Inspired Translations

[Mitex]

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.

Very charitable of you to say such things. Would you like a mirror to get the beam out of your eye?
You are getting way behind in answering direct questions. I'm afraid you'll never catch up.

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.

 

[logos1560]

...
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.

You slyly twisted and diverted the discussion without addressing the valid and salient points that I made, namely:

Actually, Mitex, you have repeated slyly twisted, distorted, and misrepresented what I actually state as you try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. 

Your bogus false accusations and your repeated personal attacks and smear tactics are not valid and salient points.  Perhaps you assume that your improper smears and false accusations will keep readers from noticing my valid and salient points.

 

[logos1560]

KJV-only author William Grady referred to “’all Scripture’ (i.e. autographs, copies, and translations)” (Given by Inspiration, p. 98). Peter Ruckman claimed:  “The word ‘scripture’ in the Bible is ALWAYS used of copies or translations” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 354). 

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent and logical application of this speculative reasoning would be asserting that it must include all that belong to those classifications: copies and translations.  Including all copies of Scripture would in effect assert that inspiration would include any errors introduced by men in the copying of Scripture.  Including all translations of Scripture would in effect assert that inspiration includes any errors made by translators and includes the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying translations in different languages. 

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote:  “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v).  D. A. Waite wrote:  “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning, p. 32). 

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

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) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators.  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).

 

[logos1560]

In his book entitled Studies in the Book of Daniel, Robert Dick Wilson wrote: "One of the commonest tricks of argument is the one which is called the begging of the question at issue. This is usually done by an abrupt categorical statement that a thing is so, as if it admitted of no contradiction and required no proof" (p. 96).

Did he describe Mitex's tricks of argument?

Robert Dick Wilson asserted: "Translations must err, because no given language has terms for expressing thought which exactly correspond to the terminology of another" (Studies in the Book of Daniel, p. 85).

Robert Dick Wilson also asserted: "Many of the ambiguities of the Scripture arise from this almost insurmountable difficulty in making a correct translation from the original text. To coin new words, or to take over a word from the original, is often to make the version unintelligible to the ordinary reader for whom the version is primarily prepared; while, to use an old word in a new meaning is to lay the reading open to a misunderstanding of the sense of a passage. This is the fundamental reason why all appeals in matters of biblical doctrine should be made to the original languages of the Scripture" (pp. 84-85).

 

[logos1560]

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. 

You demonstrate that you believe incorrectly since I have repeatedly quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 as "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 

Scripture always has the character of given by inspiration of God whether in the autograph, copy or translation.

Are you asserting that errors introduced in copies of Scriptures whether additions, omissions, or changing words to words with a different meaning  are "given by inspiration of God"?

Are you asserting that errors in a printed translation regardless of whether introduced by printers, editors, or translators are "given by inspiration of God"?

 

[logos1560]

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.

According to a consistent application of your argument, you are evidently asserting that every word in the 1611 edition of the KJV is "every wit the Scriptures given by inspiration of God as the original finger of God written 10 commandments."

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}

2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650 London} (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)

2 Kings 4:28
my LORD {1611, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634 London} (1843 AFBS)

Jeremiah 49:1
inherit God {1611 London}

Psalm 69:32 [seek God--1560 Geneva]
seek good {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616 London}

Perhaps you partially get one of my points right since I do not believe that errors introduced by fallible men whether copiers, editors, printers, or translators are given by inspiration of God.    Therefore, I don't believe that an error later introduced by men is every wit the Scriptures.

Are you asserting that translators are 100% perfect and infallible in their interpreting and translating of imperfect, varying copies of the original language Scriptures?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex said,

"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."

OK, be glad to address this.

Timothy most certainly did personally possess, hold and read God breathed autographs of scripture.

I will speculate that he allowed others to copy them for their use and the use of others.

We have very reliable Greek copies of those autographs in our possession today 2,000 years after they were committed to writing.

 

[bgwilkinson]

In his book entitled Studies in the Book of Daniel, Robert Dick Wilson wrote: "One of the commonest tricks of argument is the one which is called the begging of the question at issue. This is usually done by an abrupt categorical statement that a thing is so, as if it admitted of no contradiction and required no proof" (p. 96).

