Dual Inspiration

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salamander, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Explain dual inspiration and why it is you think many KJVO's believe this is true, and are wrong,and how it is you don't have the inspired word of God?
     
  2. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't think " they " could respond.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,505
    Likes Received:
    1
    God inspired, influenced, stimulated, "caused", "jumpstarted', etc. ALL valid translations in whatever language, old or new, just the same. Betcha can't prove any differently.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the May, 2008, issue of Ruckman’s Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Tom Waddle wrote: “Dr. Ruckman doesn’t teach that the King James is inspired. He teaches that it was ’given by inspiration.’ That’s the Biblical terminology” (p. 7). Peter Ruckman wrote: “I teach that the AV was ‘given’ to us ‘by inspiration’ while knowing as well as I know my own name that an EXACT word-for-word in ANY language, from any so-called ‘original Greek text,‘ would be an awkward, stilted, ambiguous, ROTTEN Bible revision” (Christian Liar’s Library, p. 141).

    James Son contended that God "finalized His pure word into English almost 400 years ago" (New Athenians, p. 39). He also acknowledged that he believed in double inspiration and that he believed that God inspired the translators of the KJV (Ibid., p. 25). When interviewed by Texe Marrs on his radio program, Gail Riplinger stated: "Since the King James Bible was authored by God, there is no copyright" (audiotape #4896). On the John Ankerberg Show, Gipp stated: "I believe all question of Greek translation, of proper translation, ended in 1611" (Which English Translation of the Bible Is Best, p. 23). Gipp even wrote: "A true Bible-believer can truly say, 'Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it's good enough for me'" (Answer Book, p. 56). In his recorded interview with Gipp, Texe Marrs stated: "When you read the King James Bible, my friends, you are reading the originals" (audiotape #4395). Marrs wrote an article in his newsletter claiming that "God wrote the King James Bible" (Flashpoint, March, 1996, p. 1). Len Smith claimed that “like the original book of Malachi, the King James is an original autograph because it is not a translation” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 21). Smith contended that “the KJV came out in 1611 because it closed the canon roughly 1600 years after the writing of the New Testament began” (Ibid.). Charles Mainous wrote: “This King James Bible I hold in my hand is not a copy, is not a translation” (Revival Fires, Sept., 2005, p. 4).

     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his book entitled The Pure Words of God and subtitled Where to Find God's Words Which We are Commanded to Receive and Keep, H. D. Williams wrote: "Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect" (p. 21).

    Williams wrote: "It is hoped that men would drop their use of the words inspired and pure to refer to any translation because of the tremendous confusion that is generated by these claims. The claims cannot be supported by a careful examination of the Biblical meaning of the words inspiration and pure in the Bible. Furthermore, great scorn is generated around the world by the false claims of inspiration and purity for the English Bible only. Lastly, the incorrect application of these terms is transferring God's innate power and character to man. In effect, it is transferring God's glory to man by claiming man's translations are equivalent to the God-breathed Words" (p. 22).
     
  6. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll bite Salamander.

    The idea of dual inspiration as held by the KJVO sect is that God inspired the original autographs and then secondly He inspired the King James Version. By their way of thinking the KJV is the only inspired version we have copies of now and should take priority over all other versions including Greek and Latin manuscripts. Because they hold that the KJV is the ONLY inspired version all other versions are corrupt. This puts the O in KJVO.

    Why do they believe this? Well there are lots of reasons and I don't believe they all believe this for the same reason. Some I believe are just mislead and believe the lie that is taught to them, they believe out of ignorance. Others I think choose this route out of laziness because they don't want to have to study Greek and Hebrew. They don't want to have to study God's word. Others I think have been driven to this position by the also false teaching that because some versions don't match up word for word they are somehow less inspired or less God's word. They see this correctly as an attack on the inerrency of scripture and fall back to the KJVO position because it restores their faith in the accuracy and authority of God's word.

    By contrast people like myself that believe God not only inspired his word but also preserved his word for us believe that the inspired word of God is contained not in the KJV only but in other modern and ancient versions as well. Furthermore we believe that through the study of the original languages we can learn even more. By going back to the Greek and the Hebrew, by learning what the individual words mean in the original languages even more of God's word can be revealed.

    I do have the inspired word of God and the more I study that word the more I can learn about God and his special revelation of his word to us. That inspired word is not limited to the KJV but comes to me in many translations.
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    This si nothing more than a man and his opinion who can easily be seen as thinking he has some authority over the word of God that was never granted to him by God.

