Where is the Bible?

2 Tim. 3:16. There it says that "all scripture" is inspired. It says nothing about the authors
-------------------------------------------

The reference "all scripture" has reference to all the scripture given by Holy Spirit inspiration at that time and including the only scriptures of reference, the Old Testament.

It does not matter which language was spoken by the Apostle. It matters that we have the Holy Spirit "inspiring the words.

Traditionally we accept the orginal manuscripts of the apostles' time as being the written word of God. We further believe that God preserved His word by selecting the people who would orient the actual manuscripts into a Bible.

The collectors had enough information from 1st century witnesses to put together the most reliable manuscripts.

The copies have remained constant, even when interpretation varied, so that to-day we have a reliable copy of scriptures.

Incidentally, I am not standing behind the idea of preservation, but only the historical reliablility of manuscripts.

Cheers,

Jim

 

OK, I'll try to deal with each of your comments as best I can.

I do have something to hold in my hand, for the NT is is the 1598 edition of Beza's Textus Receptus, which was one of the main manuscripts used by the Hampton Court translators. My edition was printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society and is bound in calfskin leather that has a wonderful smell. You see, I can hold it in my hand, look at it, even smell it.

Thank you, but I'll rely on God and the Bible (be that the Textus Receptus, AV or whatever) to add to my faith. Further, I have held my Textus Receptus in my hand, it is no longer a matter of faith.

There are very good reasons for believeing that the originals would match the Majority Text to a very high degree.

However, let me ask you this: Say the original autographs were found in a cave somewhere in Israel next week and we were sure beyond any reasonable doubt that they were the originals (say the Apostle John attached a Post-it note to the front saying "these are the original autographs of all 27 books of the New Testament," in his note he explaind how he got them all and why he hid them in this cave, he signed it and had the local notary public attach her seal to his note then enclosed a photograph of himself holding the originals). Which would you attach more importance to, those originals or the Authorized Version of 1611?

I am sorry Harold, but I do not understand what you mean by this.

I can like and respect you without you and I seeing eye to eye on every issue, no worries there.

I am by far not an expert at Greek, however I can read enough Greek to feel comfortable that the AV is a shining example of good translation. I also know just enough Greek and enough about First Century history (coinage for example) to be sure that there are a few examples of poor translation or even outright wrong translation in the AV.

Lets say I sell coffee mugs, you look in my catalog and find an antique blue coffee mug that you just love. You call my coffee mug company and order the antique blue coffee mug from me and I tell you "don't worry Harold, I'll preserve this coffee mug for you by packing it with lots of bubble wrap." A week later you get a package from my coffee mug company, open it and find that I have sent you a really nice antique red coffee mug and enclosed a note explaining that I broke the blue coffee mug into a million small bits. Have I kept my word and preserved the blue coffee mug?

If God has not preserved His Word in the language in which He gave it, but rather replaced it with a new inspiration then He has not preserved it at all, but replaced it with something else just like I did with the coffee mug.

By the way, I do not sell coffee mugs (antique or otherwise) please don't contact me asking for an antique coffee mug.:laugh:

 

I pray to the Lord for the Holy Spirit to guide me as I read His Word. I read from several different versions and and God has not turned down my request even one time. There is so many hard feelings between adopted sons of God over the different versions of the Bible that it has to be weakening the Body of Christ. If a new Christian or someone looking for answers and thinking about turning to the Lord happens to find this site and sees all the fighting and fussing within the Body what do you think he or she is going to think ? I just wonder if they turn away from God because of what they see here, whos hands will their Blood be on ?

Ok now I wanna see more pics of that Bible Jim :thumbs:

God"s Grace, Billy

 

You know Mr. DHK, I said nothing about the things you bring up. I simply ask a question about Acts 22:1-21 being a translation and the fact that some of the people on this forum say that it is impossible for a translation to be inspired. I did not say the KJV was or any other translation. You assumed that was what I said. You have not answered the question and I doubt you can. You say above "The MSS that are inspired are written in Greek." Then what Paul said in Hebrew was not inspired and the Greek was. Or maybe a translation can be inspired after all. You sir are talking in circles. This means then that the "WORDS" are inspired, not the concepts or the thoughts, right? Dr. Charles Ryrie told me (and other students) that the "words" are inspired and he used 1 Corinthians 2:13 which suggests the Holy Spirit (3rd person of the Godhead) used "words" to convey the message that came out of Paul's mouth. One other thing. Where in the Bible does it say that the "original autographs" are the only thing inspired? 2 Timothy 3:16 says "all scripture." What are the scripture? The Greek, Hebrew, English, Latin, Spanish, et al? If we measure the evidence, I have more evidence that a translation can be inspired than you do that the "original autographs" were inspired (see Acts 21:40-21:22).

 

By the way, aren't you people glad I jumped back into the fray? I had decided to stay away but thought you needed to have one of the KJVO people in the discussion so you can have someone to keep the fires hot.

 

On my desk.

:thumbs:

 

Hi there BP. When Paul says "all scripture" in II Timothy 3:16 he is not making a reference to editions, translations et cetera. You could read "all scripture" as "the whole Bible." Paul is saying all of the Bible "is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

 

I believe that debate is healthy, but fighting tends not to be. I think as long as we are polite to one another and keep the debate friendly we are fine. However, I agree with you that when we stray over that line and beging to fight with one another we are doing a disservice to the Gospel.

I also agree with you that it would be nice to see more pics of Jim's old Cambridge Bible.

