Scriptures

[Mitex]

Defining the Scriptures:

"The word γραφή (graphe) - Scripture - as used in the Scriptures 51 times is a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts - it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Or as one kibitzer stated:

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

Purpose:
1) Make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tm 3:15, J 20:31)

2) Are 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. (2Tm 3,16-17)

The Scriptures not limited to the autographs:
2Tm 3:15-17 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.

Timothy had the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - but did NOT have the autographs.

• “ALL Scripture means that all the writings, then accepted by Jews as the Word of God and which now comprise our Old Testament, are counted as inspired of God.” Our God Breathed Book, John R. Rice, pg 91.
  
  
• “While ‘Scripture’ here [2Tm 3:16] primarily refers to the Old Testament, by extension [derivative!] it also refers to the New Testament.” Pastor Estell of FaithWay Baptist Church, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
  
  
• “(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.
  
  
• “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.
  
  
• “‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ (II Tim. 3:16); or if the reading of the Revised Version be preferred, ‘Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,’ it only makes the affirmation the stronger, because it refers to every one of the sacred writings mentioned in the preceding verse [holy scriptures AV 2Tm 3:15], and comprising the Old Testament books which existed then precisely as we have them now.” Bible Questions, William L. Pettingill, pg. 8.
  
  
• “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.
  

Again, as can be seen by the vast array of commentators, Timothy's Scriptures were NOT the autographs, but rather the then extant Old Testament. This is vital in understanding the term Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - as used in the Scriptures. Timothy's standardized copies or translation were considered Scriptures - given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice - even though they were NOT the autographs.

This puts a giant hole in the argument that "only the autographs were given by inspiration of God".

 

[biscuit1953]

Defining the Scriptures:

"The word γραφή (graphe) - Scripture - as used in the Scriptures 51 times is a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts - it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Or as one kibitzer stated:

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

Purpose:
1) Make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tm 3:15, J 20:31)

2) Are 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. (2Tm 3,16-17)

The Scriptures not limited to the autographs:
2Tm 3:15-17 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.

Timothy had the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - but did NOT have the autographs.

• “ALL Scripture means that all the writings, then accepted by Jews as the Word of God and which now comprise our Old Testament, are counted as inspired of God.” Our God Breathed Book, John R. Rice, pg 91.
  
  
• “While ‘Scripture’ here [2Tm 3:16] primarily refers to the Old Testament, by extension [derivative!] it also refers to the New Testament.” Pastor Estell of FaithWay Baptist Church, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
  
  
• “(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.
  
  
• “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.
  
  
• “‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ (II Tim. 3:16); or if the reading of the Revised Version be preferred, ‘Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,’ it only makes the affirmation the stronger, because it refers to every one of the sacred writings mentioned in the preceding verse [holy scriptures AV 2Tm 3:15], and comprising the Old Testament books which existed then precisely as we have them now.” Bible Questions, William L. Pettingill, pg. 8.
  
  
• “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.
  

Again, as can be seen by the vast array of commentators, Timothy's Scriptures were NOT the autographs, but rather the then extant Old Testament. This is vital in understanding the term Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - as used in the Scriptures. Timothy's standardized copies or translation were considered Scriptures - given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice - even though they were NOT the autographs.

This puts a giant hole in the argument that "only the autographs were given by inspiration of God".

The only problem with your post is the fact that none of the men you quote that I saw endorsed a 400 year old translation written for the English (another country) when they spoke another language (King James English) as the only perfect Bible.  I have read many of Peter Ruckman's books and it is obvious you are using the same heretical arguments he does to trash anything that isn't King James.  You can't sugar coat some things.  You said nothing that proves the KJV is the only perfect translation in English. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=admin]Does God have to regive His Scripture over and over, or was it given once?
[/quote]

Yes.

 

[Mitex]

... besides, how many times were they "given?" Does God have to regive His Scripture over and over, or was it given once?

