The "Inspiration" controversy for KJVO only

Askjo - Thank you for your stand and thoughts.

1.Based upon Dr. Ruckman said years ago at my church he does not believe the KJV is inspired - unless he has changed his stand he always taught "preserved without error or proven error". He may have changed and it won't bother me to be corrected on this one bit, so please let me know.

2. Inspiration is a tough subject. I believe Jer. 36 teaches double inspiration so the precedent has been set by scriture itself. I believe Jer. 36 along with II Tim. 3:15,16 hurts the "doctrine" of "originals only" being inspired. If Timothy could have only copies that were called scriptures and were inspired then we to can have in our hands the inspired word of God in a King James Bible.

I'll tell you what I believe (for what it's worth). I believe in 1611 God had some Anglican and other folks put down exactly what He wanted them to put down. I do not believe the 1611 transaltors were "inspired" men. Led of the Spirit like folks can be "led of the Spirit" to go witness or read their Bibles or do good to others? - yes. I believe God runs things - Eph. 1:11. God can use "any ole' bush" to carry out His will.

I believe God's will in 1611 was for his chosesn vessels of that day to put together one more final and exact Englsih translation for a world that would become primarily an English speaking world. God had to chose one language as the standard and He chose English at the time when the English language was at it's peak and also God knew the language of the future would be English if there had to be just one. Since then the English language has gone down hill and is now two steps away from the gutter. Question - why would God wait to re-translate His word during a time when the Englsih language is half of what it used to be? Why would god "lower" his standards? Maybe we should learn to read again - they could back then.

Now, the fact that I believe God's providential hand was overseeing the 1611 committe to me makes that 1611 translation very special. Does this make the 1611 inspired? Call it what you want - I believe God put the translation together. Those English scholars were just instruments in the hands of an all-powerful God.

Now what does the above make the KIng James Bible? I believe I have a copy of the scriptures as presented in II Tim. 3:16 and in vs. 16 scriptures are inspired. If some of you folks want to keep inspiration assigned to the orignals then fine.

God bless

With that - I'm out

God bless

 

Amen!! AVBunyan.

I second your post. I think many people ignore the fact that God can put the desire (inspire) in men's hearts, by the leading of the Holy Spirit to cause (inspire) a translation. I believe that God has given us HIS pure word for generations in our own language, not only because HE promised he would, but also because we are ever nearing the Day of the Lord, and His saints need the protection of his pure words. I believe God also inspired Wycliff, and Tyndale, etc. However, I see based upon the History, that God did all of this in the English language in a providential way, and in HIS own timing. What many christians had before the KJB were the very words of God for those people, and at that time, the way God intended for them to have it. As in 1611 God improved what was already available and made it evident, final, and put his stamp of approval on it, and it is what we have had, and continue to have in our language unless God sees fit to do otherwise. It was evident in 1611 that God refined what was already available, and nothing was altered in any way. Many then, and those now have no excuse to reject it. However, it is quite different with the plethora of versions today, as it is evident they have altered the true word of God. We then, can rightly and biblically conclude, that this is not of God, as God is the author of truth, not confusion, not error, and not lies.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Askjo, I hereby want to extend a major apology to you. I have been guilty of grouping you with several others when I shouldn't have. Your post made perfect sense, and explained your position superbly. Thank you, and please accept my apology (I chose to make it here instead of as a PM, since I have publicly ridiculed you and made light of your posts).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

AVBunyan,

Ruckman has plunged off the deep end in regards to his view of the 'perfection' of the KJV. He now endorses the "fact" that the KJV supercedes and CORRECTS the texts from which it was translated.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Then why do you not use, and quote from, a 1611 edition, instead of your watered-down, modern version 1769 KJV wannabe?

Gee, that's funny. Natters has started a thread on this very subject, and there appears to be many differences.

But you have rejected it! You do not carry, read, study, or quote from a 1611 KJV, but from a watered-down, modern version 1769 KJV wannabe. You have traded the "pure words of God", as given in 1611, for a many-times revised and corrected watered-down, modern version 1769 KJV wannabe.

"Rightly"? "Biblically"? Don't make me laugh!

But, you are correct about one thing: IF God did inspire the translators of the 1611 KJV, then all the corrections/revisions of the KJV "is not of God, as God is the author of truth, not confusion, not error, and not lies." Things that are different are not the same, remember?

So, are you now going to try to tell us that it took 165 years to correct "printing errors"?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Michelle, Does your pastor know what you espouse on this board?

I would be comfortable in asserting that he would not agree with you about the KJV being the "very words of God" or inspired in the same sense as the originals.

