call belief in the Scriptures and what they teach "doubt and unbelief."

My view of the Scriptures is based upon what the English Scriptures actually state and teach. It is the same view held by the Apostle Paul, the prophets, and our Lord Jesus Christ. It is also the view held by the Bereans, the Eunuch and the faithful martyrs who died so that we might have the SCRIPTURES in our language. By a consistent application of your convoluted statement Jesus, the Bereans, the Eunuch and Timothy never read the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles even though the English Scriptures clearly teach that they all had the Scriptures (it's an axiom that All Scripture are given by inspiration of God despite your pious rebellion and objections) and read the Scriptures. None of them had the autographs, but they all had the Scriptures (given by inspiration of God for there is no other kind). 

Are you demonstrating that you use inconsistent unjust measures in the unproven and incorrect accusations that you throw out and refuse to apply consistently including to the makers of the KJV?

No.

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

According to a consistent application of your bogus accusations and smear tactics, the makers of the KJV were "skeptics, critics, and purveyors of doubt."

As inconsistent critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles, the makers of the KJV evidently disbelieved words, phrases, and verses that they removed from one or more of those English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

Hey Tricky Rick, the context of my question directed to bgwilkinsin was:

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 your patience and kindness in addressing these salient points.

The Scriptures are indeed true in all their parts, every book, chapter, verse and word. The Scriptures are indeed God's authority, truth and doctrine. We are indeed to preach the word of God with full assurance and confidence. Your objections will never change these facts! So, in answer to the question:

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

The answer is an emphatic, NO!

Face your fears Rick and deal with reality:
I. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - there is no other kind of Scripture that is profitable for doctrine.

Do you have "another kind of Scripture" that we don't know about that is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 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?

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.
Our Scriptures state clearly that Timothy had the Scriptures from a child. Do you have proof that Timothy from his childhood had the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets? 

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.
Are the Scriptures the proper defense against evil men and seducers? See the context.

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.
I and countless millions of others do not read Greek or Hebrew. Do we have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God in our language? Do we have the Scriptural authority of God to reprove, rebuke and exhort in our mother tongue?

V. Mark and Luke were not Apostles.
Prove that Mark and Luke were either Apostles or New Testament prophets.

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.
Are the extant manuscripts with Greek characters scrawled upon them the autographs originally penned by the Apostles? If not, then why do you consistently accuse me of using unjust and divers measures? Why do you consistently accuse me of unsound and false statements? Do our extant Scriptures have any less authority than the autographs?

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.
Did the Scripture given by inspiration of God cease, die or fade away with the last breath or pen stroke of the Apostle John?

Step up to the plate and answer the questions without slight of hand, mirrors and trickery.

 

[Mitex]

It is undeniably true that God's preserved Word in the original languages must govern the translation since by definition the translation cannot govern that from which it was translated...blah, blah, blah [ed.]...What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived?...blah, blah, blah [ed.]... Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its source or sources; otherwise, by definition it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate. 

    ...Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause?...blah, blah, blah [ed.]... 

Rick, being ignorant of the authority of translations rants on and on giving the reader nothing, but his diluted opinion - hot air. Please allow me to pop a hole in Rick's bubbly blather.

1. Synergy is the interaction of individual contributions that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual contributions. Poor Rick being ignorant of this, rants on and on about things he knows nothing of. The Scriptures, even in Rick's original, is a combination of sources including, but not limited to: The finger of God original 10 Commandments, Moses' later copy/translation of God's finger written original with additions, oral tradition transcribed/translated, genealogies, oral prophecy spoken by men being moved by the Holy Spirit later translated/transcribed, quotes, historical documents translated/copied, etc. The final result, Scripture given by inspiration of God, most certainly has MORE authority than the individual parts. That  is to say, not all of the individual sources, have the authority of Scripture, Scripture has more authority than the individual contributions listed above.

