What is inspired?

I understood what he was saying, but those who translated the English version knew when to call this word "scripture", and at other times correctly translate the word as "write" or "writing".

Luke 16:6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

I understand clearly that the word "write" in Luke 16:6 is the same word translated "scripture" in the account of the Ethiopian eunuch. But the context of the passage shows when this word should be translated as a "writing" or "scripture". It is obvious the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a translation of OT scripture, so the documents he was reading was correctly translated "scripture".

I hope you are not arguing that the scriptures are simply writings, ink on paper, like any other writings of men. Is that what you are trying to argue?

 

Still, you have given no definitive proof that the KJV (in whatever derivative of it you are currently using) is the only inspired version of God's word. All you and Still Learning have are your opinions and the last time I checked your opinion was on the same level as mine. In fact, opinions are like noses. We all have one. Despite all your posturing you have yet to produce one iota of Biblical evidence that supports your KJVO position. It's sad is the way KJVOnlyist elevate their personal opinion as being on level with a dictate from God and then expect the rest of us to fall in line. Show me, "Thus saith the Lord," and I'm with you all the way, but so far you have failed to even come close.

 

I have always said that I believe the KJV to be the accurate and preserved word of God in English by faith. I have consistently said I cannot prove it.

It is simple. God promised to preserve his pure word many times in the scriputes. I believe this, so I believe one version must be the accurate and preserved version. I do not believe all the versions in English can all be the accurate and preserved word of God because they are all very different from each other.

So, the question for me was, "Which version of the scriptures is the accurate and preserved word of God?". That was the question I asked. And from prayer and study I believe the KJV to be the accurate and preserved version in English. But I believe this solely by faith based on the promises of God.

I saw a long time ago that this will never be resolved through scholarship. You can find dozens if not hundreds of scholarly works supporting the KJV, and you can find dozens, if not hundreds of scholarly works that do not support the KJV. So, you can study this from now until forever and you will never find a satisfactory answer through scholarship.

But what some seem to overlook is that our relationship with God is based on faith. If we had absolute scholarly proof, then faith would be destroyed.

I believe in Noah's flood. And I have followed many attempts to try to find the ark. But, even if man never finds the ark, I will still believe the bible account. And this is how it is supposed to be, we are supposed to trust God by faith, not proof.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I could be wrong, but I am inclined to believe that God purposely destroyed any scholarly proof of his word so that we would have to believe him by faith.

 

This is so simple - why do you insist on making it complicated?

The original autographs, thru direct or divine revelation to those specific writers, were inspired of God. Any copy made from this - tho it be a perfect copy - is still only a copy, the copiers work was no more inspired than a horse writing in the dirt. They may however have made accurate copies - or lousy copies.

Likewise, translators, whether highly competent - or not so much, translate the inspired words into other languages in which the Word was never inspired, period. It then becomes a translation of inspired words. The translators words - by their own admission usually - have not been inspired by God in any way, shape, or form. They merely used their human (created by God) intellect to accomplish a task.

If any translation can be inspired - merely because it is God's inspired Word being translated - then you must allow any & all translations of God's inspired Word to be inspired - even if they conflict & contradict. You cannot now use human intellect - which you have already subrogated (or substituted) for God's inspiration - to 'decide' 'pick' or 'choose' which translations are inspired - and which are not. If merely translating the inspired words transfers inspiration - then you must accept all translations as inspired.

The reality is that God is able to use human instrumentation, and our god-given (for His glory) abilities to keep His word sufficiently intact, that we have no reason to doubt that we have the Word of God - tho not necessarily in it's original, inspired form. We are instructed to:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Why do you assume that this does not include studying the original languages that God's Word was inspired in? How better to truly know Him than to study His Word. How better to study His Word than to study the original languages. In the meantime, we have God's Word - tho not inspired.

If this 'weakens' your faith in God, or His Word, or somehow makes you doubt anything about Him or His truth - oh well, the facts remain the facts. You may choose to reject them - but they still remain the facts. Working thru issues like this is how God's faithful ones that hear His voice are found. God gave you intellect and expects you to use it for His glory.

