Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by franklinmonroe, Oct 4, 2009.
Where do we find the inspiration for Scripture? "Other" could be the writers.
Ecc 11:1 (KJV1769ish KJV edition, e-sword edition): Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
When does the Bread of Life as written of in the Word of Life get God's breath applied?
1. When it is cast upon the waters?
2. when it is upon the waters?
3. When you find it again?
And I say the bible says to my form of the question
YES, YES, YES
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB95
Timothy didn’t have the original Hebrew manuscripts.
He probably used Greek translations of the Scriptures.
“The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it,” [KJV Preface]
As our translations carry the message of God, they too are inspired.
They are inspired, they are profitable…
But he did posses two original Pauline Greek manuscripts! :tongue3:
I see from your poll answer that besides translations being inspired you think that the autographs, MSS, and critical texts are also inspired. Do you see each of these being inspired separately or does the inspiration 'trickle-down' from the autographs?
I wouldn't say God's inspiration "trickled down" as that belittles it.
God inspired the originals and only the originals, and He did it once. That inspiration continues to hold steady throughout each and every copy and translation, not by continuing to add to scripture with new material, but to maintain its integrity as God's breathed word. This is not a new inspiration, but the preservation of the original.
So would you be understood to be saying that any version that might omit the completed thought as the original autographs have as being "God breathed" at inception to not be the word of God?:type:
Oh, and God has repeated Himself at times, and even in the originals. [off topic] the second time God spoke, not being the first time He said something, it wasn't inspired.:smilewinkgrin:
I had typed up a response, but was convicted by the spirit in which it was written. I apologize for this. God is not honored by such.
Actually that was not the case or my intention. God convicted me for my actions as I was dishonoring Him by my words. I apologize if it came across that way.
I'm beginning to admire your sensitivty in the things of God.
I mean that.:thumbsup:
Is it any wonder that we differ on so many Bible topics when we cannot even agree where the inspired words of God are found?
Thanks for voting.
Denial of inspiration is where the division began.
"Hath God said"
What is your meaning here?
I don't believe anyone who has posted here has denied the inspiration of the Word of God.
My question for those that voted that "God-breathed" words are found in the autographs or ancient copies only:
Don't you hold the Scriptures in your hands when you read the Bible each day?
Aren’t these same Scriptures “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”?
IMO, the question has little to do with the modern “inerrancy” debates and much to do with the assurance that God’s good news can be adequately communicated to the peoples of the world in a way they are able to understand.
Preservation is different than inspiration. Until a good understanding of both terms is reached there is not much profit in trying to answer your question. Only the originals are inspired. They are inspired because 2Pet.1:21 tells us that "holy men of God spoke by the Holy Spirit," and not KJV translators. I don't know how anyone can miss that point. God inspired the writings of the prophets and the apostles, and only those writings that he wanted to inspire. He did not inspire the copies or the translations of what Peter and John and Samuel, etc. wrote. Inspiration occurred but once. And it only had to occur once.
Why is it that man has to point a gun at God, hold God hostage, and tell him that He must inspire MY translation or God has lied and isn't God. I think man is being ridiculous to tell God what he must and must not do.
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
God, in his mercy and grace, was kind enough to preserve for us His Word. If we are not willing to accept that promise from, then do we really trust God?
So… if God speaks, that’s God’s word, it’s inspired.
If he speaks through a person, that’s God’s word, it’s inspired.
But if it’s memorized, copied, or translated, it’s not inspired?
Timothy was said to have studied the “Scriptures”, these weren’t originals.
Yet Paul said they were “inspired”, “God breathed”
I'm not too concerned about a particular controversy such as KJVO, it's an deviancy, an over-reaction.
I'm looking at the Scriptures we hold in our hands, whatever translation that may be.
Then God's word is lost and unreliable. Inspiration speaks to the words not the originals or the copies. The same words "In the beginning God" that was written in the original autographs are equally inspired today. The same word that said Jesus is risen is just as inspired today. Your view of scripture is poor and inferior and of the lowest standard. It should not be taught in any school, church or street.
No such thing is occurring except maybe in your mind. This is quite the distortion.
Puzzling..with your previous statement you deny preservation.
Does the fact "that only the original autographs are inspired" take away from the doctrine of preservation? Please make the differentiation. We have the Word of God today because God in his providence has preserved it for us, and yet without any translation being inspired. I believe we have a warped view of inspiration. Perhaps a few good standard and orthodox definitions of inspirations are in order. Warfield's definition is a good one to start with.
It is not a distortion. Read the posts on this board. "It is either my way or the highway," posts; no other views are tolerated by the various posters. Agree with me or draw your guns, and BTW God can draw his gun too!
My previous statement was in relation to inspiration which is not preservation. Learn to differentiation between the two. There is a world of difference between these two doctrines.
Not always. God inspired the original documents that our canon of Scripture is made up of. I am sure that he spoke to Moses at other times that are not written. Those words are not inspired as they do not relate to the Scriptures.
Not just any person; it had to be one of the authors of the OT and NT. Otherwise we would have every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming inspiration; and that is exactly what has happened in the Charismatic movement.
No, it is not; because we do not have the originals today, and translations are not inspired.
Some of them were. He had Paul's letters.
But the Scriptures, as we use the word "Scriptures" then referred to the OT canon of Scriptures. Even then it referred to copies of the originals, as it does today. It did not refer to the original autographs, and if you are determined to say it does then you are reading into God's Word something that isn't there.
Yes, that is what the word means--by its etymology. We don't define words by their etymology, nor do we use words by their etymology. Context defines words. If you used words by their etymology then you would worship the sun-god on Sunday. But that is not what Sunday means. To most people it means the first day of the weak. We do not define it by its etymology--day of the sun, or day to worship the sun.
I only used the KJV as an example because it is the most popular used example in this forum. I could have used any translation like the Maori translation, but the KJV makes better sense. More people use it.
[FONT="]DEFINITION: "Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)[/FONT]