2. Rick's preserved word in the original languages is not to be confused with the autographs. Rick's constant reference to the preserved word in the original languages is at best a COMBINATION and COMPILATION of well over 5,000 individual manuscripts - none of which individually are considered to be given by inspiration of God by Rick. Rick doesn't believe any individual manuscript, even in the original languages, is error free, but he does believe a combination and compilation of the individual source texts are! The compilers are neither Apostles, prophets (Old or New Testament) nor were they considered by Rick's scholars to be associated with the Apostles and prophets, yet Rick believes that their compilation or Rick's personal compilation is the preserved written word of God, the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Go figure.

3. Let us remember that Rick's original language manuscripts are not the original autographs themselves, but are at very best copies of copies far removed from the original source. Rick can't or won't tell us the exact source of any of the extant original language manuscripts. In fact, many of Rick's original language manuscripts are TRANSLATIONS themselves, e.g. LXX, Greek translations from the Latin, etc.

4. Rick conveniently forgot to remind the Reader that our English Scriptures were translated from MULTIPLE SOURCES!!! Those sources were themselves translations, copies, etc.

5. Rick and those of his company (I refrain from using the word "ilk" here because it might offend my superstitious friend Sawbones) constantly accuse our English Scriptures of not following the original source document. Yet, low and behold, they can only SPECULATE and not produce the exact source documents of our English Scriptures. For it was indeed translated from MULTIPLE sources including but not limited to various compiled editions of the Old & New Testament in the original languages, earlier English translations, foreign language translations, etc. The final product having equal if not more authority than the individual sources. That authority is amplified when we add the modifier - practical authority. Practical authority is the only type of authority any man on the street is really interested in. They don't have time for the seminarian gnat straining and want real practical authority when exhorting, reproving and rebuking while dealing with temptations, evil men, false prophets, etc.

6. Rick is obviously ignorant of the fact that in the country of his birth, America, on a daily basis translations have MORE authority than the original source! Go to any Federal Court in the U.S.A. where professional translators are employed and see for yourself. Defendants are justified and condemned based solely upon certified TRANSLATIONS!

7. Let the Reader remember that once the original source document is no longer extant - the certified translation IS the authority having MORE authority than the non-extant original.

8. Let Rick come out from behind the shadows of his cut and past quotes and tell us plainly: What is the exact wording according to his SOURCES of 1John 5:7, John 1:18, 3:13; 1Timothy 3:16, etc. (Dear Reader - don't hold your breath on this one!)

We'll let Rick ponder these things. We can only hope that he will learn something and not resort to his usual tactic of dodge, ignore and twist.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex,

When I said take your MEDS I meant the nice pills, not the mean nasty ones.

You were funny at one time, you are no longer funny, just mean.

I am praying that you will show forth the love of Christ not just to the world but to the Brethren in Christ.

I hope you are doing well on the new translation you and your team are writing.

Maybe you could write a Translators to the Reader like Miles Smith did, outlining the principals and methods used.

I would like to read that.

 

[logos1560]

Pretty sneaky of you Rick to ignore and avoid the exposure of your slight of hand with the word "axiom". All Scripture is given by inspiration of God is indeed a self-evident truth and NOT "an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements" as you slyly insinuated. You sly fox you.

Mitex, you continue to use improper smear tactics or personal attacks and make bogus false accusations in disobedience to what the Scriptures teach.

I presented the first definition for the word "axiom" that I found in the first English dictionary that was near by that I had picked up [a paperback American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language].  There was no slight of hand in posting that definition of "axiom" so you could not expose what did not exist:  "1.  An undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements" (p. 50).

I properly referred to your unproven and undemonstrated claim that translations are supposedly given by inspiration of God as a "private interpretation" or "misinterpretation.," not to what is actually stated at 2 Timothy 3:16.  Over and over, you attempt to twist, distort, and misrepresent what I stated.

You have not demonstrated that your claim that translations are given by inspiration of God is "a self-evident truth" or that it is taught in the Scriptures.  You merely show that you are trying to read something into the verse that it does not actually say.  The early English translators including the KJV translators did not believe what you claim.  Perhaps you merely use the begging the question fallacy and try to rationalize or justify it by claiming that your incorrect assumption or argument is supposedly "self-evident."  A fallacy or a claim based on use of a fallacy would not be a "self-evident truth," and truth cannot be estabished by use of fallacies.