    Nope. When the original masterpiece is shown it offers no cnfusion, only that it is the origianl and perfectly original as the first. All other copies always refer back to the original. Although it could be said that any contruction of men may need adjustments, it does not mean that God inspired his word to imperfect men and they perfectly penned it down the first time. And it can be argued after close examination, that the word of God has been duely reviewed and perfectly construed into a most pure state as we already have given to us.
    Hogwash is what comes off the hog when you wash him!
    As any false calim should, but the real scorn comes from those who disagree with the word of God in the first place and think it needs changing.
    To believe this he must also believe that God is incapable of communicating to man what his intent is and leaves men at the mercy of satan. This fellow holds a higher standard of his own words than the very word of God!:tear:
     
  8. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Study of the English words, in context, reveals the very same meanings of the Greek and Hebrew from which they come, in the KJB.

    I have only found the original tongues to enhance the KJB and not to disagree in any aspect anywhere within its pages.

    W/H wittingly invented a way to interpret Greek to cause questioning of the word of God and only introduced confusion. Those version also carry the same characteristics of their work that rely heavily upon their technique.

    I will have to say that I don't hold to a dual inspiration ideal, but rather that God inspired all Bibles in any langauge that hold true to the Originals, the KJB being the Pinnacle of all of them in English.:godisgood:
     
  9. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    While often this is true, it is not always. There are some nuances to the original languages that we only find if we study hard. I will give you an example from a devotional I read recently. The text verse came from Genesis 22:13. This is part of the story of Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice. In the KJV Gen 22:13 says
    Now if you look at your KJV Bible you will see the word him is in italics. I am sure you know this means an added word not found in the Hebrew. Often these help make a passage easier to understand but they should always alert you to look close. The Hebrew word right before this translated "behind" is "achar." Now look up achar in your Hebrew dictionary. This word can mean behind when relating to a place or it can mean after or afterwards when relating to time. In fact the King James Version translates this word after or afterwards 500 times and only translates it behind 44 times. Now think about this in relation to the ram. Yes the ram was behind Abraham and he did not see it until he looked behind. But the ram was also a picture of Christ, that sacrifice that would come after. Jesus and his sacrifice was still in the future, it would come after, but Abraham could see the picture of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice that would come afterwards in the ram. Now that might not mean much to you, but to me it was really cool and moved my heart. I don't believe I would have discovered that looking only at the English no matter how well I examined the context. Perhaps you would have.
    Yes I would agree with this with the possible exception of details not vital to the message of God's word.
    Any interpretation that causes us to question God's word or robs it of its authority is not genuine study but a work of confusion. I would stay away from any such method.
    And yes I think I agree with you on that as well.:thumbs:
     
    #9 North Carolina Tentmaker, Aug 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2008
  10. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have 2 groups of KJVO in regard of the inspiration. They answer:

    1. The KJV is the inspired Word of God.

    2. the KJV is the Word of God of God-inspired Hebrew and Greek texts that underlied it.

    Any thoughts?
     
    #10 Askjo, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  11. Original

    Original
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sadly not only the KJVO's are the only ones that are caught up in this. Many others are also. Some will say the TR is God's Word, some will say other manuscripts are God's Word. Yet only " The Originals " were God perfect Word, all copies and translations are not God's Word. They may have some of God's Word in them, yet they are not God's perfect Word. Only " The Originals " were God's inspired Word. Any thing else is just a copy or a translation and was never inspired by God.


    Original
     
  12. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Original,

    Don't you think that the same God who inspired his word can preserve it and communicate it to us as well? Your position robs the Bible of its authority and power. If our translations and copies are not faithful to the original then we can pick and choose which parts we believe to be God's word and which we do not.

    You say "just a copy," or "just a translation," but we are talking about translations and copies of God's very words of revelation to man. As long as the translations and copies are faithfull to those originals then they are very much God's Word.

    I think you are ignoring a lot of the facts about how reliable our translations and copies are. We have thousands of copies of God's word over 1000 years old and all these copies agree. If you will compare the accuracy of scripture to the accuracy of any ancient literature including religious literature you will quickly see that scripture has been preserved to a level beyond mankind's capability.

    The miracle of inspiration and revelation goes hand in hand with the miracle of preservation, otherwise the revelation is lost. And no, I do not believe that preservation is limited to any one version. In fact, as we move forward and the English language continues to change I believe that newer translations will become more important as we continue to communicate God's word to the world.
     
  13. Original

    Original
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tentmaker,

    You are the perfect example of my post. Now can you tell me what is the inspired word of God? Of the 200+ English translations witch is the perfect and inspired word of God? Are any of them the perfect and inspired word of God? Maybe you think the TR and/or the other many manuscripts are the perfect and inspired word of God. If so witch ones are the perfect and inspired word of God? See only " The Originals " were God's perfect and inspired word.

    No they do not all agree. Some of the copies do not have the ending of Mark 16, therefore they do not all agree.

    http://biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

    Many of the manuscripts even disagree on how many books are in the O.T., therefore they all do not agree. See the above link and you will see what I am saying.

