Scriptures

[bgwilkinson]

Matthew 20:20 KJV
Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

Matthew 20:20 NKJV
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him

In this connection, the translators of the NKJV commit the same strange error as the translators of the NIV.  The Greek word translated worship in this verse is "proskuneo" which is the same word translated "worship" in other passages referring to the worship of Jesus Christ.  In the KJV, it is never translated anything other than worship.  Eleven times in the KJV, the Gospels tell us that Christ was worshiped.  This, of course, is indisputable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, because only God can be worshiped.  There are two verses in the KJV that say that someone "knelt begfore" Christ but in those verses a different Greek word is used, the word " gonupeteo"

The modern versions weaken this testimony to Christ deity by translating only some of the "proskuneo" passages with the term "worship."  The NIV, for example, removes almost half of this witness to Christ deity, changing "worship" to "kneel before" in Mt. 8:2 and others.  The NKJV does not go as far, only removing one of these witnesses to Christ deity.  PLEASE TELL ME WHY!!  remove any of them? It is the same Greek word.  It means to worship! This change in the NKJV is unnecessary and wrong and is a move toward the undependable and weaker direction of the modern versions.     

There are many others including other translations I could reference but I surely do not feel like spending that much time defending myself to people that I do not know.      This forum is somewhat of an outlet for me and nothing more.  8)
With that being said, I will discuss the above.

I much prefer to work from the Greek and not compare translations as KJVOs do.

Gingrich says:

proskune,w (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully depending on the object

1. to human beings Mt 18:26; Ac 10:25; Rv 3:9.
2. to God Mt 4:10; J 4:20f, 23f; 12:20; Ac 24:11; 1 Cor 14:25; Hb 11:21; Rv 4:10; 14:7; 19:4.
3. to foreign deities Ac 7:43.
4. to the Devil and Satanic beings Mt 4:9; Lk 4:7; Rv 9:20; 13:4 ; 14:9, 11.
5. to angels Rv 22:8.
6. to Christ Mt 2:2, 8, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 20:20; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mk 5:6; 15:19; Lk 24:52. [pg 171]

Please check these references. This word used does not indicate the object is a deity in all cases.


KJV  Matthew 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Mat 18:26 KJV)

This did not indicate the Lord was a deity.


KJV  Acts 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. (Act 10:25 KJV)

Peter was not a deity.


KJV  Revelation 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? (Rev 13:4 KJV)

This did not indicate that either the dragon or the beast were deities.


Start at the golden pipes and move to the translations.

There is no such thing as a standard translation.

If there was such a thing as a standard translation against which all others would rise or fall, that title would belong to the LXX as the primary standard and to the Latin Vulgate as a secondary standard.

Only the golden pipes can be considered the primary standard.

 

[Mitex]

Even Mitex's own translation does not have the words "is given." His Polish translation ITALICIZES the word "jest" ("is" in English) in Polish showing that it is added to make it read easier.

Mitex... why are you even arguing a simple adjective when YOUR OWN work shows that a state of being (which has tense) is being added to the verse?

While I do not have difficulty with adding "is" to make it less clumsy sounding in English, Paul is not intending to communicate the TIME ELEMENT of inspiration. He is intending to explain the CHARACTER of inspiration.

You distract from the meaning of Scripture by your nonsense.

In Greek an adjective-noun-adjective construction is difficult to convey in English. It CERTAINLY is misleading to suggest that an adjective has tense ESPECIALLY when your own work defies your posting here!

Ransom nailed it when he said, "You also learn in 3rd or 4th grade that adjectives modify nouns, not verbs. "Is" is a verb. Nouns don't have tense. Nice try. Back to remedial English for you."

I shake my head knowing that you are involved in updating a Bible. EVERY time you argue against us on issues, YOUR OWN work defies everything you fight against here.

Gentle Reader,

Keep both hands squarely on your hat and grip down hard, because Houdini just entered the room with his trick mirrors. Poor Barry can't focus and rarely pays attention.

Let the reader take note:
1) Barry has his head stuck so far down in the gutters of Athens that he can't see Main Street in English. All major English translations, plus foreign language translations such as Polish have the verb "be" in the present tense. I listed the English versions, there are plenty more:

Barry's NIV - All Scripture is God-breathed
ESV - All Scripture is breathed out by God
NASB - All Scripture is inspired by God
Geneva - For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NKJV - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NRSV - All scripture is inspired by God

2) Barry ignores the comments by Professor Young and Dr. Warfield. He hopes, you, the Gentle Reader, will be so enamored by his slight of hand and trick mirrors that you will forget those salient comments.