Did he describe Mitex's tricks of argument?

Robert Dick Wilson asserted: "Translations must err, because no given language has terms for expressing thought which exactly correspond to the terminology of another" (Studies in the Book of Daniel, p. 85).

Robert Dick Wilson also asserted: "Many of the ambiguities of the Scripture arise from this almost insurmountable difficulty in making a correct translation from the original text. To coin new words, or to take over a word from the original, is often to make the version unintelligible to the ordinary reader for whom the version is primarily prepared; while, to use an old word in a new meaning is to lay the reading open to a misunderstanding of the sense of a passage. This is the fundamental reason why all appeals in matters of biblical doctrine should be made to the original languages of the Scripture" (pp. 84-85).

Yes Robert Dick Willson had Mitex' number.

 

[Mitex]

Mitex said,

"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."

OK, be glad to address this.

Timothy most certainly did personally possess, hold and read God breathed autographs of scripture.

I will speculate that he allowed others to copy them for their use and the use of others.

We have very reliable Greek copies of those autographs in our possession today 2,000 years after they were committed to writing.

Shame on you! I expected better from you, but once again I'm disappointed.  Why not address the point that was made instead of playing games?

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 (the one made above, as well as the others)? 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.

The Scriptures that Timothy's had from a child were not the autographs. Timothy did not possess anything that Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, John, or Peter originally wrote, yet he did have the Scriptures. Those Scriptures were defined by Paul as given by inspiration of God.

It is indeed an axiom that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God.

 

[rsc2a]

Interesting that you completely avoided this reply when you posted the exact same questions earlier...

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

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...
[/quote]

 

[Mitex]

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

No.[/quote]
Sorry for the delay in answering. Your post got lost in Captain Cut & Paste's deluge of irrelevant information.

Since you also stated that you, as well has Americans without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, have the Scriptures and have read, searched, believed and preached the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - then where does that leave you in the eyes of tricky Rick & Gang? For they propagate the doctrine that states that only the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets can be properly considered given by inspiration of God.

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

"To the rest, I say, not the Lord..."[/quote]
You do greatly error in not knowing the Scriptures. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just certain selected parts. By your reasoning a vast portion of the Scriptures are NOT given by inspiration of God, e.g. "The woman said...[not the LORD,ed.], Adam said..., The serpent said..., Cain said..., Lamech said..., etc." ]

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

Yes.[/quote]
Biblical doctrine is that doctrine which is in the Scriptures and in accord with the Scriptures. Therefore Biblical doctrine CANNOT be taught without the Scriptures.

[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?

His Spirit.[/quote]
In the context of 2 Timothy - the Scriptures given by inspiration of God.

[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.

Blatantly false and contradicts the very Scripture you claim to uphold. "For since the creation of the world, God's qualities...."[/quote]
You do greatly err. The Scriptures are the source of all Scriptural authority and doctrine.

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

Sure.[/quote]
An impossibility according to Captain Cut & Paste and his Gang as their doctrine teaches that the Scriptures were only given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets and that ONLY the autographs are given by inspiration of God.

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

I pray not![/quote]
The Scriptures are only source of Biblical doctrine. See above.

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

We are? I thought we were commanded to preach Christ and Him crucified?[/quote]
Ignorance is not always bliss. You are indeed commanded to preach the word (2Timothy 4) and the all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

[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?

Sure.[/quote]
That's because given by inspiration of God is the character of the Scriptures in every generation and language. Therefore, millions of born again Spirit filled Christians throughout history have indeed possessed the Scriptures given by inspiration of God despite Captain Cut & Paste and his Gang insinuating otherwise.

[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?

Better the wolf outside the church than the one inside it...
[/quote]
If you want to keep the birds out the church you better shut the window.

Did Captain Cut & Paste cause you to miss the following:
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.

 

[bgwilkinson]

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

No.

Sorry for the delay in answering. Your post got lost in Captain Cut & Paste's deluge of irrelevant information.

Since you also stated that you, as well has Americans without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, have the Scriptures and have read, searched, believed and preached the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - then where does that leave you in the eyes of tricky Rick & Gang? For they propagate the doctrine that states that only the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets can be properly considered given by inspiration of God.