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, has suggested that he is the first person who claimed that "Scripture" at 2 Timothy 3:16 includes translations or at least one translation [the KJV], and that Peter Ruckman later picked up or advocated that claim from him, and you have evidently adopted basically the same private interpretation as them.

When Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, the New Testament was not yet completed and additional Scripture was still being given to the New Testament apostles and prophets. 

You skip to ignore what 2 Peter 1:21 states and how it relates to 2 Timothy 3:16.  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, 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). 
KJV-only author William Grady admitted that “past action may sometimes be described with present tense usage,” and he admitted that "some New Testament autographs had yet to be penned at the time of Paul's death" (Given By Inspiration, p. 68).

The verse [2 Peter 1:21] that KJV-only authors have cited as parallel to this one [2 Tim. 3:16] used the past tense [“were moved”] and referred to “in old time.“  God gave His Word “in time past” to the prophets (Heb. 1:1).  The Word of God was given and written aforetime (Rom. 15:4), which was long before 1611. 

The Scripture mentioned at 2 Timothy 3:16 could be considered the same thing as “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3) since the faith in this verse is used in a broad sense to refer to the deposit of truth given in the Word of God.  In his commentary on Jude, S. Maxwell Coder observed:  “The faith is that extensive body of Bible doctrine which makes up the perfect whole of the truth revealed by God concerning our common salvation” (p. 17).  Coder added:  “The faith set before us in the Word of God was once for all delivered to the saints” (p. 18).  Concerning Jude 1:3, fundamentalist H. T. Spence wrote:  “The Faith is the embodiment of Truth, the Word of God, the Bible!  It was ‘once delivered.‘  After two thousand years, it is important for us to understand this Faith was once given” (Straightway, July-Oct., 2010, p. 4).  Gary La More maintained that “Jude speaks of these Words as ‘the faith once (‘once and for all’) delivered unto the saints’ (v. 3)“ (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 93).  Gary La More added:  “The whole purpose of Jude’s letter is to remind them that the Word of God was given once and for all by the apostles” (p. 93).  In his commentary on 2 & 3 John & Jude, J. Vernon McGee wrote:  “’The faith’ was the body of truth given once for all.  In the book of Acts it is called the apostles‘ doctrine” (p. 79).  Instead of “once delivered,“ the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops’ Bible have “once given“ (Jude 1:3). 

    Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, wrote: “The scriptures once written, suffice all ages for instruction” (Perpetual Government, pp. 156-157).  KJV defender David Sorenson wrote:  “The simple truth is that God inspired the words of Scripture once when He spoke to or through holy men of old“ (God‘s Perfect Book, p. 44).  Sorenson noted:  “Inspiration took place when holy men of old penned the very words of Scripture, whether Moses, Ezra, David, Peter, or Paul.  Inspiration did not take place again in the 17th century” (p. 45).  Sorenson asserted:  “Inspiration was a one time act of God for each respective section of the Bible” (p. 93).  D. A. Waite wrote:  “The only proper ‘inspiration’ of Scripture was a one-time miracle, never to be repeated, when God Himself caused to be written down the Word of the Bible in Hebrew, a little Aramaic, and Greek” (A Warning, p. 38).  H. D. Williams wrote:  “Inspiration refers solely to the original and Preserved God-breathed Words ‘once delivered,‘ which were recorded by the prophets and apostles” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 115).  H. D. Williams wrote:  “The Words of God were given by inspiration only ‘once’ in the original tongues to the penman of the Scriptures at various times over the centuries (Jude 1:3)“ (Word-for-Word, p. 78).  Michael Bates wrote:  “God has given His word by inspiration one time” (Inspiration, p. 37).  What the Scripture stated and taught at 2 Peter 1:20-21 and Jude 1:3 conflicts with the new KJV-only private interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16.  The once giving or delivery of the Scriptures in old time or in time past to the prophets and apostles does not support the new KJV-only private interpretation of a second or seventh giving in 1611 or a repeated giving or regiving of the Scriptures by inspiration whenever a "standard" translation is made.