3) Scott and Barry won't tell you that complete sentences require a verb and verbs define the tense. They want you to focus on their slight of hand and ignore the TENSE of the sentence.

4) Barry's Greek mirror is filled with smoke in order to distract the Gentle Reader. Adjective-Noun-Adjective construction is just a Greek magician's way of taking your attention off the TENSE of the sentence in Greek. Ask Barry to tell you where and what the verb in the sentence is! Don't hold your breath! Professor Young already told us that it is PASSIVE in form! I'll go out on a limb and say that there isn't any Greek verb in verse 16 and if you pick one up at all it will be way down in verse 17. If there isn't any verb in Greek then it must be implied just like our translators noted. Barry was very generous in failing to tell us these facts! All magicians work this way - they don't want you to see what is really going on they want to distract you with their smoke and mirrors.

5) Of course adjectives modify nouns (that's a slight of hand), I said, adjectives don't stand alone in sentences. I gave 6 versions using the present tense of the verb "be" (I even underlined it for you so you wouldn't miss it). I noted that Professor Young said the passage is passive and thus the English "is given by inspiration of God" - classic passive construction - in case you forgot the little word "by" was a clue.

6) Barry thinks he's going to teach us something by claiming the verse is telling us about the CHARACTER of Timothy's Scriptures. Poor Barry, he's a day late and a dollar short! Let the Gentle Reader take note:

Post #38
I said, "The post above points out with Scriptural clarity that the word of God comes to man in divers manners.  The character/quality of God's word doesn't change. The word of God, as found in the Scriptures, today has the same character/quality and authority as the very voice of God did in the days of Moses."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57789/#msg57789

Post #36
I said, "In sundry times and in divers manners God spake unto his people. Regardless of the manner in which God revealed His word - directly, appearances, visions, dreams, revelations, or preaching, etc. - the character/quality of the word of God remained the same. It was and is authoritative, perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Barry even responded with his typical ignorance: "I am curious as to the point of your post above."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57781/?topicseen#msg57781

Post #31
I wrote: "10. The term Scripture in this context does not specifically mention whether the Scriptures are a copy or a translation. Although, the full context of 2 Timothy 3:14-17, leads us to believe that it was either a copy or a translation that young Timothy possessed or had access to from his youth. Timothy did not have the autograph, yet, the Holy Scriptures that he had knowledge of from his youth had the quality/character of being 'given by inspiration of God.'"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57769/?topicseen#msg57769

Post #28
I wrote: "1) You don't have to hold or see the Scriptures that Timothy had to know their character - given by inspiration of God. I can't think of any version that doesn't tell you that.
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57733/?topicseen#msg57733

Post #24
I wrote: "No where in Scripture is the word "derivative inspiration" mentioned or implied. You use the term while ignoring the text - Paul stated clearly that the Holy Scriptures that Timothy possessed from his youth have the quality/character of being "given by inspiration of God". When pressed you finally admitted, after jumping through countless theological loop holes, that as to the matter of authority in matters of faith and practice there is no essential difference. You admit that the AV is indeed the Scriptures in English. Ouch, that last one was painful for you, wasn't it?"
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57724/?topicseen#msg57724

Post #10
I wrote, "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."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57676/?topicseen#msg57676

Post #9
I wrote: "'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."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/scriptures/msg57674/?topicseen#msg57674

I must confess, Gentle Reader, it gets wearisome to have to go back and prove these things. I get tired of having Barry and others twist what I have clearly stated into some sort of Gotcha points.

7) I don't fight the modernization of the grammar, spelling, archaic/obsolete words, etc. of the Scriptures in any language. I object to your implying that the extant Scriptures are in error when they aren't. I object when you get so stuck on your seminarian traditionalism you can't see straight. Furthermore I resist your twisting of what I have clearly said and object to your constant ignoring or refusal to acknowledge points being made. As to this recent thread your stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge that Timothy's Holy Scriptures had the character of being "given by inspiration of God" even though he didn't have the autographs.

I will continue to resist all skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt in the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books in our extant Holy Scriptures.

 

[logos1560]

I will continue to resist all skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt in the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books in our extant Holy Scriptures.