    Now if you are a member of the KJVO cult you believe the KJV is the inspired word of God, yet may other folks think something else is the perfect and inspired word of God. ONLY " The Originals " are God perfect and inspired word. Are translations close to " The Originals, " well some may be closer than others, however no translation, copy or manuscript is the perfect and inspired word of God.

    What facts are you talking about. We do not have the Original of each book, therefore there are no facts to prove how true they are to the Original. Now you can take by faith that a translation has the word of God in it, or you can take by faith that a manuscript was close to the Original, yet you can not prove it. The whole Christian faith is built on faith not just facts. Some time facts back up faith. Sometimes facts do not back up faith. There are no facts that the LXX has a good copy of Genesis, because we do not have the Original copy of Genesis compare it with. I believe it may, but I can not prove it is close to the Original copy of Genesis nor can you. So I accept by faith the book of Genesis as being some of the word of God.

    Is my NIV, ESV or KJV the perfect and inspired word of God, no not at all. It it without error, no not at all. the NIV, ESV and KJV are not God's perfect word. All of the copies and translations have errors. I do not believe in dual inspiration in any translation, copy or manuscript. Do you believe in dual inspiration? If so you are not any different than the KJVO [snipped].



    Let me make this bold statement one more time.

    Only " The Originals " were God's inspired and perfect Word.





    Original
     
    #13 Original, Aug 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2008
  14. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    And so "Origianal" what point are your really trying to make? Are we, therefore, unable to trust any translation that we have today?
     
  15. Original

    Original
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    38,

    " Dual Inspiration " is not only a KJVO myth, many others believe in " Dual Inspiration. " That is the main point of the whole post. The other point is this. Only " The Originals " were God's inspired and perfect Word.

    Now you also ask this question.

    We can accept them by faith that they have part God's word in them, yet not one of them is inspired or the perfect word of God. All copies, translations manuscripts have error and do not agree with each other 100%. If you think they are the inspired and perfect word of God are your part of the " Dual Inspiration Cult/Myth " Sadly the KJVO's do not hold the monopoly on the cult/myth.

    My question to you is this.

    Do you believe in dual inspiration? If so what else other than " The Originals " is the inspired and perfect word of God? Are the manuscripts that contradict each other the inspired and perfect word of God? If so witch manuscripts? Are the translations the inspired and perfect word of God? If so what translations or translation is the inspired and perfect word of God? KJVO's and others that believe in " Dual Inspiration " are members of a [snipped]. None of this " Dual Inspiration " is taught in any of the translations or manuscripts that we have.

    Let me make this statement again.


    Only " The Originals " were God's inspired and perfect Word.

    Now you can hold that some translation(s) may have some of God's word in it, the same can be said for some manuscripts. However to say the Bible or any manuscripts or translations is the inspired and perfect word of God is " Dual Inspiration. " This is very simple to understand. " Dual Inspiration " is a cult and a myth, this myth is never taught in translation. Yet sadly many believe this myth, and it's not only the KJVO folks.



    Original
     
    #15 Original, Aug 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2008
  16. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    While there are problems with some translations that take more liberty than others but they all contained the inspired word of God. Some may be closer to being perfect or complete than others but I am not willing to say any are not inspired or authoritative.
    Here is a great example of just what I am talking about. They are all inspired but some are more complete than others. Some leave off the end of Mark 16. That does not make that portion of Mark any less inspired and does not mean copies that leave that out are not inspired. They are just less complete.
    Yes we do have facts, you need to do your own research but I am talking about facts like this:

    taken from:

    http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W1.htm

    I just got this from the first website I saw. I am not going to argue that individual site or any other but the facts are that there is a wealth of manuscript evidence. You can choose to ignore them if you wish, but don't try and tell me they are not there.

    Yes, yes they are inspired. No I do not believe in dual inspiration. What I believe in is inspiration and preservation. God did not seperately inspire any translation or copy. He did not have to, his original inspired work was and is still there. Now sometimes in order to get the complete and perfect word of God you are going to have to do some study. If you want perfect you are going to have to study your languages and work hard. And you may spend a lifetime and still never realize all God has revealed to us. But if you limit yourself to the English versions you still get the inspired word, you just may not realize every detail.

    You keep paring up the terms inspired and perfect. What do you mean by perfect? Of course translations contain some opinion and error but if you know the translation where it came from you can through study recognize these things. They do not change the message of scripture and in no way make it less inspired or authoritative.
    Well believe what you want but I could not disagree with you more. The issue is not inspiration but preservation and why would God give us his word if he did not want it passed on to other generations.

    Let me ask you this Original. Do you believe we have a Bible that is authoritative? Do you believe that we have a Bible that we can use as the standard of right and wrong and the guide for our lives?
     
  17. Original

    Original
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tentmaker,

    So you are not willing to say that they are not inspired, IE: God Breathed?