If you study, even a little bit, the mercurial career of Alexander the Great, I think you will see the hand of God in bringing Koine Greek to be the prevalent commerce language of Jesus' day. God wanted the NT written in that language probably explicitly for it's specificity - a specificity which English does not offer.

Could God have chosen English to write the NT in? Yes. God also chose to confuse the languages. This mandated that translations would be necessary for both the OT to be understood, as well as the NT. None of which means that we do not have the Word of God in various languages or that we cannot understand the translations properly - as God intended. The fact that translations were quoted from by Jesus & others demonstrates that God approves of them - in general. What this means is that neither you - nor I - have the inspired Word of God. Inspiration is not inherent in any translation, period.

To God's glory, He still has ensured that we both (or all that have had His Word translated into their languages) have His Holy, perfect Word, that, "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

 

Not quite. If you understand scripture to mean God's words, his words are always inspired. But I would not understand a version that is corrupted with man's word to be inspired.

Maybe an example.

It is written, thou shalt not steal, but I don't believe that, I think we should steal anything we desire.

Now, this sentence of mine is not inspired. However, a portion of this sentence "thou shalt not steal" is inspired, it is the accurate word of God.

Now, this is how I view it, you will probably disagree. I believe God promised to preserve his pure word (uncorrupted) to all generations, so I believe one version of scripture has to be accurate. Therefore it is inspired.

As to the other versions, I believe they contain the inspired word of God like the sentence I wrote above. I believe a person can be saved through these versions because they do carry the inspiration and power of God's word. But I happen to believe these versions as a whole are not accurate, and are not the preserved and pure word of God.

Can I prove this? No. I simply believe that one version has to be the preserved and pure version as God promised.

That a translation can be accurate is shown in Nehemiah when Ezra had men translate the Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic to the Jews who had returned from Babylon. Some scholars believe this to have been as much as 170 years after the Jews were taken captive. During their captivity many Jews were born and died, and at this time most Jews spoke Aramaic. In fact, after this time it is historically known that Aramaic was the dominant language of the Jews as in Jesus's day.

Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

So here in the scriptures themselves we have an example of the scriptures being translated from one language to another, and it shows that the distinct meaning and understanding of the scriptures can be translated. And because this was an accurate translation, I believe it to be inspired.

Take it or leave it.

 

Good post.

 

I'm not sure how to take this. I could see it as an honest question, or as an attack on myself.

The writers of scripture (the original writers, not translators) could have used biblion throughout their writings had they so chose to do so. They did not. Instead, they used graphe in many places. Why? Biblion means sacred writings, or scripture itself... a part of the bible of that day. Graphe means writing in general.

Am I saying that the scriptures are just writings(graphe)? Yes, just as any and all forms of writing is graphe. But the scriptures are ALSO biblion. All biblion are also graphe, but not all graphe are biblion. It's like saying all men are humans, but not all humans are men. There are male humans, but then there are also female, or non-male, humans. Does that make it clearer? Or are you going to take another potshot at me?
-------------------------------------------------

Amen, Eagle! Well said.

I remember a quote from Moody' Founder's Week... "Great faith is forged on the anvil of doubt." Until one stops and really looks into the why and how of their faith, tries it in the crucible of doubt, one does not really know the strength of it nor does one know that it will hold and sustain him. Faith that has never been through doubt is like a chair that no one has ever sat in... it looks sound, but you don't know if it will actually hold you or anyone else up.

 

Kindly provide an example of a legitimate evangelical version that does as you indicated above.

 

KJV-

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

NIV-

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,


These verses actually contradict each other. The KJV says that Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal to God (showing he is God), while the NIV says that Jesus did not consider equality with God possible.

These two versions contradict each other. However, the first phrase in both versions are in agreement and do not contradict. But the second phrases do contradict. In fact, in my opinion the NIV contradicts itself in one verse.

Both of these verses cannot both be true. So one must be error. If the NIV is correct here, then the KJV is in error and vice versa.

You tell me, which version is correct here?