 

De nada, mi amigo! Would that all of us be willing to apologize. It ain't always easy to do, but...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Again, you have ALL shown yourselves to attribute me saying something that I never said, nor did AVBunyan say. This is due to your lack of comprending plain English, and understanding plain English words. Please read my quote and belief again with comprehension in the following and STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH:


--------------------------------------------------
I think many people ignore the fact that God can put the desire (inspire) in men's hearts, by the leading of the Holy Spirit to cause (inspire) a translation.
--------------------------------------------------


and now read AVBunyans quote and belief and STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH:


--------------------------------------------------
I'll tell you what I believe (for what it's worth). I believe in 1611 God had some Anglican and other folks put down exactly what He wanted them to put down. I do not believe the 1611 transaltors were "inspired" men. Led of the Spirit like folks can be "led of the Spirit" to go witness or read their Bibles or do good to others? - yes. I believe God runs things - Eph. 1:11. God can use "any ole' bush" to carry out His will.
--------------------------------------------------


These things are what we believe and they are supported with scripture and the evidence of it - HISTORY and our HOLY BIBLE.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I believe we get in trouble whenever we assert that God "inspired" any version of the Bible. I have said before that the issue is the textual basis underlying the version.

We believe in "inspiration" as it relates to the original autographs, and in "preservation" of the text through the generations of copies. The preservation of the inspired originals produces a preserved, inspired Word of God that we can have today.

The question then becomes, "Which text is the preserved Word of God?" We (KJVO), believe the traditional, Received Text is the text that accurately represents the inspired originals.

 

Pastor_Bob said "We (KJVO), believe the traditional, Received Text is the text that accurately represents the inspired originals."

Thanks for a direct statement Pastor_Bob. I have seen others make that same claim in the past. However, it never really made sense to me for the following reasons, and I hope you can explain:

1. There are multiple, differing editions of the "traditional, Received Text".

2. The KJV differs from all of the T.R.s in a few places.

3. The first edition of the T.R. is less than 100 years older than the KJV. Since the TR is a compilation/revision of a range of manuscripts, how was the inspired originals accurately represented before that?

 

Question - is the the King James Bible scripture? If they are then how do you apply II Tim. 3:15,16?
Does this mean that the King James Bible is given by inspiration?

God bless

 

Yes, it does apply. I do not necessarily say that inspiration was operant during the translation process but it is the inspired Word of God in that it is accurate and true to what God said. The original autograph theory has some apparent problems for the thinking man, even the laymen. Let’s suppose that we could have made photocopies of one of the original epistles. Would the photocopy be inspired since it is an exact replica of the original? If not, then we have problems because I really don’t think anyone is so foolish as to argue that inspiration had to do with the ink and parchment. It was the words, not the material media. So, it logically follows that any faithful and accurate copy would be inspired as well.

Now, I think that I can copy one of the shorter epistles with a high degree of certainty that it is absolutely accurate to the jots and tittles (I know, I know). If so, then we have the possibility of an inspired copy. The problem is that we don’t know with certainties which copies are accurate and which are not. Then, the problem is at what point does inspiration claims ceases. Does the dropping of a single article (e.g. a or an) break the claim of inspiration? IMHO, the original autograph theory is a cop-out to avoid these questions and stem the onslaught of rationalism. Since 19th century rationalism is pretty much now defunct and abandoned, then this theory is no longer viable or useful.

The interesting thing is that Paul was probably referring to the Septuagint, a translation, here (II Timothy 3:15-17). After all, Timothy was half Gentile—a Greek father. Paul himself quoted more from the Septuagint, especially when addressing Gentiles, than the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, Paul, it seems, used the Hebrew Scriptures only when speaking to a decidedly Jewish audience and it was important for him to be identified with national Judaism. So, if Paul could claim inspiration for the Septuagint, then we are confident in saying the KJV is inspired. Can you deny this?

 

These are fair questions. I will try to explain to the best of my ability.

1. By the mid 1400's, Greek biblical manuscripts were scattered all over the world. Many scholars, Desiderius Erasmus namely, became interested in what these manuscripts had to say.

Erasmus scoured Europe and many other places to find copies of the ancient texts. His primary purpose was to find the best manuscripts of the New Testament and make them available to be translated into all the languages throughout the world so that every man and woman could read the Scriptures for themselves.

It was Erasmus who first published the Greek New Testament in printed form in 1516. This was the traditional Received Text. The KJV used this text, slightly modified by Stephanus and Beza, as the basis for the translation.

2. The term " textus receptus " originated in the preface to the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. In this Latin preface they called their book "the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." This is how this Latin term textus receptus (text received) came to be applied to a particular text of the Greek New Testament.

The King James translators did not use this "textus receptus" as the basis for their translation. It was not published until 13 years after the date of the KJV.