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

"To the rest, I say, not the Lord..."[/quote]
You do greatly error in not knowing the Scriptures. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just certain selected parts. By your reasoning a vast portion of the Scriptures are NOT given by inspiration of God, e.g. "The woman said...[not the LORD,ed.], Adam said..., The serpent said..., Cain said..., Lamech said..., etc." ]

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

Yes.[/quote]
Biblical doctrine is that doctrine which is in the Scriptures and in accord with the Scriptures. Therefore Biblical doctrine CANNOT be taught without the Scriptures.

[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?

His Spirit.[/quote]
In the context of 2 Timothy - the Scriptures given by inspiration of God.

[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.

Blatantly false and contradicts the very Scripture you claim to uphold. "For since the creation of the world, God's qualities...."[/quote]
You do greatly err. The Scriptures are the source of all Scriptural authority and doctrine.

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

Sure.[/quote]
An impossibility according to Captain Cut & Paste and his Gang as their doctrine teaches that the Scriptures were only given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets and that ONLY the autographs are given by inspiration of God.

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

I pray not![/quote]
The Scriptures are only source of Biblical doctrine. See above.

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

We are? I thought we were commanded to preach Christ and Him crucified?[/quote]
Ignorance is not always bliss. You are indeed commanded to preach the word (2Timothy 4) and the all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

[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?

Sure.[/quote]
That's because given by inspiration of God is the character of the Scriptures in every generation and language. Therefore, millions of born again Spirit filled Christians throughout history have indeed possessed the Scriptures given by inspiration of God despite Captain Cut & Paste and his Gang insinuating otherwise.

[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?

Better the wolf outside the church than the one inside it...
[/quote]
If you want to keep the birds out the church you better shut the window.

Did Captain Cut & Paste cause you to miss the following:
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.
[/quote]


Mitex,

You have finally got it. The perfect description of your posts.

"Captain Cut & Paste's deluge of irrelevant information"

More chasing your tail around and around in circles.

How do you expect anyone to read your mess of cutting and pasting?

You set up armies of straw men and flail helplessly at them in confusion.

God Bless you Mitex, (Captain Cut & Paste) have a good day.

 

[rsc2a]

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

No.

Sorry for the delay in answering. Your post got lost in Captain Cut & Paste's deluge of irrelevant information.

Since you also stated that you, as well has Americans without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, have the Scriptures and have read, searched, believed and preached the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - then where does that leave you in the eyes of tricky Rick & Gang? For they propagate the doctrine that states that only the autographs given to the Apostles and prophets can be properly considered given by inspiration of God. [/quote]

Simple. Scripture is more than simply the words on a page. Change the words but keep the concepts, Scripture remains. Change the concepts on the other hand...

(Of course, concepts can change by either bad translations or changing language.)

[quote author=Mitex]

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

"To the rest, I say, not the Lord..."[/quote]
You do greatly error in not knowing the Scriptures. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just certain selected parts. By your reasoning a vast portion of the Scriptures are NOT given by inspiration of God, e.g. "The woman said...[not the LORD,ed.], Adam said..., The serpent said..., Cain said..., Lamech said..., etc." ][/quote]

Completely and totally irrelevant. You asked if there was ever a case in Scripture where the writings were not (implied: explicitly)considered given by God. I have given a clear example of this that you choose to ignore. (Probably because your "gotcha" question came back to bite you.)

[quote author=Mitex]

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

Yes.[/quote]
Biblical doctrine is that doctrine which is in the Scriptures and in accord with the Scriptures. Therefore Biblical doctrine CANNOT be taught without the Scriptures. [/quote]

[quote author=Mitex]

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

I pray not![/quote]
The Scriptures are only source of Biblical doctrine. See above. [/quote]

[quote author=Mitex]

[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.

Blatantly false and contradicts the very Scripture you claim to uphold. "For since the creation of the world, God's qualities...."[/quote]
You do greatly err. The Scriptures are the source of all Scriptural authority and doctrine. [/quote]

See also: circular reasoning. Also blatantly ignores the Scriptures you claim to uphold of which I gave only one of many, many passages that show your error.