* "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." Not "were given" once upon a time. Timothy's Holy Scriptures were 500-1500 years removed from the autographs! Yet, Paul "being moved along by the Spirit" (Barry's vocabulary) tells us by way the Scriptures (given by inspiration of God - of course!) that Timothy's Scripture - is given by inspiration of God.

* Take careful note: The only profitable doctrine must come from the Scriptures (2Tm 3:16-17) - given by inspiration of God.

* Shall we count?
1) God wrote the first copy with His finger (Ex 31:18) and Moses shattered it at the base of the mount (Ex 32:19).

2) God wrote the 2nd copy with His finger (Ex 34:1).

3) Moses wrote at least one copy of the law (Dt 31:24) probably more than one (Ex 24:4, Nu 33:2).

4) Other copies were made (Dt 17:18).

5) Joshua wrote made additions (Josh 8:32, 24:26).

6) Samuel, Ezra, Daniel, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, John, etc. all made additions - at least 66 additions. Scholars, the genuine type, believe that some books such as 2 Corinthians were actually a later compilation made up of several letters of Paul. You can ignore that last comment as I'm sure that it is well beyond your comprehension level.

7) Timothy's copy/translation (2Tm 3:15), the Eunuch's copy (8:32), Berean's copies (Acts 17:11), the copy Jesus had in the synagogue (Luke 4), the available copies (J 5:29) the Pharisees were commanded to search, etc.

 

[Mitex]

...
The only problem with your post is the fact that none of the men you quote that I saw endorsed a 400 year old translation written for the English (another country) when they spoke another language (King James English) as the only perfect Bible.  I have read many of Peter Ruckman's books and it is obvious you are using the same heretical arguments he does to trash anything that isn't King James.  You can't sugar coat some things.  You said nothing that proves the KJV is the only perfect translation in English.

The quotes given were NOT quotes of your buddy Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Where have I trashed anything that isn't King James? Go take a cold shower, drink some hot chocolate, have your wife rub your feet, take a chill pill then come back and try to deal with the issue.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Mitex...do you believe that the update to the Polish Bible, that you are working on, is inspired in the same manner as the originals were inspired?

 

[christundivided]

Defining the Scriptures:

"The word γραφή (graphe) - Scripture - as used in the Scriptures 51 times is a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts - it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Or as one kibitzer stated:

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

Purpose:
1) Make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tm 3:15, J 20:31)

2) Are 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. (2Tm 3,16-17)

The Scriptures not limited to the autographs:
2Tm 3:15-17 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.

Timothy had the Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - but did NOT have the autographs.

• “ALL Scripture means that all the writings, then accepted by Jews as the Word of God and which now comprise our Old Testament, are counted as inspired of God.” Our God Breathed Book, John R. Rice, pg 91.
  
  
• “While ‘Scripture’ here [2Tm 3:16] primarily refers to the Old Testament, by extension [derivative!] it also refers to the New Testament.” Pastor Estell of FaithWay Baptist Church, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
  
  
• “(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.
  
  
• “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.
  
  
• “‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ (II Tim. 3:16); or if the reading of the Revised Version be preferred, ‘Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,’ it only makes the affirmation the stronger, because it refers to every one of the sacred writings mentioned in the preceding verse [holy scriptures AV 2Tm 3:15], and comprising the Old Testament books which existed then precisely as we have them now.” Bible Questions, William L. Pettingill, pg. 8.
  
  
• “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.
  

Again, as can be seen by the vast array of commentators, Timothy's Scriptures were NOT the autographs, but rather the then extant Old Testament. This is vital in understanding the term Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - as used in the Scriptures. Timothy's standardized copies or translation were considered Scriptures - given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice - even though they were NOT the autographs.

This puts a giant hole in the argument that "only the autographs were given by inspiration of God".

Hi Mitex...

You've said a lot to end up with so little.

I think everyone here would say that where a translation is accurately translated, it can, in a sense, carry some derivative form of "inspiration". Much like "gasoline" is a derivative of "oil". Yet, I don't think anyone would try and say that "gasoline" is somehow entirely the same substance as "oil".