 

No contradiction according to the inspired Greek:

(from http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Phil/Example-Christ)

Harpagmos is a noun formed from a verb that means to "to seize, steal [hence the KJV's `robbery'], snatch, take away." Although its meaning has been much debated, there is a growing consensus that its probable sense leans toward something like either "a matter of grasping or seizing" or "something grasped for one's own personal advantage." In the first option the emphasis lies on the verbal side of the noun, on the idea of "seizing" as such. Thus Christ did not consider "equality with God" to consist of being "grasping" or "selfish"; rather he rejected this popular view of kingly power by pouring himself out for the sake of others. The alternative, which is probably preferable, is to see the word as a synonym of its cognate harpagma ("booty" or "prey"), which in idioms similar to Paul's denotes something like "a matter to be seized upon" in the sense of "taking advantage of" it ("he did not think he needed to take advantage of this equality with God," Bockmuehl 1997:114).

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] Dwight Edwards explains that...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] Out of love for us and the joy set before Him (He 12:2-note), He released His grip on equality with the Father and began sliding down the rope of humiliation. Christ had a perfect right to bold on to what was His. But He did not cling to His rights, but rather He let go of them with an five fingers. ([FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Philippians[/FONT])[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] Grasped (725) (harpagmosfrom harpazo = to seize upon with force) originally meant “a thing seized by robbery” and eventually came to mean anything snatched, clutched, embraced, or prized, thus is sometimes translated “grasped” or “held onto” as a treasure is clutched and retained. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Given this definition we can paraphrase this verse...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] “Christ did not regard His equality with God as a treasure to be clutched and retained at all costs.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Jesus refused to selfishly cling to His favored position as the divine Son of God nor view it as a prized possession to be used for Himself. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]The KJV Bible Commentary explains that...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] This word (harpagmos) has two distinct meanings. One, a thing unlawfully seized, and two, a treasure to be clutched and retained. Christ did not cling to His prerogatives of His divine majesty, did not ambitiously display His equality with God. Christ waived His rights to: (1) express His deity; (2) display His divine attributes; and (3) demonstrate His equality with God. He did not regard His position as equal with God as something to be held onto, but as something to be relinquished for the redemption of man. He gave up His throne in glory for a cross of shame and suffering. ([FONT=arial,sans-serif]Ibid[/FONT])[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] Wuest writing on harpagmos notes that..[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] The Greek word has two distinct meanings, “a thing unlawfully seized,” and “a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards.” When a Greek word has more than one meaning, the rule of interpretation is to take the one which agrees with the context in which it is found. The passage which we are studying is the illustration of the virtues mentioned in Phil 2:2, 3, 4, namely, humility, and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. If our Lord did not consider it a thing to be unlawfully seized to be equal with God in the expression of the divine essence, then He would be asserting His rights to that expression. He would be declaring His rightful ownership of that prerogative. But to assert one’s right to a thing does not partake of an attitude of humility and self-abnegation. Therefore, this meaning of the word will not do here. If our Lord did not consider the expression of His divine essence such a treasure that it should be retained at all hazards, that would mean that He was willing to waive His rights to that expression if the necessity arose. This is the essence of humility and of self-abnegation. Thus, our second meaning is the one to be used here. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times] (Wuest, K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) [/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] Vincent adds this note on harpagmos taking it to mean[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis in the passage is upon Christ’s humiliation. The fact of His equality with God is stated as a background, in order to throw the circumstances of His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul’s statement. Christ’s great object was to identify Himself with humanity; not to appear to men as divine but as human. Had He come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed, but not saved, He did not grasp at this. But rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man. (Greek Word Studies)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]
[/FONT]

 

Good post mexdef - the KJV and the NIV say the same thing here. Jesus was not going forgo taking on the form of a man just because he saw His equality with God as being something He had to hold on to.

What a sacrifice, what a Saviour.

 

Thanks Trotter,

I must say a hearty Amen to the quote and the expounding on it that you presented, as well.

Not easy to find a lot about our doubt strengthening us in scripture - but I know it to be true from experience. I wish more people would embrace this truth. I think the fear of not letting doubt in is the very thing that gives blindness to KJVO (and others in other theological areas), and then prevents or hinders truth to really be passed along. Obviously this prevents/hinders a greater sense of Unity among us that would ultimately lead to greater glory for God. When we as Christians generally say the same, act the same, etc.