According to a consistent application of your faulty, inconsistent reasoning, the makers of the KJV would be "skeptics, critics, and purveyors of doubt," and yet we do not find you resisting their view of the Scriptures and their imperfect work in translating.  It was the makers of the KJV themselves who suggested that their translating work was imperfect or could not be perfect.

It is very evident that your unproven accusations depend upon the use of unscriptural, unjust divers measures [double standards] since you fail to apply your claims consistently.

Our extant Holy Scriptures were translated into English before 1611, but a consistent application of your faulty reasoning would assert doubt, criticism, or rejection concerning some of the words and phrases found in some and perhaps all of those pre-1611 English Bibles.

Does a consistent application of your claims convey doubt concerning the over 140 words that were added by later editors or printers to the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV or do you suggest that the 1611 edition was missing that many "inspired" words?

 

[Ransom]

Gentle Reader,

The diversion has begun in earnest!

Yes, let's all divert the forum from the grammatical howler you made. Pay no attention to the armchair translator behind the curtain!

 

[Ransom]

Gentle Reader,

Doesn't it sound pretentious when you start a post with "Gentle Reader"?

 

[rsc2a]

Gentle Reader,

Doesn't it sound pretentious when you start a post with "Gentle Reader"?

I've pretty much stopped reading his posts anyways. They are entirely too long for not saying anything at all.

 

[Mitex]

Mitex: I don't know about the rest of the posters, but every time you begin with, "Gentle Reader" you sound pathetic.

There for a moment, I was concerned. I saw your post of nearly 1,200 words and thought I missed something! I rechecked my Bible and it is STILL an adjective. I rechecked your own work, and "is" is STILL italicized.

Gentle Reader, as you can see more diversion. I hope you still have your hat! Notice, these birds don't address the points, don't answer the questions, they just continue to wave their mirrors and throw green smoke bombs to draw attention away from the facts. And those facts clearly show, what you and I, gentle Reader, have recognized from the beginning, namely, "given by inspiration of God" shows us the CHARACTER of the Holy Scripture which Timothy possessed. We know that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God not just the autograph or the Scriptures in the original.

What, pray tell, was the verb tense in the Greek? Shall we ring Professor Young once again? Or maybe give a call to Dr. Robertson?

"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.'" Robertson's Word Pictures, Online Bible

"Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle Reader, if we had not exceeded the measure of a preface already."

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?"

We cut this short, gentle Reader, for the attention span of our heroes is quite short. Thank you Mr. Smith. O the irony!

 

[Mitex]

I will continue to resist all skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt in the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books in our extant Holy Scriptures.

According to a consistent application of your faulty, inconsistent reasoning, the makers of the KJV would be "skeptics, critics, and purveyors of doubt," and yet we do not find you resisting their view of the Scriptures and their imperfect work in translating.  It was the makers of the KJV themselves who suggested that their translating work was imperfect or could not be perfect.

It is very evident that your unproven accusations depend upon the use of unscriptural, unjust divers measures [double standards] since you fail to apply your claims consistently.

Our extant Holy Scriptures were translated into English before 1611, but a consistent application of your faulty reasoning would assert doubt, criticism, or rejection concerning some of the words and phrases found in some and perhaps all of those pre-1611 English Bibles.

Does a consistent application of your claims convey doubt concerning the over 140 words that were added by later editors or printers to the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV or do you suggest that the 1611 edition was missing that many "inspired" words?

Hey Johnny-come-lately, when you catch up let us know. Answer these simple questions if you are able:

1) Is it arrogance in your opinion to accuse all the translators in history of "a mistake in translating" for translating ררשׁ (shorer) as "navel" (Song. 7:2)?

2) Was Mr. Tyndale in error for using the word Easter in his Bible?

3) Is Easter in our English Scriptures an archaic or obsolete word meaning passover?

4) When did the word passover first enter into the English language? What was the English word for passover prior to "passover" being added to our English vocabulary?

5) Have you never read, Mr. Smith's address to the Gentle Reader? "That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God."

 

[Mitex]

...

It CERTAINLY is misleading to suggest that an adjective has tense ESPECIALLY when your own work defies your posting here!

It certainly is a facetious lie to say or insinuate that I said adjectives modify verbs or as you suggest here that adjectives have tense. I made no such statement, nor did I imply it. I guess when trying to defend your erroneous position your conscience goes out the window.