Also, "is"..... "isn't" in the text you've mentioned. A more accurate translation is "Every Scripture inspired of God" you have an extra "is" that is messing up your thinking. I don't think you're would dare say that the very "breath" of God somehow "inspires" a derivative work.

 

[Mitex]

Mitex...do you believe that the update to the Polish Bible, that you are working on, is inspired in the same manner as the originals were inspired?

I believe the Scriptures in any generation or language is given by inspiration of God. No other kind of scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, nor does there exist any other kind of scripture that is necessary for Biblical doctrine. I gave the definition of the Scriptures in the O.P. Do you agree? If not, what is your definition? I hold as the AV translators stated so eloquently 400 years ago:

...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.

What do you think the distinction between "containeth the word of God" and "nay, is the word God" is?

The Scriptures state clearly that Timothy had the Holy Scriptures from his youth. Those Scriptures were NOT the autographs, but there it is in black and white in every version of the Bible that I have ever read, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God". Timothy's Scriptures are described as "given by inspiration of God". Were Timothy's Scriptures "inspired in the same manner as the autographs"? Let's flip the question around, we know that Timothy's Scriptures were "inspired" (given by inspiration of God) as shown by our text. Were the autographs "inspired" in the same manner as Timothy's? What would be the difference? Did you read the non-KJVO commentators commenting on the passage at hand?

Do I believe that I am a prophet or an apostle giving "new revelation" to the Church of God? No. Do I believe that I write with the finger of God? No. Do I believe that I have the same Spirit of God that Peter, John, Paul, etc. had? Yes, don't you? Do I believe that I am led by the Spirit of God? Yes. Do I believe the Polish Scriptures are given by inspiration of God? Yes, just as much as Timothy's, the Eunuch's, the Berean's, the Pharisees, and the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue.

"Is given by inspiration of God" describes the CHARACTER of the Scriptures which is not to be confused with prophets and apostles speaking while being moved by the Spirit of God.

 

[Mitex]

Hi Mitex...

You've said a lot to end up with so little.

I think everyone here would say that where a translation is accurately translated, it can, in a sense, carry some derivative form of "inspiration". Much like "gasoline" is a derivative of "oil". Yet, I don't think anyone would try and say that "gasoline" is somehow entirely the same substance as "oil".

Also, "is"..... "isn't" in the text you've mentioned. A more accurate translation is "Every Scripture inspired of God" you have an extra "is" that is messing up your thinking. I don't think you're would dare say that the very "breath" of God somehow "inspires" a derivative work.

Hi christundivided...

Did you notice that the word "derivative" or "derivative form" is not in the text? Did you notice that all the commentators listed clearly stated that Holy Scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth are described as "given by inspiration of God"? Do you have a different definition for the term Scripture(s) as found in the Scriptures than the ones I gave in the OP? Did you notice that the character of the Scripture required to make a man wise unto salvation and is profitable for doctrine, etc. is said to be "given by inspiration of God"? There is no other kind of Holy Scriptures. If they are not "given by inspiration of God" they simply aren't the Scriptures.

Now, would you like to discuss why translators throughout history thought it important to put the little word "is" in the English text? I'll list a few (Geneva, Bishops, Webster, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.). Time will not allow me to list the similar form in other languages as well. One of the scholars insisted the the text is passive, hence, the form "is given by" would most certainly show the passive. "Given" can just as easily be taken as a participle used as an adjective (since Barry is so busy with the Greek that he missed the English) with the verb be as the copular. I'm hard pressed to detail any real difference of meaning in either form.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I believe the Scriptures in any generation or language is given by inspiration of God.

Do I believe the Polish Scriptures are given by inspiration of God? Yes, just as much as Timothy's, the Eunuch's, the Berean's, the Pharisees, and the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue.

Instead of getting side-tracked, I thought we could just delve down with the original question, to which you answered yes.

