Inspired Bible

Seems your first quote was a bit off from the original...

The Protestant Confession of Faith, London, 1679, which was a Baptist confession, stated: “And by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the old and new testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day.” - Source

Or maybe you were paraphrasing this one...

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611. - Source

Seeing as how the only reference to the KJV or AV1611 came from either your own fingers or that of a KJVOnlyist's site (brandplucked), the above quotes actually say nothing about the KJV (in their original contexts). This being the case, you show nothing proving anything other than these people believed in the inspiration of scripture.

Neither quotation even declares the English version(s), which is/are unnamed, to be inspired in and of itself. The first one, while mentioning that the "Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day [addition removed]," does not speak of the translation being inspired, but that the inspired scriptures have been translated into English. It gives emphasis to the books contained within the English translation as being the whole bible by saying "as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue."

I, for one, do not appreciate your jibe at my beliefs. The KJV is no more inspired than the NIV, ASB, NASB, ESV, or any other translation. God breathed into the authors of the scriptures, not the translators. Saying that there is no truth in anyone who does not accept the KJV as a second work of inspiration is downright derogatory and unChristian.

 

Ehud, no one is saying that the KJV isn't inspired. But if anyone claims the KJV is the only translation which is inspired that claim is easily refutable (not to mention the claim isn't scripturally supported).

 

I believe the original manuscripts are the inspired word of God. I am inspired by many copies of that word of God, but not sure any one copy is so inspired.

I wonder if many of us have come to worship the word we have rather than the Word in us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Ehud, are you familiar with the term 'eisogesis'?

 

You need to address DHK with this. he says no translation is inspired.

 

And he would be correct.

The Spirit inspired the original authors. Those writing have been passed down, both in their original languages, and now in translations. The inspiration was given at the time of the writing and no other time. Doesn't mean the words in your KJV or my ESV are not inspired (as they are the transaltions of the words that were inspired), but no translation itself is a work of inspiration.

 

Again, if anyone claims the KJV is the only translation which is inspired, that claim is easily refutable (not to mention the claim isn't scripturally supported).

 

Better yet, let's just provide scriptural support for the KJVO position.

 

If you study the Westminster Confession of Faith, you will note that inherent in that statement is a phrase which all those men simply assumed that all would take for granted. It was common knowledge at that time, so common that they did not think it necessary to add it into this last line after the word "God" (in the original MSS) to be the rule of faith and life. They all knew that inspiration applied only to the original MSS, why should they keep on repeating themselves?

That is an unwarranted, unproven assumption.

No, only the original MSS are inspired and can be inspired. Inspiration means "God-breathed." I can translate John chapter one. What would make my translation any more or less inspired than the KJV? Please explain.
The word inspiration means "God-breathed," which means absolute perfection in every sense: spelling, punctuation, every word absolutely translated correctly without error. But we know that is not true. There were differences between the editions of the KJV itself. So it is not infallible, not even this one translation. It is not perfect. It is not inspired; God-breathed; absolutely perfect in every way.

 

We tend to ignore the fact that the KJV was essentially a Church of England translation and the very wording supports Anglican ecclesiology and theology. It was approved by the Anglican King to be read publicly in all Anglican Churches. It was chained to lecturns and church libraries.

Many dissenting church groups used different translations including the Bishop's Bible. If it wasn't for the Church of England, one wonders how far the KJV would have reached.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Provide scripture toback up where you think God cannot pass along His inspired words throughout all languages and where God fits into this box confined by this?

No one has ever said the work of translators is inspired, but where does the word of God lose inspiration?

It can't and still be God's words.:smilewinkgrin:

 

So you still deny Ps 138.

Sad

 

For your assumption to hold true then many churches would still use the Bishop's Bible. Where are these illusive churches today?:smilewinkgrin:

 

I grew up in the Church of England and know that the KJV was called "our" Bible. No assumption there. What I stated is historical fact. Some of those bibles are still chained in some church libraries in England.

The KJV became accepted because it was in the common English of England and the Church of England was the majority church....Simple as that.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You are perpetuating false doctrine. Our Lord doesn't like it when KJVOs trade the truth for a lie...

 

I never said God's inspired words were not passed along, but that there was/is not a second work of inspiration.

You seem to want to twist what was said to meet your own needs, my friend (and yes, I do regard you as a friend). My exact words were, "Doesn't mean the words in your KJV or my ESV are not inspired (as they are the translations of the words that were inspired), but no translation itself is a work of inspiration." And I still stand by this.

Did God just erase His original words and rewrite His words with each and every translation? No, He did not. Instead He prepared men of knowledge, both before the translators of the KJV and on through today, to faithfully translate His words into other languages. he did not re-breathe His word for this, as He had already put it forth through the pen of Moses, David, Solomon, Paul, Luke, and all the others.

God's words never lose their inspiration, period. God breathed them, and they remain His words.

Try sticking with what I said and not what you want to twist it into and we'll be just fine.

I know the word and what it means. You, however, seem to be well versed in its usage.

Again with the insults. I chose to make the statement that I did not appreciate your comments. I did not insult you or make any derogatory remarks. You reciprocate by insulting me.

The KJV, or any other translation for that matter, was/is not a second work of inspiration. God is more than able to preserve his words and their inspiration; he did not have to "re-up" it in 1611.