Hey Folks – Let’s Chat about Inspiration

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by AVBunyan, Nov 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    I. Inspiration
    I’ve heard the definition of inspiration when it comes to the scriptures as being defined as “God-breathed” or “divinely breathed” as some would say. If this fits then what can we say right out of the gate? If those original scriptures were God breathed would they contain error? I say no, for if they came from God and there is no error in God then what he breathed out would be inspired and without error.

    Let’s move on. In II Tim. 3:16 it says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,”
    So, according to the definition then if it is to be called scripture then it must be given by inspiration. And if this scripture here (vs. 16) is “God-breathed” then it contains no error. Only scripture is given by inspiration according to the verse. If you call your version scripture then you are saying what you have in your hands is “divinely breathed” and is without error. If you cannot say that then do not call it scripture according to II Tim. 3:16.

    Next – Look at vs. 15. Timothy had “the holy scriptures”. According to vs. 16 they were given by inspiration. According to the definition (“divinely breathed”) then what Timothy had was “divinely breathed” and without error according to vs. 16.

    Moving on – Did Timothy have the originals? But he had the scriptures that were “divinely breathed”. Timothy had a copy and they were called “the scriptures”.

    My conclusion thus far – more than just the “originals” can be “divinely breathed” - copies then can be inspired (“divinely breathed”) for Timothy did not have the originals.

    II. Added Words
    Look at Jeremiah 36 – The Lord told Jeremiah to, “Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken…” Were these words from God “divinely breathed”? Were they the originals?

    Next – vs. 8 – Baruch “did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading in the book the words of the LORD”. Baruch was told to, “Sit down now, and read it in our ears (the people).” Then it was, “told all the words in the ears of the king.”
    Then, “Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire.” “Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.”

    What do we have here? The originals were burned up – Jeremiah was told to get another roll and write the originals and then add to the originals. Ok now – the originals were inspired but how about those “added words”?

    My conclusion – God can take his originals and add words to them later on.

    What am I trying to say?
    I believe more than just the originals can be inspired.
    I believe that words can be added under God’s providential leading.

    Now here we go – I believe in 1604-1611 God took some men and said write down these words and “there were added besides unto them many like words.” I believe those KJV translators were not inspired men but what God had them put down was and God had them add other words. These “added words” have caused great problems with folks today. Why not believe God did the work? Where do I get this “man-made” doctrine as some call it? Oh, I get it from II Tim. 3:15, 16 and Jer. 36.

    I do not expect you to adhere to the above paragraph. I take this position by faith.

    God bless :wavey:
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree with mosta the first parta your OP...but disagree with some of your last paragraph. You were doing fine until ya brought up the KJV. You try to limit God's inspiration to just one version while you clearly show there were other versions in other languages clearly inspired by God. You cannot have it both ways.

    AV Bunyan: Now here we go – I believe in 1604-1611 God took some men and said write down these words and “there were added besides unto them many like words.”

    What PROOF do ya have? How van ya show God did such with ONLY THE ONE VERSION ??

    I believe those KJV translators were not inspired men but what God had them put down was and God had them add other words.

    Again, what PROOF do ya have?

    These “added words” have caused great problems with folks today. Why not believe God did the work? Where do I get this “man-made” doctrine as some call it? Oh, I get it from II Tim. 3:15, 16 and Jer. 36.

    You cannot even BEGIN to prove God influenced the AV men to the exclusion of any other English version. All ya can do is GUESS. Howdya know God didn't do likewise with the NIV or any other version after the KJV? Surely ya don't believe God retired in 1611 & no longer supervises the distribution of His word.

    God being who He is, He is NOT LIMITED as to how He can present His word to the world, nor in what manner of "inspiration He can use. He used direct inspiration...speaking directly to Moses, Jeremiah, etc. while He used indirect inspiration to others, such as the Apostles, who wrote from the knowledge that Christ had given them. He preserved what He chose to preserve, and nothing more. John makes it clear that Jesus did far more on earth than what was written down, but I'm sure that not one message or act that He chose to be preserved was lost.

    God can simply cause someone to know something. God can simply cause someone to write what he wants written. We don't know how He did it or does it today; we just know He does it. And nowhere at any time does God define how many versions He may cause to be made, or whether or not he will add or delete any material.

    I do not expect you to adhere to the above paragraph. I take this position by faith.

    "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

    No one-version-only myth has any substance nor evidence. Therefore, your "faith" in this issue is only a guess.
     