[quote author=Mitex]

[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?

His Spirit.[/quote]
In the context of 2 Timothy - the Scriptures given by inspiration of God.[/quote]

"In context", why are you limiting Scripture to the OT?

[quote author=Mitex]

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

Sure.[/quote]
An impossibility according to Captain Cut & Paste and his Gang as their doctrine teaches that the Scriptures were only given by inspiration of God to the Apostles and prophets and that ONLY the autographs are given by inspiration of God. [/quote]

[quote author=Mitex]

[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?

Sure.[/quote]
That's because given by inspiration of God is the character of the Scriptures in every generation and language. Therefore, millions of born again Spirit filled Christians throughout history have indeed possessed the Scriptures given by inspiration of God despite Captain Cut & Paste and his Gang insinuating otherwise. [/quote]

You should really stop misrepresenting others' positions. The folks you are insulting (in both a fallacious ad hom and un-Christlike manner) would readily agree that, insomuch as the translations are true to the originals, those folks do possess the very Scriptures given by God.

[quote author=Mitex]

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

We are? I thought we were commanded to preach Christ and Him crucified?[/quote]
Ignorance is not always bliss. You are indeed commanded to preach the word (2Timothy 4) and the all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27).[/quote]

You missed it. That was a blatant snark at your attempt to elevate Scriptures to the Godhead.

[quote author=Mitex]

[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?

Better the wolf outside the church than the one inside it...
[/quote]
If you want to keep the birds out the church you better shut the window.[/quote]

So, are you now willing to acknowledge that people who argue for a KJVo position are "skeptics, critics, and purveyors of doubt to cause us to disbelieve words, phrases, and verses in our Holy Scriptures"?

[quote author=Mitex]Is it your position that Bibles in English, Spanish, Polish, etc. are not the Scriptures?[/quote]

This is a pretty accurate summary of my view on what Scripture is and is not.

*snips out a bunch of textual diarrhea for the sake of the "Dear Reader"*

 

[logos1560]

You should really stop misrepresenting others' positions. The folks you are insulting (in both a fallacious ad hom and un-Christlike manner) would readily agree that, insomuch as the translations are true to the originals, those folks do possess the very Scriptures given by God.

Evidently, misrepresentation and distortion are the only ways he can rationalize his failure to demonstrate that his subjective opinions are sound and scriptural.

Your post got lost in Captain Cut & Paste's deluge of irrelevant information.

According to Mitex, principles and truths taken from the Scriptures are "irrelevant information" while his own long "cut & paste" opinions as supported by his bogus distortions and false accusations supposedly are all that is relevant.

I expected better from you, but once again I'm disappointed. Shame on you! Why not address the point that was made instead of playing games?

We expected better from you and are disappointed in your playing games as seen in your flawed reasoning based on fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, the fallacy of composition, the fallacy of false dilemma, etc..

You will not properly address the scriptural points and truths that are presented that are a problem for your non-scriptural claim that suggests that translations are given by inspiration of God.

 

[logos1560]

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.

You may try to state your position clearly, but you do not clearly demonstrate that your position is actually sound and scriptural.

You do not clearly demonstrate that the Scriptures assert that all copies of the original language Scriptures were made by inspiration of God or were given by inspiration of God or that translations are made by inspiration of God or are given by inspiration of God. 

Scripture always has the character of given by inspiration of God whether in the autograph, copy or translation.

Mitex, are you asserting or suggesting that errors introduced by fallible men in their copying of the original language Scriptures whether additions, omissions, or changing words to words with a different meaning  are "given by inspiration of God"?

Mitex, are you asserting that all copies of the original language Scriptures are given by inspiration of God?

Mitex, are you asserting that errors in a printed translation of the Scriptures regardless of whether supposedly introduced by printers, editors, or translators are "given by inspiration of God" since you suggest that the entire text of that translation is given by inspiration?

Mitex, are you asserting that all translations of the Scripture are given by inspiration of God?

Mitex, are you claiming that those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures are not relevant to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures?

 

[Mitex]

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.

You may try to state your position clearly, but you do not clearly demonstrate that your position is actually sound and scriptural.