I understand how the originals were given by inspiration of God.

I understand how a copy of the originals would be considered given by inspiration of God.

But when we get to a translation, how is that translation given by inspiration of God?

For example is the NIV given by inspiration of God?

Is the KJV given by inspiration of God?

Would these translations derive their inspiration from the copies of the originals?

Or do these translations have an inspiration of God equivalent to to how the originals were given?

 

 

[Mitex]

I believe the Scriptures in any generation or language is given by inspiration of God.

Do I believe the Polish Scriptures are given by inspiration of God? Yes, just as much as Timothy's, the Eunuch's, the Berean's, the Pharisees, and the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue.

Instead of getting side-tracked, I thought we could just delve down with the original question, to which you answered yes.

I answered your questions. You avoided mine. I'll repeat them:

Do you agree or disagree with the definition in the OP? Please give your definition if you disagree.

What do you think the distinction between "containeth the word of God" and "nay, is the word God" is?

Were Timothy's Scriptures "inspired in the same manner as the autographs"? Were the autographs "inspired" in the same manner as Timothy's? What would be the difference?

Did you read the non-KJVO commentators commenting on the passage at hand? They stated that the Scriptures that Timothy knew from his youth are "given by inspiration of God". Do you agree with them?

Do you have the same Spirit of God that the apostles had?
Are you led (moved, moved along, etc.) by that Spirit?

I understand how the originals were given by inspiration of God.

I'm not sure that I understand completely, but I most certainly believe the Scriptures in every generation and language are given by inspiration of God.

I understand how a copy of the originals would be considered given by inspiration of God.

Paul said clearly that Timothy's Holy Scriptures are "given by inspiration of God."

But when we get to a translation, how is that translation given by inspiration of God?

The same way that 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.

For example is the NIV given by inspiration of God?

Is the NIV Scripture? Then it is given by inspiration of God. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.

Is the KJV given by inspiration of God?

Is the KJV Scripture? Then it is given by inspiration of God. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.

Would these translations derive their inspiration from the copies of the originals?

Inspiration comes from God - given BY inspiration of God. But to the point - copies have all the weaknesses of translations - the autographs are no longer extant (making faithfulness to the autographs impossible to verify), they are made by fallible men, some copies are forgeries, other copies are translations themselves, etc.

Or do these translations have an inspiration of God equivalent to to how the originals were given?

Yes. I would say that the autographs were "given by inspiration of God", certainly, just as much "given by inspiration of God" as Timothy's Holy Scriptures.

 

[rsc2a]

Mitex: Which of these is inspired?


"Thou shalt not kill." Ex 20:13 KJV

...or...

"You shall not murder." Ex 20:13 ESV



"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Tim 6:10 KJV

...or...


For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Tim 6:10 NIV

 

[christundivided]

Hi Mitex...

You've said a lot to end up with so little.

I think everyone here would say that where a translation is accurately translated, it can, in a sense, carry some derivative form of "inspiration". Much like "gasoline" is a derivative of "oil". Yet, I don't think anyone would try and say that "gasoline" is somehow entirely the same substance as "oil".

Also, "is"..... "isn't" in the text you've mentioned. A more accurate translation is "Every Scripture inspired of God" you have an extra "is" that is messing up your thinking. I don't think you're would dare say that the very "breath" of God somehow "inspires" a derivative work.

Hi christundivided...

Did you notice that the word "derivative" or "derivative form" is not in the text? Did you notice that all the commentators listed clearly stated that Holy Scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth are described as "given by inspiration of God"? Do you have a different definition for the term Scripture(s) as found in the Scriptures than the ones I gave in the OP? Did you notice that the character of the Scripture required to make a man wise unto salvation and is profitable for doctrine, etc. is said to be "given by inspiration of God"? There is no other kind of Holy Scriptures. If they are not "given by inspiration of God" they simply aren't the Scriptures.