    Well if they indeed were inspired why would they even need to be translated. When the person was inspired he sat down with a pen and a scroll and wrote. That is how inspiration works. Inspiration is like creation it starts with nothing and then there it is. If any copy, manuscript or translation was given by Inspiration they would not need any manuscripts or any thing to copy it from. No copies, manuscripts or translations are the inspired, IE: God Breathed word of God. I'm sure you agree with my point. We must agree on inspired, IE: God Breathed is before we can agree and move on.

    Case point: Paul was inspired and wrote the book of Romans, the NIV, ESV, RSV, KJV and other translators were not inspired when they translated Romans. If the NIV translators would have been inspired all they would have needed was a pen and paper, there would be need of a Greek copy of Romans if they were inspired the could just write it withou anything. That is what Paul did in the original. Do agree with this point? Do you understand what inspired, IE: God Breathed means. If not we can not move forward.

    Now let me say this again.

    Only " The Originals " were God's inspired and perfect Word.

    Do you understand what I mean when I make this statement? No copy, translation or manuscript is God's inspired word.

    I disagree none of the translations were ever inspired IE: God Breathed


    Then your reply is,



    No they were not inspired, yes sadly you do believe in the dual inspiration myth.


    Now lets move on to the second point.

    We do not have " The Originals " to compare with any of the translations, copies or manuscripts with. I think many translations may be fine, yet we do not KNOW for sure if the the original book of Mark had the ending in it or not. There are two possibilities that can be true. It had the ending or it did not have the ending. We do not know if it was in the original book of Mark or not. The debate goes both ways. I do not think anyone is bad thinking it belongs or does not belong. We do not KNOW, now we may believe one way or the other but we do KNOW. I will not lose any sleep over it either way.



    Now the third and silly point.

    This is a silly question, yes I do, but it is not the perfect inspried word of God.


    All copies, translations and manuscripts have errors. Only " The Originals " were God's inspired ( IE God Breathed ) and perfect Word.


    Original
     
    #17 Original, Aug 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2008
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    3
    Some assumptions are being made in these questions. For example, manuscript copies may have 6% variation in them, but the undisputed 94% is still definitely the inspired words of God; through careful examination of internal and external evidence even a large portion of the 6% of variants can be reasonably be set right (leaving doubtful perhaps only 1-2% of the text, and not in particularly vital places). We do not need to reject entire documents because of few obvious flaws or superficial difficulties.

    Likewise, translations that are genuinely 94% accurate to the source text within their translational methods do not need to be rejected over 6% of disputable renderings. The 94% continues in the inspiration of the original text. Weather reports are not perfectly accurate, yet the true information is still valuable. Motor vehicles reliably carry many people to their destinations most of the time, but we do not walk everywhere because of the slight possibility that the car may not function perfectly. The 'Throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater' Mentality is a fallacy.

    It is an assumption that we on Earth have been promised a completely perfect written form of the words of God, in the first place. I see the world that God has created and it is not perfect, being marred by sin, but His Creation is still amazing! The world will be remade by Him someday. His Church is not yet perfected, but God's Church is still amazing!. I do not find in Scripture that God has promised that His words would be preserved for us perfectly in a written Earthly book; but the Bible is still amazing!
     
    #18 franklinmonroe, Aug 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2008
  19. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry original, I disagree with your basic premise so I don’t know how we can go forward. Over and over you have said:
    I disagree with that statement. I believe all the translations and versions contain the inspired word of God. I will admit that some are more complete or more perfect than others but they all contain God’s word and are without error (if you study).


    You want to pin this Dual-Inspiration idea on me. I DO NOT believe in Dual Inspiration. The versions, translations, and copies that we have today were not separately inspired. They are inspired, preserved copies of the originals but there was no second inspiration or second revelation.
    Well, because they were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Not many people can read those languages today.

    I think it shows the greatness of our God that he gave his revelation in language that are today "dead" languages. Live languages like English and Spanish change. They change every day. We get new words and terms and other words fall out of use. Just look at the King James Version vs the English we speak today. They are different. Yet God's word was given to us in languages that have not changed in thousands of years. I think that is cool. Of course it madates the translation of those dead languages into live languages the masses can read and understand.

    NO, I do not agree. I never said any copy or translation was inspired seperately, that is this Dual Inspiration myth you are trying to tag me with. They were not inspired seperately, But they do contain the same God Breathed, Inspired word of God that the originals contained. One inspiration, then preservation, got it?
    I do agree with you but I feel like I am talking to a wall here. Paul was inspired when he wrote Romans. the NIV, ESV, RSV, KJV and the others preserve that original inspiration. They were not inspired seperately but they contain Paul's original inspiration.

    God bless you original. I think you have an honest desire to know and follow God's word but we disagree over your base assumptions. I don't want to pick on or discourage a newbee here I just don't see how we can move forward with this dialoge. I don't feel like you are listening to me.
     

Share This Page

Loading...