 

 

[logos1560]

    “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7).  One way or sense that a translation could properly be considered a servant is in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original language text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7).  A translation is a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation would be servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:17.  The words of the master original language texts determine which words should be in a translation.  The original meaning of the words as used in context in the master original language texts determine which words should be used in a translation of those texts.  The words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated.  The original language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the proper authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4).  Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to assert that the original language words have greater authority than the derived translated words that borrow authority from their source or sources.

    Principles or truths from other scriptures would affirm this truth that a translation acts as a servant.  "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24).  In like manner, it can be inferred or deduced that a translation is not above the underlying texts from which it is translated.  "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16).  Likewise, a translation is not greater than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority.  The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34).  The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them.  The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b).  Likewise, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made.  A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying texts in the words of the receptor language.  By its definition and in its role as a borrower, a translation can be properly considered servant to the master original language texts from which it was made and translated. 

    Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration.  Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God.  Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16).  Besides God, translators are also accountable to something else prior to themselves [the texts which they translate].  The work of translators is clearly derivative.  The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles.  The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them.  A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16).  Which is greater:  a translation or the underlying source or sources of the translation?  Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language?  Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)?  Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17, Matt. 4:4)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)?  How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself?  How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?  The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18).  It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18). 

    God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the foundation and authority on which translations would need to be based or built.  The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any translations.  No other foundation for translations can be laid than the one God laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3).  Puritan William Whitaker wrote:  “The church is said (Eph. 2:20) to be built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, that is, upon the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; therefore the prophetic and apostolic doctrine, that is, the whole scripture, and the approbation of the same, preceded the church” (Disputation, pp. 347-348).  Whitaker added:  “The foundation of the prophets and apostles in this place actually does denote the scripture” (p. 348).  Whitaker also observed that “Ambrose says that by the foundation in this place is understood the old and new Testaments” (p. 349).  Again concerning Ephesians 2:20, Whitaker asserted:  “this foundation denotes the doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apostles” (p. 50).  Reformer Francis Turretin noted that the word of God is “the foundation upon which we are built (Eph. 2:20)“ (Institutes, I, p. 55).  Turretin maintained that “the church is built upon the Scripture (Eph. 2:20) and borrows all authority from it” (I, p. 88).  In 1684, David Dickson wrote:  “The Scriptures are the foundation, upon which the church is built (Eph. 2:20) (Truth’s Victory over Error, p. 3).  Concerning Ephesians 2:20 in his commentary, John MacArthur asserted:  “The foundation of the apostles and prophets refers to the divine revelation that they taught, which in its written form is the New Testament” (p. 82).  Concerning this same verse, the Henry Morris Study Bible noted:  “The ’foundation of the apostles and prophets,’ upon which the great house must be built, clearly refers to the Scriptures which they wrote under divine inspiration.  The New Testament was given ‘by revelation‘ (3:3), ‘revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit‘ (3:5)” (p. 1809). 

   

 

[Mitex]

...
Mitex, you continue to use improper smear tactics or personal attacks and make bogus false accusations in disobedience to what the Scriptures teach.

Rick, you continue to use improper smear tactic, personal attacks and make bogus false accusations in disobedience the the extant Scriptures in any language.

I presented the first definition for the word "axiom" that I found in the first English dictionary that was near by that I had picked up [a paperback American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language].  There was no slight of hand in posting that definition of "axiom" so you could not expose what did not exist:  "1.  An undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements" (p. 50).
...