  3. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    And why could God not have done that also in the 1970s when the NIV came out?

    Or in the 90s when some more came out..

    Actually someone could apply that to the NWT.

    See the danger?

    When you remove the "inspiration ONLY" from the originals... who is to say that God didn't give Joseph Smith a new book?

    Inspiration has to rest ONLY on the originals.. or we have no foundation, and anything goes.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    You are dealing with inerrancy.
    If inerrancy is extended to copies of the originals, then lets get serious, what transcription is inerrant?

    Since each of the copies of the originals are different from another there is an inconsistancy in practice which negates your premice.
    Which ONE of the manuscripts transmits the original?

    Copies are NOT inerrant, neither are translations.
    Still we can trust God's word because there is a strong witness among the multiplicity of copies we have (whether you believe in a Majority witness or a minority witness).

    Here's a good article addressing this issue: Inerrancy and the Text of the New Testament: Assessing the Logic of the Agnostic View

    Rob
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    What starts out right on the money veers off to left field here. This is a contradiction - if the men were not inspired then how did they come up with the words to add? Doesn't make sense. Either they were inspired and came up with the words, or either they wer not inspired.
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I appreciate your putting forth this topic. Its good for us to think about this subject. I do not have all the answers, and I would like to have a question answered.

    I agree that the II Timothy 3:15 states that Timothy had "the holy scriptures." What were those "scriptures" that he had? I think this probably meant just the Hebrew writings, since most of the Greek 'new testament' was not written or distributed yet. What form did he have those 'old testament' writings in? I would think either in a Hebrew scroll or a copy of a Greek Septuagint version (yes, there is more than one!). Paul is declaring that these were profitable scriptures.

    But our current versions, including the KJV, probably do not follow the same exact Hebrew (again, we have more than one version) that Timothy had; and (almost) no versions follow the Septuagint alone. So, our Bibles are certainly different from Timothy's even assuming the process of bringing the original language into English was completely flawless. If we claim that we also have the inspired Word of God, then logically there must be more than one set of words that reflect the errorless God-breathed message.

    The question: Are there multiple sets of English words that are God's inspired Bible?
     
    #6 franklinmonroe, Nov 7, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 7, 2006
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do KJV-only advocates err when they seem to ascribe the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy directly to the transmission and translation of God's Word? Scriptural inspiration took place "in old time" when the prophets "spake" (2 Peter 1:20-21) and not in 1611. As John R. Rice noted: "According to the clear statements of the Bible, God put His words in the mouth of the inspired speakers, or inspired writers, and so men wrote or spoke 'not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth'" (Earnestly Contending for the Faith, p. 236). John Frame wrote: "When Paul speaks of Scripture as 'God-breathed' (2 Tim. 3:16) and when Peter says that the prophets spoke, not by their own will or interpretive faculties, but rather by the Holy Spirit, they are talking about the written word" (Apologetics to the Glory of God, p. 125).


    The verse in 2 Timothy stated all Scripture is given by inspiration, but it does not actually say that it would be later translated by inspiration. If it is claimed that Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies or even translations, this claim would be suggesting that it must include all copies or even all translations. 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.).


    God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4) and not to the KJV translators in 1611. God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to these prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:26).


    William Tyndale noted: "The Scripture is nothing else but that which the Spirit of God hath spoken by the prophets and apostles" (Doctrinal Treatises, p. 88). In response to the question (What do you call ‘the Word of God’), Theodore Beza stated: “That which the prophets and apostles recorded in writings, having received it from the Spirit of God, which book we call the Old and New Testaments” (Book of Christian Questions and Responses, p. 5). Has any believer since the death of the Apostle John had the office of apostle or prophet? In Webster's 1828 dictionary, one definition of prophet is as follows: "In Scripture, a person illuminated, inspired or instructed by God to announce future events; as Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, etc." Baxter wrote: "We would stress the fact that prophecy, in the Scripture sense, is the product and expression of a direct and special inspiration from God" (Explore the Book, III, p. 207).

    In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators wrote: “For what ever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand.”
     
  8. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Keith - maybe we really don't understand the issue of inspiration - Maybe providentially would be more accurate. If we believe God works all things after the counsel of his own will then he can also be in translation committees.

    I believe God's providential hand was guiding the translators to put down what he intended. This is where the added words come in.

    Ex. - Many say the italicized words don't belong - I believe God had the translators put them there.