 

Then you didn't read carefully, or didn't understand, or perhaps just ignored the contents of my post.
Acts 22:1-21 is not a translation in the sense that it was recorded by Luke in Greek. God inspired Luke to record the events in the Book of Acts in Greek. Period!! The Holy Spirit guided Luke what to say, what to put down in Greek. The exact Greek words were guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the Greek manuscript that is inspired not the Hebrew language that Paul spoke in. God used Luke when writing the Book of Acts, even though the words of Paul were being recorded. They were recorded in Greek.

Only the original autographs are inspired. Translations are not. The sooner you can understand that, the better off you will be. Meaning is lost in translation. Mistakes are made in translation. Translations are not perfect. Only what God inspires is perfect, and that was only done once.

 

I read what you said. Your concept is novel and I have never encountered your position. For some reason I have a hard time understanding why the Holy Spirit moved Luke to insert in Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2 that the message was given in the Hebrew if that was not important. Also, I don't quite understand why you want to ignore this and avoid that what Paul said is a translation because that is exactly what it is. In addition, you have not given the evidence that the "original autographs" are inspired. I will wait for your reply. Also, we are back to men being inspired rather than the words. One other thing. If "mistakes are made in translation" (as you say) how do we know that Luke did an adequate job of translating what Paul was saying?

 

Why are you hung up on these two passages of Scripture?
The Bible is full of translated passages. I gave you some examples already.
The words of Satan to Eve were not spoken in Hebrew, were they? They had to have been translated by God to Moses.
The words of the donkey to Baalim? What language were they in?
When Joseph went down into Egypt he learned Egyptian and eventually spoke to his own brethren through an interpreter. The interpretation is given to us in Hebrew.
Paul quotes from a Cretian philosopher (Titus 1:12).

Many people in many nations--kings, leaders and so on are quoted throughout the Bible. But the messages that are recorded are recorded in Hebrew in the OT, and in Greek in the NT. It doesn't matter what they originated in. God inspired what the prophets penned in Hebrew, what the apostles penned in Greek. It is what they wrote down in Greek that is inspired.

I have. You just haven't accepted it.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This refers to the original MSS and nothing else. Holy men of God refer to the Prophets and Apostles only. It was their MSS that were inspired--not the writings of the KJV translators. That is not what Peter was referring to, was it?

 

Breathing is actually the two-phase process consisting of drawing in air (inspirate) and expelling out air (expirate). It is probably more accurate to describe theopneustos (Strong's #2315) as 'God-breathed-out'. When humans speak the sounds exit the mouth (waves carried by air). God essentially exhaled His words.

In English the word "inspire" had the archaic meaning of 'to-breath-on' and 'to-breath-life-into' (allusion to Genesis 2:7). Whether the breath settles 'on' or 'into' the target, the breath must first come forth 'out' of God. But most contemporary readers would understand "inspired" to mean to be stimulated to action or to become emotionally aroused (thus missing the true meaning).

 

The above statement does not necessarily mean that it was impossible for God to inspire the transfer some words from one language into another. "Translation" (in the contexts it was likely originially given) should be understood as indicating a complete Bible version; that is, a full translation of all the ancient Hebrew, some Aramaic, and Koine Greek canonical scriptures into a modern written language or dialect.

 

Yes, including every quotation of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) in the Greek apostolic writings (NT).

 

In the historically context of 2 Timothy the "scripture" refers to the Hebrew Tanakh. The Greek word graphe (Strong's #1124) rendered in the KJV as "scripture" in every occurrence always refers to the Jewish holy writ. It should not be anachronistically applied to English, Spanish or other modern language translations.

 

Yes, welcome back!

 

Interesting, since my position and others has been the same as DHK's for quite some time now.

The Bible contains many details which purpose may not be readily apparent.

It would only be slightly inaccurate to affirm that, in fact, we don't know if Luke translated verbatim into Greek what Paul spoke in Hebrew. We don't know if Luke was there, or if he received a report of the speech secondhand. But that is irrelevent, since we accept by faith that what was written was exactly what God wanted recorded. Maybe Luke was present; maybe Luke directly interviewed Paul later. Again, it does not matter. New Testament quotations of the Old Testament passages are often not precise or complete either.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how 1 Peter 1:21 refers to the "original MSS" when the original in the examples you cite and the one I have given are not in existence. The words Paul spoke IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW do not exist. Here is another example. In Acts 26:12-18 Paul cites the time on the road to Damascus that Jesus spoke to him and it happened to be in the "Hebrew tongue" (Hebrew language). Luke was not there and Paul evidently had to translate the original into Greek for Luke to record. THE ORIGINAL DOES NOT EXIST. How about Jeremiah 36:20-28 when Baruch was instructed to write again all that was burned up. The ORIGINAL was burned in the fire and the "copy" Baruch made was not the ORIGINAL. Maybe some day you will understand that the theory of ORIGINAL MSS is a myth and if you have to have the ORIGINAL you don't have an inspired Bible because they don't exist.

 

I guess I am such a neophyte at this Forum I have missed all that everyone has written and evidently this Forum is the "Final Authority" on the matter of what is inspired and what is not. This is place is almost like being in a "Scholars Union" where you are not as educated as I am therefore you need to be educated by the elite of this Forum to have a clear understanding of what is truth. Sorry, but I have been there and do not care to return. Scholarship is not the solution. German Higher Criticism is a classic demonstration that "scholarship" can lead one down a road to doubt what God has said.

 

It's regrettable you feel this way. I believe in the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God, and I'm sorry to say some do not.