The Apostle Paul warned us: Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

You aren't stupid Rick so quit pretending that you are. You knew the meaning of the word axiom without looking at your American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. You deliberately looked for a definition, irrelevant of the context, to suit your purpose. Hence, you are indeed a sneaky fox. Even if it is true that your stated definition was the first definition; why didn't you give the full definition? Why didn't you use the definition that fit the context of the word axiom as I used it?  And if all that failed why didn't you acknowledge the citations that I gave? Instead you deliberately ignored them and went on with your diatribe. You sneaky, wily, crafty fox.
Now the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language that I found list the following:

ax·i·om  n.
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and s ervices can be
paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. Abbr. ax. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as
true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. [Middle English, from
Old French axiome, from Latin axioma, axiomat-, from Greek, from axios, worthy.
See ag- in Appendix.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition

Axiom
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=axiom

Axiom
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http://www.yourdictionary.com/axiom#americanheritage

Axiom
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom?s=t

1. A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well-established or universally-conceded principle; a maxim, rule, law.
Oxford English Dictionary

Axiom
1. A self evident truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight, that no process of reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; as, "the whole is greater than a part."
2. An established principle in some art or science; a principle received without new proof; as, "things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to one another."
Websters

Axiom
noun
1. a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim
2. a universally established principle or law that is not a necessary truth  ⇒ "the axioms of politics"
3. a self-evident statement
Collins English Dictionary

You my friend are a wily fox. Deceptive to the core.

 

[Mitex]

...
I properly referred to your unproven and undemonstrated claim that translations are supposedly given by inspiration of God as a "private interpretation" or "misinterpretation.," not to what is actually stated at 2 Timothy 3:16.  Over and over, you attempt to twist, distort, and misrepresent what I stated.

You have not demonstrated that your claim that translations are given by inspiration of God is "a self-evident truth" or that it is taught in the Scriptures.  You merely show that you are trying to read something into the verse that it does not actually say.  The early English translators including the KJV translators did not believe what you claim.  Perhaps you merely use the begging the question fallacy and try to rationalize or justify it by claiming that your incorrect assumption or argument is supposedly "self-evident."  A fallacy or a claim based on use of a fallacy would not be a "self-evident truth," and truth cannot be estabished by use of fallacies.
...

The sly fox rides again. Here is my original post:

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.

The only mention of the word translations in my original post was:  "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." You never addressed this point as some on this board and others have insisted that Timothy, the Apostles and our Lord Himself were quoting the Greek LXX when they mentioned "the Scriptures".

I stated clearly using just weights and measures that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God it's an axiom. You slyly twisted and diverted the discussion without addressing the valid and salient points that I made, namely:

1. There is no other kind of Scripture other than Scripture given by inspiration of God. Are you proposing an non-Scriptural type of Scripture the kind that is not given by inspiration of God or that is partially given by inspiration of God?

2. Timothy did not have the autographs, yet, Paul, without doubt being moved by the Holy Spirit, stated that Timothy's Scripture were given by inspiration of God. Shooting a gaping hole in your superstitious theory about only the autographs can be given by inspiration of God.

3. Only Scripture that is given by inspiration of God is a defense against evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse other kinds of scripture have no guarantee of help.

4. Without Scripture that is given by inspiration of God one cannot have Scriptural doctrine and thus are unable to reprove, rebuke and exhort with Scriptural authority.

5. Mark and Luke were not Apostles. Were they?

6. Extant manuscripts with Greek characters scrawled upon them are not the autographs originally penned by Apostles, Mark, Luke and other scribes. Are they?

6a. 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. This is our point of contention. You don't believe that our English, Polish, Spanish, etc. Bibles are every wit the Scriptures. Nor do you believe as the AV translators and early Reformers that translations don't just contain the word of God, but are the word of God.

7. Scripture given by inspiration of God did not cease, die or fade away with the last breath or pen stroke of the Apostle John. This is another point of contention, you believe Scripture given by inspiration of God crumbled into dust shortly after the last breath or pen stroke of the Apostle John. Of course, in your wiliness you imagine that "given by inspiration of God" can jump from one error prone copy copied by fallible copyists to another for over 2,000 years, but can't imagine how "given by inspiration of God" can jump from copies to translations.

I'll tell the Reader what I think the problem is:

I believe Rick reads and interprets 2Timothy 3:16 as a simple past passive structure - "was given...by" which of course no version that I'm aware of translates it that way. All the Standard versions translate it as a simple present passive structure - "is given...by" which exposes Rick's position. Because in the active it would mean that the inspiration of God gives all Scripture and that just can't be in Rick's world, for he believes it has to be: the inspiration of God gave all Scripture. Personally, I don't believe it is passive (although it could be), I believe it is a present simple copula (linking verb) which describes the STATE (character) of all Scripture. That state or character doesn't change over time - Scripture always has the character of given by inspiration of God whether in the autograph, copy or translation.