 

[christundivided]

1) Is it arrogance in your opinion to accuse all the translators in history of "a mistake in translating" for translating ררשׁ (shorer) as "navel" (Song. 7:2)?

Not at all. The Hebrew source is rather clearly expressed in the Old Greek copy. The translators you reference clearly embraced the LXX. Why do you often ignore this?

2) Was Mr. Tyndale in error for using the word Easter in his Bible?

Absolutely. The Council of Nicaea made a very distinct choice to disconnect the celebration of "Easter" from God's Diving directions for the celebration of Passover. It would take a total idiot, like yourself, to imply any recorded celebration of Easter corresponded with anything recorded in the NT.

3) Is Easter in our English Scriptures an archaic or obsolete word meaning passover?

No.

4) When did the word passover first enter into the English language? What was the English word for passover prior to "passover" being added to our English vocabulary?

The coining of the English phrase "passover" has nothing to do with the Etymology of the English word Easter.

5) Have you never read, Mr. Smith's address to the Gentle Reader? "That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God."

Who knew you were so "enamored" with the Victorian era. I would have thought the Jacobean era held your absolute affections????

 

[Mitex]

...

It CERTAINLY is misleading to suggest that an adjective has tense ESPECIALLY when your own work defies your posting here!

It certainly is a facetious lie to say or insinuate that I said adjectives modify verbs or as you suggest here that adjectives have tense. I made no such statement, nor did I imply it. I guess when trying to defend your erroneous position your conscience goes out the window.

Your fascination with "is given" and "was given" has been noticed by all.

The error is all yours.

Your ignorance, facetious lies, false innuendo and willful ignoring of the facts is well noted. You conveniently refuse to tell the reader what the Greek verb is in 2Timothy 3:16-17. If there is no verb then what is the implied verb? What tense would that be? Professor Young states that it is present passive "is given by inspiration of God", Dr. Robertson tells us that the implied verb is "be" used as a copular in the present tense. You throw out innuendo hoping the plow-boys will take your word for it without checking. I'm determined to hold your feet to the fire.

You insist that "is given by inspiration of God" is a one time even in the past(!). Hence, in order for that to be true the English text must say, "was given by inspiration of God", but that puts you in a dilemma because no Fundamentalist scholar that I know of translates it that way. Not Professor Young, not Dr. Robertson, not the translators of your NIV, not those of the NASB, nor those of the ESV, NKJV, etc., etc. etc.

You finally admit that the adjectival phrase "given by inspiration of God" describes the state of all Scripture and then pretend by innuendo that we (the reader and I) were ignorant of such things. I showed you your error by diligently referencing all the posts from the beginning noting that I stated this from the very beginning. You skipped over this fact so you could belch out some more of your facetious lies and false innuendo. The state of the Scriptures in every generation and language is, as I stated previously, "given by inspiration of God". Your repeated harping about a "one time event in the past" belies your position and attack on mine. Timothy's Scripture as our extant Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Now I'll give a few example for those who have been out of grammar school for any amount of time. Here's the English construct:

The verb be as a present tense copula (linking verb):
The car is painted by the hand of Barry.
Subject - The car
Present tense copula - is
Adjectival phrase starting with the particle painted - painted by the hand of Barry

Meaning: We don't know exactly when the car was painted, but we do know that at this very moment (now) it is painted (it's condition) and that Barry was the one that painted it.

The verb be as a past tense copula (linking verb):
The car was painted by inspiration of Barry.
Subject - The car
Past tense copula - was
Adjectival phrase beginning with the participle painted - painted by the hand of Barry
Meaning: We don't know exactly when the car was painted, but we do know that at some time in the past it was painted. We have no idea whether the car is still painted now, nor the condition or state of the car in the present.

The verb "be" used in present simple passive:
The car is painted by the hand of Barry[/color].
Subject - The car
Simple present passive (is/are + past participle) - is painted
"By" used to introduce the agent - by the hand of Barry

Meaning: The focus is on the action (is painted) and not the person or thing (the hand of Barry) which performed the action. The active would be present simple:

The hand of Barry paints the car.

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

The verb "be" used in simple past passive:
The car was painted by the hand of Barry.
Subject - The car
Simple past passive (was/were + past participle) - was painted
"By" used to introduce the agent - by the hand of Barry

Meaning: The focus is on the action (was painted) and not the person or thing (the hand of Barry) which performed the action. The active would be past simple:
The hand of Barry painted the car. The active would be past simple:

The hand of Barry paints the car.