Now, would you like to discuss why translators throughout history thought it important to put the little word "is" in the English text? I'll list a few (Geneva, Bishops, Webster, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.). Time will not allow me to list the similar form in other languages as well. One of the scholars insisted the the text is passive, hence, the form "is given by" would most certainly show the passive. "Given" can just as easily be taken as a participle used as an adjective (since Barry is so busy with the Greek that he missed the English) with the verb be as the copular. I'm hard pressed to detail any real difference of meaning in either form.

Sure the text Timothy was reading was given by Inspiration......... at some point in time. The text doesn't exactly pin point that time. Your use of "is" doesn't establish the fact that it was the very moment, what Timothy, was reading was produced. Its also very laughable to say the form "is" establishes a perpetual state of inspiration through history. Its not like what Timothy had is any comparison to what you hold in your hand today in the King Jimmy. To make such a comparison is down right dishonest. We know that the very "breath of God" isn't producing bibles today Mitex.

Also, I happen to be rather certain that Timothy probably read from a text that included the institution of the "Festival of Lights". Even our Lord attended and blessed such in John 10:22-23. I'm sorry to tell you that your King Jimmy had the text included at one time.... When the AV 1611 was first produced. However, its been subsequently removed. I even doubt you have a real AV in your possession.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi Mitex...

You've said a lot to end up with so little.

I think everyone here would say that where a translation is accurately translated, it can, in a sense, carry some derivative form of "inspiration". Much like "gasoline" is a derivative of "oil". Yet, I don't think anyone would try and say that "gasoline" is somehow entirely the same substance as "oil".

Also, "is"..... "isn't" in the text you've mentioned. A more accurate translation is "Every Scripture inspired of God" you have an extra "is" that is messing up your thinking. I don't think you're would dare say that the very "breath" of God somehow "inspires" a derivative work.

Hi christundivided...

Did you notice that the word "derivative" or "derivative form" is not in the text? Did you notice that all the commentators listed clearly stated that Holy Scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth are described as "given by inspiration of God"? Do you have a different definition for the term Scripture(s) as found in the Scriptures than the ones I gave in the OP? Did you notice that the character of the Scripture required to make a man wise unto salvation and is profitable for doctrine, etc. is said to be "given by inspiration of God"? There is no other kind of Holy Scriptures. If they are not "given by inspiration of God" they simply aren't the Scriptures.

Now, would you like to discuss why translators throughout history thought it important to put the little word "is" in the English text? I'll list a few (Geneva, Bishops, Webster, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.). Time will not allow me to list the similar form in other languages as well. One of the scholars insisted the the text is passive, hence, the form "is given by" would most certainly show the passive. "Given" can just as easily be taken as a participle used as an adjective (since Barry is so busy with the Greek that he missed the English) with the verb be as the copular. I'm hard pressed to detail any real difference of meaning in either form.

Sure the text Timothy was reading was given by Inspiration......... at some point in time. The text doesn't exactly pin point that time. Your use of "is" doesn't establish the fact that it was the very moment, what Timothy, was reading was produced. Its also very laughable to say the form "is" establishes a perpetual state of inspiration through history. Its not like what Timothy had is any comparison to what you hold in your hand today in the King Jimmy. To make such a comparison is down right dishonest. We know that the very "breath of God" isn't producing bibles today Mitex.

Also, I happen to be rather certain that Timothy probably read from a text that included the institution of the "Festival of Lights". Even our Lord attended and blessed such in John 10:22-23. I'm sorry to tell you that your King Jimmy had the text included at one time.... When the AV 1611 was first produced. However, its been subsequently removed. I even doubt you have a real AV in your possession.

Here is a link to a real authentic unmutilated AV1611 Bible. This one has not been corrupted and stripped down by Bible mutilators. This one does have the origin of the Festival of Lights in it.

I Maccabees 4:36
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1166



The feast of dedication mentioned in John 10:22-23 first began by Judas Maccabaeus who not only restored the temple service, and cleansed it from pollution, but also repaired the ruins of it, the feast was called τα εγκαινια, the renovation or the dedication.