 

[Mitex]

...
I properly referred to your unproven and undemonstrated claim that translations are supposedly given by inspiration of God as a "private interpretation" or "misinterpretation.," not to what is actually stated at 2 Timothy 3:16.  Over and over, you attempt to twist, distort, and misrepresent what I stated.

You have not demonstrated that your claim that translations are given by inspiration of God is "a self-evident truth" or that it is taught in the Scriptures.  You merely show that you are trying to read something into the verse that it does not actually say.  The early English translators including the KJV translators did not believe what you claim.  Perhaps you merely use the begging the question fallacy and try to rationalize or justify it by claiming that your incorrect assumption or argument is supposedly "self-evident."  A fallacy or a claim based on use of a fallacy would not be a "self-evident truth," and truth cannot be estabished by use of fallacies.
...

First, the self-evident truth is that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. This truth is neither fallacious nor false as you claim. Quit twisting, distorting and misrepresenting my words in order to make yourself look better.

Secondly, the Scriptures that Timothy had from his youth were NOT the autographs given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets (to use your rambling wording), but they were given by inspiration of God. So say the Scriptures. The Scriptures that Jesus read in the synagogue were NOT the autographs given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets, but they were given by inspiration of God. So say the Scriptures. The Scriptures that the Bereans diligently searched were NOT the autographs given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets, but they were given by inspiration of God. So say the Scriptures. The Scriptures that the Eunuch read were NOT the autographs given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets, but they were given by inspiration of God. So say the Scriptures. These facts punch a gaping hole into you theory that "given by inspiration of God" only applies to the autographs.

Thirdly, the Scriptures that Jesus read from (Luke 4) do not match any extant original language manuscript! Shooting another gaping hole into your theory of preservation. You holding the superstitious tradition that every jot and tittle is preserved somewhere out there in the original languages waiting to be assemble and compiled by the ever changing rules of textual critical theory. Which ever Gospel was the original autograph, take your pick Mathew, Mark, Luke or John, the others do NOT match word for word, shooting down your bogus theory that "only that which matches the original autograph jot and tittle can be considered given by inspiration of God".

Unfortunately, judging righteously by past experience, these salient points will no doubt be ignored or twisted by you, but for the reader's sake I'll repeat them:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. This character of the Scriptures (an axiom) does not change over time as Rick presumes. The Scriptures regardless of where you find them have the character of being given by inspiration of God - in the autographs, in Jesus' copy 500+ years after Isaiah's body turned to worm food, in the Berean's copy 2000+ years after Moses gave up the ghost, or in the Reader's copy in 2014. The Scriptures say in 2Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" and NOT "All Scripture was given by inspiration of God" as Rick would have you to believe. Rick and his pack would have you distrust Scriptures in your language, believing extant Scriptures in your language to be something LESS than given by inspiration of God. Don't let these birds steal the word of God from you.

Preservation of the Scriptures has never been about preserving exact jots and tittles on a page as noted by the crumbling of the original 10 Commandments under the hand of Moses. Preservation of the Scriptures should not and cannot be compared to grandpa's coin collection preserved in the vaults down at 1st Jerusalem Bank & Trust waiting for every generation to come and see the exact form of jot & tittle word counts. The preservation of Scriptures is more like grandma's pickles - the form changes, but the nutritional value is preserved. The form of God's word changes over time and language, but the CHARACTER (given by inspiration of God) doesn't. Remember that!

Translations do not have to be exact jot and tittle replica's of the "original language manuscripts" (which are not the autographs!) in order to be valid translations. The Scriptures have been translated validly into other languages. And those translations retain the character of the Scriptures and ARE THE SCRIPTURES given by inspiration of God. Or as the AV translators so boldly stated, "...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where."