    Ex. - Some question the word synagogues in Psalms 78 since there were not any synagogues in the OT but...but...in the future tribulation the antichrist wiill destroy them - maybe God was showing us a bit of advanced revelation. Ooops - did I say that - horrors!

    Keith, brother - I believe God runs things and he had the translators put down what he wanted despite man's beliefs and doctrines. Ps. 118:8

    God bless :thumbsup:
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    That leaves one no room, then, to disparage any modern version.
     
  10. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not necesarrily ...
    If most of the modern versions are based upon a different set of manuscripts than what the KJV came from then there is a problem - 2 different origins - 2 different lines of thoughts.
    If the modern versions contain multiple errors and suspect doctrinal errors then there could be a problem.

    Gets down to what is your final authority. I compare all things on this earth to a King James Bible and where it differs then the book is right. When I see it different then I am wrong or I need to study more. When science "proves" one thing and the book says another then science is wrong.

    God adding words and running things can go on but...but...I stand by the belief that God has rested with the King James Bible. God quit speaking 400 years or so before the first comnig and it appears he quit speaking 400 years prior to the second coming.

    The King James stands alone - it is different - it reads different - it sounds different. One could stand up and read a modern version before a lost crowd and unless the words God, Christ, hell, etc. were in the texts folks wouldn't blink. But...but...stand up and read those same verses from a King James Bible and those lost folks will get as figity as a termite in a yo yo. That book has power.

    God bless
     
  11. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    But are you standing on a solid foundation that is Biblical, or one made up by theologians?

    Make sure you stand on solid ground, not quick sand.

    I respect Christians that will stand for their beliefs.
    But make sure your beleifs can be backed up and demonstrated by Scripture.

    If I can prove Christ used a different version other than that which underlies the KJV, would that change your belief?
    Wouldn't Christ have used the right version?
     
  12. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    This comparison is vapid. You've just limited God to seventeenth century English.

    Are you saying that the Holy Spirit does not use modern versions? A yes or no would be sufficient.

    God works through His Word. The Bible doesn't do it all by itself, but by God's power.
     
  13. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the KJV corrected the originals...interesting...
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then what about the modern versions which are based on the TR - are they just as inspired as the 1611 KJV even though they differ in wording? There are the MKJV, the KJ21, the TMB, etc. Are these wrong because the words aren't the same as the 1611 KJV or are they right because they're based on the TR?
     
  15. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    But if the originals were inspired by God, and thus perfect, what could the KJV possibly correct? Since there are differences does this mean that one inspiration is more inspired than the other?
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    AVBunyan:Hi Keith - maybe we really don't understand the issue of inspiration - Maybe providentially would be more accurate. If we believe God works all things after the counsel of his own will then he can also be in translation committees.

    While I aint Keith, permit me to answer....Yes, you're entirely correct there. But who's to say JUST WHICH committees God influenced?

    I believe God's providential hand was guiding the translators to put down what he intended. This is where the added words come in.

    I believe likewise, only God isn't limited to influencing just one given version.

    Ex. - Many say the italicized words don't belong - I believe God had the translators put them there.

    I believe likewise...for many versions.

    Ex. - Some question the word synagogues in Psalms 78 since there were not any synagogues in the OT but...but...in the future tribulation the antichrist wiill destroy them - maybe God was showing us a bit of advanced revelation. Ooops - did I say that - horrors!

    The Bishop's Bible says 'meeting places'. The origin of the current word 'synagogue' is from the Greek 'sunagoge', which means 'meeting place'. It appears the first verses of Ps. 74 are about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The KJV translators coulda thus used 'synagogues becausa this, but 'meeting place' is more accurate in keeping with the Hebrew 'mow'ed', which means 'meeting place or assembly'.

    Keith, brother - I believe God runs things and he had the translators put down what he wanted despite man's beliefs and doctrines. Ps. 118:8

    God bless :thumbsup:


    So do I, but I do NOT believe God is limited to just one given version. With all due respect, AV Bunyan, I don't think you can even begin to prove any such limitation upon God.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    AVBunyan:Not necesarrily ...
    If most of the modern versions are based upon a different set of manuscripts than what the KJV came from then there is a problem - 2 different origins - 2 different lines of thoughts.


    Can you say with any certainty, providing any proof, that GOD didn't cause BOTH lines to exist? After all, He allowed a probable copyist's error to remain in 2 Chron. 36:9 which gives Jehoiachin's age as EIGHT at the beginning of his reign.