Also called Hanukkah and the Festival of Lights. The Hanukkah Menorah is lit for eight consecutive nights of celebration.

I believe Jesus as a Jew also celebrated Hanukkah.

Some uninformed ones think Hanukkah is the Jewish Christmas, not so.

Jews celebrate Pascha, Christians celebrate Easter.

 

[Mitex]

"Given" can just as easily be taken as a participle used as an adjective (since Barry is so busy with the Greek that he missed the English) with the verb be as the copular. I'm hard pressed to detail any real difference of meaning in either form.

Perhaps. Many English words can be used to express this Greekism. However, you are not using this as a participial used adjectivally. You are making the claim that your update is inspired in all of the same ways as the autographs. God gave His word, once, through the prophets of old. When He gave His word, it was without error. You have a published errata.

Why doesn't it surprise me that our pal Barry would wonder off into the Alice of Wonderland playground?

1. I take note that "many English words can be used to express this Greekism" is indeed true. So, "is given by inspiration of God" is one such example. Your blather about "it's an adjective in Greek" was just hot air meant to spoil the air conditioning.

2. Our update is inspired in "all the same ways as the autographs"? Scripture by definition is given by inspiration of God, you acknowledge, after testing the water, checking the winds and glancing at the polls, that the Polish Bible is the Scriptures. I specifically stated that our Polish Bible is just as "given by inspiration of God" as Timothy's, the eunuch's, the Berean's, the pharisee's and the copy Jesus read from in the synagogue. If you don't like the definition in the OP then state yours. Face your fears, you might learn something.

3. God gave His word once? What a laugh! He gave His word many, many times. He commanded Adam and Eve, He spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He spoke to Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel and other prophets, He spoke to Pharaoh, David and Solomon, He spoke to Mary, Joseph, Zacharias and many others. He spoke by His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. God in fact spoke at sundry times ("many times" - for those adverse to archaic terms) in divers manners ("various ways" - for the kiddies) unto the fathers by the prophets (Heb 1:1). And yes, when those holy men of God SPOKE they did so being moved by the Holy Ghost (2P 1,20-21). We, yes that includes you paleface, have a more sure word of prophesy than they because it is SCRIPTURE - written down as a permanent record (2P 1:19-20). We have 66 Canonical books, each given at DIFFERENT times, not once, as you erroneously suggest.

4. Round-and-round the merry-go-round we go! Someone please STOP putting quarters in the horsey ride! God's word is by definition without error - it's infallible in all that it says, absolutely trustworthy in all that it says. Were there grammatical, typographical (penmanship), and other "errors" of form within the autographs? Most likely according to the scholars - Note:

Ex 1) THISISANERRORINMODERNGRAMMATICALSTANDARDS. 

Ex 2) Moses, Paul, Jeremiah, Peter, etc. being fallible men whose handwriting undoubtedly was "inferior" to God's penGodship. Their etchings, scrawling, and penmanship must have been less than "perfect" (erratum). Unless of course you believe that the Holy Spirit "moved or carried their hands along" as they wrote.

Ex 3) All extant manuscripts demonstrate grammatical, spelling and penmanship errors. According to genuine scholars, the only proof we have of the state of the original autographs are the extant manuscripts! Hmm...all extant manuscripts have errors in them...hmm...

Of course, such errors, in no way lesson the perfection (trustworthiness - remember?) of the Scriptures. An erratum (singular) outlining changes that need to be made after initial printing has no affect on the perfection of the Polish Scriptures. Ex. Saviour should be Savior. Ex. "." should be ",". Ex. "Holy spirit" should be "Holy Spirit". Ex. "Christ Jesus" should be "Jesus Christ".

You have said that your own update was given by the inspiration of God and your team was moved by the Holy Spirit. You are claiming to have the same experience as the prophets.