As I stated previously:

I believe Rick reads and interprets 2Timothy 3:16 as a simple past passive structure - "was given...by" which of course no version that I'm aware of translates it that way. All the Standard versions translate it as a simple present passive structure - "is given...by" which exposes Rick's position. Because in the active it would mean that the inspiration of God gives all Scripture and that just can't be in Rick's world, for he believes it has to be: the inspiration of God gave all Scripture. Personally, I don't believe it is passive (although it could be), I believe it is a present simple copula (linking verb) which describes the STATE (character) of all Scripture. That state or character doesn't change over time - Scripture always has the character of given by inspiration of God whether in the autograph, copy or translation.

Again, let the Reader ponder these things carefully. Don't allow anyone, especially English Onlyists and Original Language Onylists, to rob you of your faith the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures in your language in the form that God wants you to have.

 

[Ransom]

Axiom
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

. . . he said, quoting 2 Tim. 3:16 as a proof-text . . .

What did the English language do to you that you have to avenge yourself upon it so cruelly?

 

[BandGuy]

Many Christians today are being taught by the Alexandrian Cult that no translation is inspired. Or that no translation can be inspired.

Well if that is the case; well then not even the Original Autograph of Acts 22:1-21 is inspired. Now consider that!

Luke's translation of Paul's Hebrew speech is itself recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No such assertion is made for the Way Cool King Jimmy Ultra-Nifty Authorized Holy Moly Bible.

Dear KJV-onlyists: Start making sense.

You ask for that which cannot be done!

With KJVOs, this is impossible.  But, with God, all things are possible.

 

[Mitex]

Pretty sneaky of you Rick to ignore and avoid the exposure of your slight of hand with the word "axiom". All Scripture is given by inspiration of God is indeed a self-evident truth and NOT "an undemonstrated preposition concerning an undefined set of elements" as you slyly insinuated. You sly fox you.

Mitex, you continue to use improper smear tactics or personal attacks and make bogus false accusations in disobedience to what the Scriptures teach.
...
KJV-only author William Grady admitted that “past action may sometimes be described with present tense usage,” and he admitted that "some New Testament autographs had yet to be penned at the time of Paul's death" (Given By Inspiration, p. 68)...

Rick your slip is showing AGAIN! Here's the full quote from Grady's book Given By Inspiration:

The section begins on p. 67, subtitled "Grammar". It starts off talking about Clinton depending on what the meaning of the word is is.

{{ he pales in comparison to the professional "Christian" scholar. While Clinton was at least attempting to hide a "was" behind an "is", the modern Bible critic insists on blatantly changing an "is" to a "was". The Holy Spirit wrote: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." If inspiration was something that related only to the originals, you would expect to see the text to read exactly as it {page break} appeared in Kenneth Taylor's perverted Living Bible, "All scripture was given by inspiration of God". While past action may sometimes be described with present tense usage (All construction is done according to a blueprint.", etc.), and while some New Testament autographs had yet to be penned at the time of Paul's death, the fact is that, "is" is the normal meaning for "is". (David declared in Psalm 119:89, "For ever O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.") Thus, whatever inspiration "is", it is certainly a process that appears to include the present. }}
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/rklist/conversations/messages/101347

I don't have the book so I asked sb on another board for the quote. If the above is a proper quote Rick is exposed again for the fox that he is.

Rick, you have once again exposed your fox hairs. William Grady wasn't attacking my position as you wanted the Reader to believe, he instead stabbed you right in the heart and pierced your position with a straight arrow. You have been hoist with your own petard. You sneaky fox you.

And my, my, my Kenneth Taylor putting into his translation your preferred reading: All scripture was given by inspiration of God. What strange bedfellows you two make.

 

[Ransom]

Speaking of sneaky foxes, don't you like the way Mitex slips a few words of invective into the subject line of each post?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Speaking of sneaky foxes, don't you like the way Mitex slips a few words of invective into the subject line of each post?

Like a dog chasing his tail.

Mitex is always good for a laugh.

He is usually subtly undermining the Scriptures.

That of course is not funny.