The text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based differed with this later "textus receptus" in 287 places. The additions in the textus receptus do not contain any idea that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament in parts that agree with the earlier manuscripts. The differences consist mainly of repetition of ideas already contained elsewhere in the Scripture.

3. In 1967, Kurt Aland estimated a total of 5,255 Greek manuscripts of the NT exsisted in varying form. Of the 5,255 extant manuscripts, 5,210 manuscripts supported the Received Text. In his 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, Aland considered 5,210 manuscripts to belong to the Received Text group. In other words, he determined that only 45 of 5,255 manuscripts were something other than the Received Text.

It was from those 45 manuscripts that the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text was produced. So, in 1967, 99% of all exsisting manuscripts favored the Received Text and only 1% favored the Critical Text. The KJV is based upon the Received Text; the Modern Versions are based upon the Critical Text.

There has always been a "received text." It was the text that was received by the church fathers and qouted in their writings. It was the text present in the overwhelming majority of lectionaries used throughout early church history. That is why I can say that I believe the traditional Received Text is the text that accurately represents the inspired originals.

I trust that I have understood your questions and answered them accordingly. I would be happy to clarify any of the above if needed.

 

--------------------------------------------------
AVBunyan and Michelle,

I read your post and realize that you believe the continued inspiration. I believe that at the moment the original writings were written down, that is when inspiration occurred. We have the inspired writings in the form of a providentially preserved English translation, the KJV. So the difference in what we believe is when inspiration occurred, or did it occur more than once.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes I agree to the above in bold print.

I think that many are having a problem understanding what inspiration is (among many other things), and the different levels and ways of inspiration and along with the providence of God. I believe that God breathed his word to the origional writers, and that is what was written and is therefore inspired and authoritative, as the scriptures are the inspired words of God in the written form, but also have their equivalent in other languages(God is not limited to just Hebrew and Greek language, but is the God and creator of all languages). These inspired words were preserved throughout history within the churches. The problem then comes into play, when one stops at the Hebrew and Greek languages, and has basically put a limit upon God and his power and providence concerning his word in another language and translation, to which seems to me, would be a very important issue with God. God would have to inspire a person, or lead one, or put the desire in one, and give the gifts to one, in order to put forth a translation of His inspired words into that language (to preserve his inspired words and providentally guide the translation of it accurately in that prospective language). Can God's inspired words be translated accurately into another language? Absolutely! As God is the creator of all, including languages. Is God only limited to the Greek and Hebrew alphabets and words? Or does God have the power, and the ability to provide HIS words accurately into the prospective languages? If HE doesn't or hasn't, then we most definately should and must learn these dead languages, and many past generations of believers only thought they had the scriptures, but in reality, only had the interpretations of men of the inspired words.

If a translation cannot be considered the inspired scripture - the word of God, in the same respect as the texts it comes from, then we English speaking people are up a creek without a paddle, for then we do not have the scriptures. If we do not have the very words of God, meant for us in English, then we do not have the truth and we do not have any final authority but the Hebrew and Greek, which we would therefore need to rely upon scholars and their own opinions of it today, or our own. You can go ahead and believe this Askjo, but I for one will not. God has given me the inspired scriptures in my own language, and I do not need to, nor can I rely upon the Hebrew and Greek. I in no way am saying that the TR is not the preserved inspired scriptures. They most definately are. However, we have in our Holy Bible the equivalent to the Greek and Hebrew inspired scriptures in our own language, as God provided them for us under his providence, guidance and care, and as it is evident. Many men along the line of English History, were led (inspired)by God Almighty and given the gifts by God Almighty to provide these inspired scriptures into the English language. I never have said, nor has AVBunyan said that we believe the men themselves were inspired as the same as were the Apostles, and prophets of the Old Testament, to where they were given new or advanced revelation. They were given the desire (inspired) to translate the scriptures, and given the gifts and abilities to translate, and under the providence and guidance of Almighty God. God seemed to have done this in a progressive way, through these various men in the English history, and according to the language, idioms, spelling, etc. of the time, until the English language was settled, and all the things that needed to be refined and improved upon were at its finality, and God put his stamp of approval on it. This is evidenced in our English History.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ August 28, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

The Word of God was inspired when it was first given by God to the original authors. It did not lose its inspiration just because it was copied or translated. It did not "expire."

Whenever the proper readings are found and put together correctly, the result is that we have the inspired Word of God. And if that text is translated into a modern language, it is still the inspired Word of God. A copy ot translation is the Word of God to the degree that it reflects and reproduces the original text.

When Paul wrote to Timothy and said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," the Holy Spirit was not referring to the original autographs but to a Greek translation of the OT which Timothy had in his possession.

It was the translation that was profitable to Timothy. It was not the originals; they had been long before worn out.