You've been smoking your socks again. I've never made such claims. I claimed to have the same Spirit of God that the apostles had, don't you? I've stated that the Scriptures, note the word, are given by inspiration of God regardless of generation or languages that includes the Polish Scriptures.

What can we say? The man with the "experience" will never be convinced.

I am still interested in how it felt to be moved along... You know... how do you describe that prophet-feeling?

It is indeed unfortunate that you have never been "moved by the Holy Spirit."  They that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Rm 8:8-9. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Ga 5:25 Wuench not the Spirit. 1Th 5:19. Verily I say unto you(!), you must be born again. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. J 3:6

Try it sometime, you might like it.

Now, would you like to deal with the issue at hand? Rice, Estell, Wuest, Warfield, Pettingill and Young all stated clearly that the context of 2Timothy 3:15-17 shows that the Holy Scriptures that Timothy possessed from his youth were "given by inspiration of God". Timothy did NOT have the autographs. That is the issue, Batman, deal with it instead chasing the Riddler around Alice's playground while riding Sancho's donkey.

 

[Mitex]

...

Jews celebrate Pascha, Christians celebrate Easter.

You are way behind on answering questions!
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/160/

Please tell the reader what Greek word is used by Jewish Greeks when they celebrate passover? What Greek word is used by Greek Christians when they celebrate Easter? What Greek word is on the package of all the chocolate bunnies? Is it or is it not one and the same word?

Silent night, holy night, all is calm....

 

[Mathew Ward]

I answered your questions. You avoided mine. I'll repeat them:
Do you agree or disagree with the definition in the OP? Please give your definition if you disagree.

I thought the word was used 52 times in the NT, but I may have miscounted. I'm also not sure if "a consensus" is required, but an individual belief is required. But for the most part I agree. 

What do you think the distinction between "containeth the word of God" and "nay, is the word God" is?

I think the distinction would be that the Scriptures that contain the Word of God would have other words in them that are not from God.

Were Timothy's Scriptures "inspired in the same manner as the autographs"? Were the autographs "inspired" in the same manner as Timothy's? What would be the difference?

Never holding or seeing the Scriptures that Timothy had, it would be hard to comment. However a copy of the original and the original would both not be inspired the same way. For the originals, Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This cannot be claimed by those making copies of the originals or translations of the originals. Even you recognize that if the copies were not exact, then an error must have occurred.

Did you read the non-KJVO commentators commenting on the passage at hand? They stated that the Scriptures that Timothy knew from his youth are "given by inspiration of God". Do you agree with them?

I haven't read them in regards to that passage.

Do you have the same Spirit of God that the apostles had?

Every born again believer is indwelt by the same Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Are you led (moved, moved along, etc.) by that Spirit?

Every born again believer is led by the Spirit. Romans 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[rsc2a]

Mitex: Which of these is inspired?


"Thou shalt not kill." Ex 20:13 KJV

...or...

"You shall not murder." Ex 20:13 ESV



"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Tim 6:10 KJV

...or...


For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Tim 6:10 NIV

 

[christundivided]

Now, would you like to deal with the issue at hand? Rice, Estell, Wuest, Warfield, Pettingill and Young all stated clearly that the context of 2Timothy 3:15-17 shows that the Holy Scriptures that Timothy possessed from his youth were "given by inspiration of God". Timothy did NOT have the autographs. That is the issue, Batman, deal with it instead chasing the Riddler around Alice's playground while riding Sancho's donkey.

I have dealt with it way before this thread. You know my position on derivative inspiration.

When you accuse God of errors when He gave His word through the prophets, what more can I say?

Anyone who claims that they have been moved along by the Spirit in a 2 Peter manner when they translate/update has some serious exegetical issues.

I'd say they have more than some serious exegetical issues. They've got some very serious mental issues.

I think Mitex has really lost it. I understand he's really stuck in a place all his own, but he certainly has more common sense than he's letting on. He now reminds me of Herb Evans without the "burp".

 

[Mitex]

Mitex: Which of these is inspired?


"Thou shalt not kill." Ex 20:13 KJV

...or...