    If the modern versions contain multiple errors and suspect doctrinal errors then there could be a problem.

    IF your fave version also contains errors, wouldn't there be any probs?

    Gets down to what is your final authority. I compare all things on this earth to a King James Bible and where it differs then the book is right.

    Even when it's wrong?


    When I see it different then I am wrong or I need to study more. When science "proves" one thing and the book says another then science is wrong.

    With all due respect, no insult intended, it's most likely ya needta study s'more. If ya study enuff, you'll see your KJVO myth is false. There's no possibility of its being right without placing a limit on God, and discounting all other English BVs, old or new.

    God adding words and running things can go on but...but...I stand by the belief that God has rested with the King James Bible.

    Then you're standing by a TOTAL GUESS, without one quark of evidence to support it.


    God quit speaking 400 years or so before the first comnig and it appears he quit speaking 400 years prior to the second coming.

    How canya prove He spoke directly to anyone after the Scriptures were completed? How canya prove He influenced one group of translators but none others? Ya CAN'T. Seems you've been reading too mucha Riplinger's, or rucky's tripe. Yes, if you STUDIED s'more, you'd see just how HOLLOW are the pronouncements of the KJVO authors. You'd see the whole KJVO thingie is based upon SPACE, devoid of the first quark of Scriptural or other evidenciary support. It is totally the opinion and guesswork of MEN, and not of GOD.

    The King James stands alone - it is different - it reads different - it sounds different.

    But OF COURSE it does...it's a separate version, written in the English of its day. It "sounds different" because we don't use its style of English.

    One could stand up and read a modern version before a lost crowd and unless the words God, Christ, hell, etc. were in the texts folks wouldn't blink.

    Howdya know? Ever tried it? I have, and I find I spend more time dealing with GOD'S MESSAGES than I do interpreting archaic English.

    But...but...stand up and read those same verses from a King James Bible and those lost folks will get as figity as a termite in a yo yo. That book has power.

    Of course they do, because many of them aren't familiar with the now-archaic English of the KJV. Try reading a Wycliffe Bible to them ifya wanna seen git so fidgetty they set their seats on fire from friction.

    In yer OP, ya said, "Let's discuss INSPIRATION...and then ya try to convince us that inspiration is limited to one version only, and that He retired in 1611 from influencing any further language updates of His word. Lessee ya PROVE it. Until then, mosta us will go right on believing that WE cannot limit GOD, and that He is jolly well able to present His own written word in any form, style, or version He chooses.

    We want EVIDENCE...not GUESSWORK or OPINION.
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV defender Ian Paisley noted: "And let me emphasize that inspiration has only to do with the writing of the original Scripture and is divinely limited to that. Inspiration has not to do with the translation of the Bible into English or any other language" (Fundamentalist Digest, January/February, 1995, p. 15). Thomas Strouse wrote: “The word behind ‘is given by inspiration of God’ is theopneustos, meaning literally ‘is God-breathed.’ Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa [original autographs] is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (The Lord God, pp. 42-43). David Cloud indicated that inspiration concerned “the divinely-guided writing of the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 45) Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17, Cloud wrote: “The term ‘given by inspiration’ applies directly only to the original process of the giving of Scripture. The same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Faith, p. 54). He added: “No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (p. 55). After referring to 2 Timothy 3:16, J. C. Granbery observed that “Peter expresses the same truth in different language” (2 Pet. 1:21) (Bible Dictionary, p. 208). J. Edwin Hartill cited 2 Peter 1:21 as part of the explanation and meaning of inspiration (Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 8). Lloyd Perry and Robert Culver maintained that 2 Peter 1:21 “is the nearest to a statement of the divine method in using the human writers to be found in the Bible” (How to Search, p. 62).
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The AV translators wrote:
     
  20. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logos - one of the points I've been trying to make was that the above quote and the others you listed sound good but there is no "'scriptural authority" (as many of you folks like to say) to support what they say.

    Where does it say in the scriptures that only the original autographs are inspired? They claim that no translation can be inspired. What do theyy base that on? I'm more open minded than you folks think I am - just show me where only the originals are inspired. I'm not trying to be cute here. Bus isn't that what you fellas ask me all the time, "Where is your scriptural authority for KJV only?" Now I am politely and respectfully asking you. Where does it say in the scriptures that only the originals can be inspired?

    God bless :wavey:
     
    #20 AVBunyan, Nov 7, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 7, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...