That must be because you wouldn't recognize sound Scriptural doctrine if it hit you upside the head with a Bible baseball bat.

You do not clearly demonstrate that the Scriptures assert that all copies of the original language Scriptures were made by inspiration of God or were given by inspiration of God or that translations are made by inspiration of God or are given by inspiration of God. 

I don't need to clearly or unclearly demonstrate your strawman "Scriptures were made by inspiration of God". Listen carefully: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Not were given, were made, are made, etc. The Scriptures - can you define the word Scriptures? The Scriptures hot off the presses, as originally penned, the original autographs, copies of the original autographs, copies of copies of the original autographs, copies 2000 years removed from the autographs, translations, translations of translations, Timothy's non-original Old Testament, Jesus' copy of Isaiah that match no extant manuscript, the Berean's copy, the Eunuch's copy, my copies in Spanish, English, Polish, German, Romanian, etc. are given by inspiration of God. That is the definition of the Scriptures, dare I say it? It's an axiom: The Holy Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. There is no other kind, as I stated previously, Scripture always has the character of given by inspiration of God whether in the autograph, copy or translation.

Scripture always has the character of given by inspiration of God whether in the autograph, copy or translation.

Mitex, are you asserting or suggesting that errors introduced by fallible men in their copying of the original language Scriptures whether additions, omissions, or changing words to words with a different meaning  are "given by inspiration of God"?

No, you twisted soul. I'm stating facts, the Scriptures regardless of where they are found are given by inspiration of God.

Mitex, are you asserting that all copies of the original language Scriptures are given by inspiration of God?

No, you sly fox. I'm stating the facts, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God regardless if they are found in copies or translations.

Mitex, are you asserting that errors in a printed translation of the Scriptures regardless of whether supposedly introduced by printers, editors, or translators are "given by inspiration of God" since you suggest that the entire text of that translation is given by inspiration?

No, you crafty devil (a person who is very clever, energetic, reckless, or mischievous). I'm stating the facts, all Scripture whether printed, handwritten, etched in stone, xeroxed, digitized, etc. is given by inspiration of God. Misspellings, typos, printer smudges, ink spots, the grandkid's crayola markings, maple leaves stuck on the backside of first John, pictures of George Washington and other American presidents, grandma, or Daniel in the Lion's den, notes by Scofield, Thomson or Ruckman, comments by John Calvin, John Wesley or Judge Rutherford, etc. have absolutely no bearing on the character of the Scriptures.

Mitex, are you asserting that all translations of the Scripture are given by inspiration of God?

No dimwit. I'm stating the facts, A-L-L S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E is given by inspiration of God even in translation. "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where."

Mitex, are you claiming that those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures are not relevant to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures?

No, you false accuser of the brethren. I'm stating the facts, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Your twisted and false accusation that jot and tittle differences, word count differences, word order differences and variety of translation, etc. in translations makes translators liars and violators of Dt 4:2, Dt 12,32; Pr 30,6; Rev 22,18-19 is a demonstration of the devilish (extreme) attitude you have toward the Scriptures in any language other than Hebrew and Greek. You twisted Original Language Onlyist.

 

[Mitex]

Translations and copies DERIVE their authority from the originals. It would be a derived inspiration.

Derivative translations and copies have the same authority as the originals themselves according to you. So, why the word games? The originals (autographs) themselves have derived authority. The originals (autographs) have sources(!), which according to Rick's doctrine makes the sources of greater authority than the Scriptures (2Sm 1:18; Jer 36:4; Acts 1:20; Titus 1,12; etc.)!!! Stop, pause, give it a ponder, won't you?

 

[logos1560]

Mitex, are you asserting or suggesting that errors introduced by fallible men in their copying of the original language Scriptures whether additions, omissions, or changing words to words with a different meaning  are "given by inspiration of God"?

Mitex, are you asserting that all copies of the original language Scriptures are given by inspiration of God?

Mitex, are you asserting that errors in a printed translation of the Scriptures regardless of whether supposedly introduced by printers, editors, or translators are "given by inspiration of God" since you suggest that the entire text of that translation is given by inspiration?

Mitex, are you asserting that all translations of the Scripture are given by inspiration of God?