We use the simple past passive like the simple past active, for complete finished actions and events.

Now the reader should take note why Barry and gang so strenuously object to the focusing on the meaning of 2Timothy 3:15-17 whether we take Professor Young's suggestion and take the sentence as a simple present passive it would give us in the active:
The inspiration of God gives all Scripture.

That my friend is NOT a one time past event! This is why Barry and gang obscure this fact with endless diversions into cloud land. If they insist as Dr. Robertson suggests that a copula is suggested with the adjective (adjectival phrase in English) then we have:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That is, the CHARACTER of Timothy's Scripture is INSPIRED! Yet, that can't be says Barry and Gang because to them "inspiration" was something that happened ONE TIME in the past, it is NOT, according to them an ongoing state or action! What they wish the text said was this:

All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.

For then the simple past passive would give us the meaning in the active:

The inspiration of God gave all Scriptures.

A complete finished action! Or if taken as a copula:

All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.

Then we have no idea the state/character of the Scriptures NOW! Which of course makes no sense in the context of 2Timothy 3:15-17 - why would Paul tell us that the Scriptures WERE inspired, but not tell us the state of Timothy's Scriptures which he possessed?

And so we get the Houdini mirrors and what not from Barry and gang.

According to all the the commentators I listed they emphatically state that "given by inspiration of God" applies to Scriptures in Timothy's possession which were NOT the autographs. Barry and gang want to confuse us and make us doubt the CHARACTER of our extant Scriptures. Beware of all the smoke and mirrors. The man behind the curtain pulling the strings is club foot himself, catching the esteemed brethren unawares!

The fact is Timothy's Scriptures had the CHARACTER of being "given by inspiration of God" and our Scriptures have that same CHARACTER! In fact, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God!!!

 

[logos1560]

You conveniently refuse to tell the reader what the Greek verb is in 2Timothy 3:16-17.

You have already been informed that there is no Greek verb at 2 Timothy 3:16 for the added "is" in italics in the KJV. 

How could someone tell you what the Greek verb is where there is not one?

 

[logos1560]

Then we have no idea the state/character of the Scriptures NOW!

Which of course makes no sense in the context of 2Timothy 3:15-17 - why would Paul tell us that the Scriptures WERE inspired, but not tell us the state of Timothy's Scriptures which he possessed?

Are you unaware of the fact that the apostle Paul used a different Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:15 than he did in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed:  “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42).  Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Strouse noted:  “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.”  Strouse added:  “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.). 

Why would it supposedly make no sense for Paul to refer to the copy of the Scriptures that Timothy possessed [perhaps only a copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew] and then also make a reference to the process by which all Scripture is given?

Are you ignoring the fact that all New Testament Scripture was not yet given at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16?

Why is it hard for you to understand that 2 Timothy 3:16 can refer to the processing of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles without having to include the different processes of copying, translating, and printing the Scriptures? 

You yourself evidently assert that the process of the printing of the Scriptures is not by inspiration of God while you seem to try to imply that the process of translating should be implied to be by inspiration of God.

 

[Mitex]

    “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7)...

Your analogy has some valid points. However, there are some gaping holes in your analogy as well. First of all, nothing was borrowed for the Scriptures are "given" not "lent". Secondly, God is the source of all Scripture.

Certainly, as you stated, if one were to sit down and translate the source would be the authority. However, there is a real problem - the source (autograph) is no longer extant. You can't rightly appeal to a non-extant source for authority. The fact is an authorized translation (valid) is the authority for that language group even when the source is still extant, which isn't the case in our example. Any international businessman or diplomat will confirm this. Foreign source language documents aren't the practical authority once an authorized translation is made. It's the authorized translation (not a sectarian translation) that holds weight in the court of law.

If as you say, "the source is the ultimate authority" then you have source documents that have more authority than the autograph, because the autograph itself came from compiled sources. Forgot about that didn't you in your mad rush to prove that all Scripture is "revelation" (Book of wars Num 21:14, Book of Jasher Jos 10:13, the book of the acts of Solomon 1Ki 11:41, etc.) which it isn't.