Here is perhaps a crux in the matter:

Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

We have to be open or willing to believe and act on our beliefs/revelations from God when we see them - no matter the cost - and then God says we will know if it is true! It is a good thing to stand firmly on what we believe - however, since we do not yet know it all - we need to be open to being wrong and changing when we see it. Conversely, if we have this willingness to do, I think it safe to say we will also know if it is wrong/false. Of course there are all kinds of permutations to this that we have to be on guard for, but anecdotal, empirical evidence is valid - and another part of how God made us. Hope this makes some sense!

Here's a couple passages that seem pertinent to doubt and changing if need be, tho I am not trying to hijack the thread:

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Perhaps the passage in Luke 14 about counting the cost? Maybe you can think of others.

 

Good post yourself Mexdeaf.

What you set forth hereabout Harpagmos is precisely what a Greek instructor of mine told our class, many years ago. The kind of thing that blows your mind away - so to speak - when you hear for the first time, the depth and nuance of the Greek language in which the NT was written. We can really say, "I get it!" after receiving this understanding. I give all the more glory to our awesome God for choosing the perfect language in which to give us His Word! I do not feel slighted that it wasn't in English. It does make me appreciate all the men who gave their all, including their lives (Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc.), to provide us a copy of a translation to get the ball rolling to allow us to have the Word of God in our language.

This also reminds me of the time I got a similar enlightening to the following passage:

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

On the surface this seems like a, "Huh, why can't she touch Him?" Especially when compared to Christ's actually instructing Thomas to stick his fingers in Jesus nail holes - a mere ten verses later?

Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Here is Strong on it:

G680
ἅπτομαι
haptomai
hap'-tom-ahee
Reflexive of G681; properly to attach oneself to, that is, to touch (in many implied relations): - touch.

My Greek instructor explained that what was probably going on was that Mary very much wanted to "attach herself" to Christ and never let go! This was not expedient for obvious reasons, such as the stated, "...I am not yet ascended..." which Mary would prevent if she had her druthers and keep Christ for herself, and the fact that Mary must, "...go to my brethren, and say..."

Anyway the main point being that on the face my response might be, "Who do you think you are touching the resurrected Christ - you can't touch Him - go away!" But with an educated understanding, I may now think, "Wow Mary, I don't blame you, I can picture you loving your Lord, clinging to Him, and not ever wanting to let go." It is rather beautiful. Jesus, who knew her heart, had to bring her to reality. I can't give this justice like it ought to have - and express how I felt it when I first 'saw' this. It makes my soul soar God-ward!

My point, once again, I love the KJV. I most use the KJV. I quote from it here. The KJV is an imperfect translation - that is far from inspired. NO translation in English, or probably ANY language can substitute for the depth & nuance of the original inspired Greek language and autograph. I do, however, believe it to be the Word of God, and I am very thankful for it.

These are only a couple of many examples of imperfect and uninspired passages to be found in the KJV - and could be found in other translations as well.

 

Jesus said his words are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The scripture says the word of God is quick and powerful and able to pierce to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit...

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I am completely comfortable with my position, perhaps it is you that undervalues and denies the power of the scriptures.

 

That is not why Mary couldn't touch Jesus, the verse explains why.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

As our great high priest, Jesus had to enter the holy of holies and present his blood as a payment for our sins. As in the OT the high priest had to be very pure, washed and clean, and could not be touched by anyone before he went in.

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Read Leviticus chapter 16. The high priest had to wash before going into the holy place, and he had to wash when he came out. He could not be touched by any man before going in (because the people were unclean until the blood was offered).

Lev 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

Lev 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

Lev 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

The priest had to first offer a sacrifice for his own sins so that he would be clean. Jesus did not need to do this. But a priest could not be touched by any man until an atonement was made for them as they were unclean and he would be defiled if they touched him.

Haggai 2:13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

To be touched by any man before the atonement was made amounted to touching a dead body and made a person unclean.

But after offering the blood in the holy place and coming out again, the priest could be touched by the people. This is why he allowed Thomas to touch him.

 

So you are saying that between Resurrection Day and when Thomas touched Jesus, He had ascended to Heaven (and obviously, then decended again)?

 

Nothing of what you said in this post is from the verse that you said explains why. And ditto to what franklinmonroe said.