"You shall not murder." Ex 20:13 ESV



"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Tim 6:10 KJV

...or...


For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Tim 6:10 NIV

You've been up in your tree-house for quite some time now. Are you ever going quit chirping and come down and gird up thy loins like a man and deal with the issues?

1. The original language manuscripts are all different (legitimate?).

2. The non-original compilations are different - multiple versions each with multiple editions with differences (legitimate?).

3. There are some major differences (legitimate differences?) in the Gospel accounts of the same events.

4. There are differences (legitimate?) in the lists of the 10 Commandments.

5. There are notable differences (legitimate?) in the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue located in Nazareth (LK 4) and every extant Isaiah in any language including the original language (I added the word "language" here so that FSSL wouldn't get confused).

6. The New Testament authors and Jesus Himself are quoted as saying, "It is written..." and have you noticed the huge differences (legitimate?) in what they said, "Is written..." and what is actually written in every extant copy in any language of their alleged source text?

Now, to deal with your issue:

Oxford English Dictionary (The big one! Have your guardian take you to the big boy section of your local library, then ask your local librarian where to find it).

Kill, v.
...
2. a. To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc.
...
2. d. absol. To perform the act of killing; to commit murder or slaughter.

Brass, n.
I. 1.  a. Historically: The general name for all alloys of copper with tin or zinc (and occasionally other base metals). To distinguish alloys of copper and tin, the name bronze has subsequently been adopted (Johnson 1755–73 explains the new word bronze as ‘brass’). Hence  b. In strict modern use, as distinguished from ‘bronze’: A yellow-coloured alloy of copper and zinc, usually containing about a third of its weight of zinc.
  The OE. bræs was, usually at least, an alloy of copper and tin (= bronze); in much later times the alloy of copper and zinc came gradually into general use, and became the ordinary ‘brass’ of England; though in reference to ancient times, and esp. to the nations of antiquity, ‘brass’ still meant the older alloy. When works of Greek and Roman antiquity in ‘brass’ began to be critically examined, and their material discriminated, the Italian word for ‘brass’ (bronzo, bronze) came into use to distinguish this ‘ancient brass’ from the current alloy. Corinthian brass: a reputed alloy of gold, silver, and copper.
...
†d. transf. Copper. Obs.
  1382 Wyclif Deut. viii. 9 Of the hillis of it ben doluen metallys of brasse [1535 Coverdale and 1611 thou mayest dig brass(e].  1617 Moryson Itin. i. ii. iv. 177 Mines of Iron and Brass. 

A little bait and switch? Let's stick to your first accusation.

1Tm 6:10 AV "For the love of money is the root of all evil..."
1Tm 6:10 NLT 2007 "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

You boldly claimed that your child (8 years old?) could explain the difference. Please have him come online and tell the reader the difference, because daddy can't or won't.

Now, if as you claim, there is a doctrinal difference (legitimate, clear, valid, big, important difference in meaning - or any other kind that is important to you) in these two passages, then the possibilities are as follows:

1) One is wrong and the other is correct. Who decides? You? Your favorite scholar? Tyndale? Luther? Wycliffe?

2) They both are wrong. Who decides? You? Your favorite scholar?

3) They both are correct.

4) Neither are correct.

Hmm. What a dilemma! The Greek is obviously unclear as genuine Greek scholars are DIVIDED in their opinion on how to interpret it - some acknowledging multiple valid translations (why imagine that!), others insisting that their opinion is the only valid interpretation (aren't them "onlys" something else?). Why what's a hick plow-boy to do? Stick with all the Bibles of Luther, Tyndale, and other reformers or choose the opinion of Americans caught up in the very thing the verse condemns? Hmm. Maybe it's not so cut and dry, maybe its more like the BIGGER differences mentioned above (see points 1-6) and they are both correct, each giving a different perspective of the same fact - truth. The latter being the non-hypocritical position of a multi-versionist and the former, well, I'll let you decide.