Mitex, are you claiming that those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures are not relevant to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures?

No, you false accuser of the brethren. I'm stating the facts, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Your twisted and false accusation that jot and tittle differences, word count differences, word order differences and variety of translation, etc. in translations makes translators liars and violators of Dt 4:2, Dt 12,32; Pr 30,6; Rev 22,18-19 is a demonstration of the devilish (extreme) attitude you have toward the Scriptures in any language other than Hebrew and Greek. You twisted Original Language Onlyist.

Mitex, over and over in this thread, you have been the poster who has made false accusations against a believer [me], making you a false accuser of the brethren.  You have failed to demonstrate properly that I supposedly made any false accusations against you by asking you proper questions and by disagreeing with your opinions.  Do you arrogantly assume that your opinions cannot be wrong?

I am not a "twisted original language onlyist" or even a "original language onlyist."  That is your bogus false, twisted distortion and misrepresentation. 

I have the same attitude towards the Scriptures translated into English and other languages that the early English translators and even the KJV translators had.  You cannot apply the exact same measures to the clear statements made by the KJV translators that you inconsistently attack when I agree with them.

According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages.  According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek."  The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“  The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“  Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote:  "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59).  Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84).  In a sermon on Roman 1:16, KJV translator Miles Smith referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). 

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek.  Then Miles Smith clearly presented the view of the KJV translators as follows:  "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them?  These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles."  In this preface, Smith wrote:  “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“  Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“  D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64).  William Savage asserted that “the preface was written and affixed by the king’s command” (Dictionary, p. 39). Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52).  Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47).  In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“  John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179). 

In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.  For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility had not their hand?"

If in contradiction to what the KJV translators asserted the practical derived authority of a translation such as that of the KJV was supposedly superior to or above being tried by the original language texts, it would be asserting that later editors were wrong to make hundreds of changes, corrections, and revisions to the text of the 1611 edition based on the greater authority of those texts. 

I clearly accept that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

I have merely disagreed with your non-scriptural and unproven opinion that translations are given by inspiration of God.  You demonstrate that you are adding to or reading more into 2 Timothy 3:16 than it actually states since it does not say that translations are given by inspiration of God.  You are not merely stating what is actually stated at 2 Timothy 3:16 since you assert more than that verse states.  You fail to make a sound, scriptural case for your opinion, and arrogantly and falsely accuse believers in God and in the Scriptures for disagreeing with your subjective, fallible opinion or private interpretation.  You also avoid dealing with the other scriptural truths that have been presented and avoid dealing with your incorrect use of fallacies such as begging the question.

You assert that you do not claim that errors introduced by men are given by inspiration of God, which is exactly one of the key points that I have made.  You improperly attack me and make false accusations because I state the truth that errors introduced by men are not given by inspiration of God.

 

[logos1560]

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".

In contrast to your bogus false accusation, I have repeatedly pointed out that translations can properly be called the Scriptures.  I am not an "original language onlyist" so your accusation is wrong and false.

"Every word of the God is pure" (Prov. 30:5), but that is not saying that the word of God is defined as "purity."

The fact that "all Scriptures is given by inspiration of God" is not saying that the definition of Scripture is "inspiration" or "given by inspiration."

You have not demonstrated that referring to a translation as the word of God or Scripture in that language has to mean that a translation has to have been given by inspiration of God. 

Inspiration or given by inspiration is the term or name for the way that the Scriptures are given to the prophets and apostles, but it has not been demonstrated that inspiration [or "given by inspiration of God"] is the correct, scriptural term for the way that copies of the original language Scriptures are made or for the way that translations of the Scriptures are made.

 

[logos1560]

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).

Your incorrect claim is not a consistent application of my own statements. 

I stated:  "Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures."

I stated:  "Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?  These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language.  Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages.  Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense."


My statements clearly show that I consider those verses to be instructions and warning concerning the making of copies of the original language Scriptures.  I do not claim that those verses were commands or instructions given directly concerning the making of translations. 

Therefore, it is clearly a improper distortion and even a bogus, false accusation for you to assert that I supposedly "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)."    Mitex, you are wrong to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say and do not believe.