Surely, even you can agree that appealing to the authority of the source documents while correcting a translation with non-source documents is a little bit dishonest, wouldn't you say? Did the source documents used to translate the AV have 1John 5:7, John 3:13, 1Timothy 3:16, etc.? Yes. Then what are these birds doing correcting our extant Scriptures with documents that weren't the source documents? Were the source documents used by the AV translators "only" (you Onlyist you!) original language documents or were those source documents also earlier English translations and foreign translations as well? I won't bother reminding you that the LXX is a translation as was the Latin.

Now, do you think that those who believe every word of the extant Scriptures have any reason at all to be put out with these birds that come pecking at our English Scriptures with shouts of "original source documents"? You do realize that they aren't claiming to possess the autographs (source documents), even if they do equivocate. Nor are they using the source documents of from which our English Scriptures were translated from - they are using documents compiled 200-400 years after our English Scriptures were translated! Do we or do we not have a legitimate complaint?

 

[logos1560]

    “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7)...

Your analogy has some valid points. However, there are some gaping holes in your analogy as well. First of all, nothing was borrowed for the Scriptures are "given" not "lent". 

The actual words given to the prophet and apostles were given directly by inspiration of God , but you have not demonstrated that the Scriptures actually teach your interpretation that suggests or imples that God directly gave by inspiration the renderings in translations of the Scriptures.

Secondly, God is the source of all Scripture.

Are you trying to claim that God is directly responsible for every translation decision in translations of the Scriptures?

Do you apply your same exact measure or standard to every rendering in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision?

Do you suggest that God is the source of Geneva Bible so that it is wrong to make any changes or corrections to it?

 

[Mitex]

You conveniently refuse to tell the reader what the Greek verb is in 2Timothy 3:16-17.

You have already been informed that there is no Greek verb at 2 Timothy 3:16 for the added "is" in italics in the KJV. 

How could someone tell you what the Greek verb is where there is not one?

Is that your final answer? There is no Greek verb in 2Timothy 3:16-17? None at all? Greeks write complete sentences without verbs? Really? Ok, then, as I asked, and you conveniently left off in your sliced and diced quote, "If there is no verb then what is the implied verb?"

Now, for the Reader I give the entire quote so that he can see the shenanigans that these birds go through:

"Your ignorance, facetious lies, false innuendo and willful ignoring of the facts is well noted. You conveniently refuse to tell the reader what the Greek verb is in 2Timothy 3:16-17. If there is no verb then what is the implied verb? What tense would that be? Professor Young states that it is present passive "is given by inspiration of God", Dr. Robertson tells us that the implied verb is "be" used as a copular in the present tense. You throw out innuendo hoping the plow-boys will take your word for it without checking. I'm determined to hold your feet to the fire.?

1) Do you see the trick of Rick? He says, "You've already been informed that there is no Greek verb at 2 Timothy 3:16" - conveniently leaving off verse 17.

2) I wasn't asking what the AV translators were trying to tell me by their use of italics, I was asking Barry why he conveniently hasn't informed the reader.

3) What tense is the verb or implied verb?

4) Two genuine scholars give differing opinions - I guess they didn't get their talking points squared away.

Now, Rick, would you like to take a crack?

There are no italics in Barry's NIV, Scott's NASB, nor in the ESV, etc. (online versions) Context boys, context!

Do Greeks write complete sentences without verbs? I'll go out on a limb and say no, if there isn't a verb it is implied by context.

What is the tense of the implied verb?

 

[Mitex]

How could someone tell you what the Greek verb is where there is not one?

Exactly. Unlike Mitex, we are not undermining the term "theopneustos." It is an adjective and transcends any discussion about "past,present,future." While Mitex verbously prattles on about "was" and "is," we accept the truth Paul intended - Scripture, the very breath of God!

Wow! What an admission -Timothy had "the very breath of God", but he did not have the autographs! It took us awhile, but we go there. Timothy didn't have the derivative breath of God, but rather, "the very breath of God".

You could have saved us some time by admitting this after the OP. We've now gone through 150+ posts for you to admit the truth - Timothy's Scripture which we had from his youth was the "very breath of God".

Now that being the case, why all this gas about "Only the autographs have the breath of God", blah, blah, blah?

We now know that when were read our New Testaments and encounter the word Scripture or Scriptures we understand that reference is being made to the very breath of God. Timothy possessed the "very breath of God". The Eunoch read the "very breath of God". The Bereans search "the very breath of God". Jesus read in the synagogue "the very breath of God". None of the above had the autographs!