Featured ONLY The Originals Are Inspired

I would like to suggest that God's inspiration isn't about paper (etc), pen and ink, but works through persons (Moses, David, Paul, John, etc). Therefore, when people ask if the "originals" were inspired, I say, "Yes, the original persons who spoke for God (like John Baptist), wrote (like Paul, John, David) or dictated writing (such as Jeremiah to Baruch, or Paul to Tertias, etc) were inspired."

 

No poster has demonstrated from the Scriptures that the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles continued after the completion of the New Testament.

Perhaps some are attempting to assume by use of the fallacy of begging the question a claim that they do not prove to be true nor prove to be scriptural. They would not be entitled to try to demand that others disprove what they have not begin to prove. They may believe their non-scriptural opinions but that does not mean that they are true. None of the verses that they attempt to misuse and misapply say that post-NT Bible translations are inspired. By definition, believing assumptions, assertions, or claims that are not true would be deceiving one's self. No one can stop them from choosing to deceive themselves.

 

Two pre-1611 English Bibles [Wycliffe’s and 1538 Coverdale’s Latin-English NT] have “inspired” at 2 Peter 1:21.

The Latin Vulgate as found in Coverdale’s 1538 Latin-English New Testament began 2 Timothy 3:16 as follows: “Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata,“ and the Latin Vulgate also has “inspirati” in its rendering at 2 Peter 1:21. Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament has the following rendering of 2 Peter 1:21: “for prophecy was not brought at any time by man’s will, but the holy men of God, inspired with the Holy Ghost, spoke it.“ Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 English New Testament at 2 Peter 1:21 is the following: “For the prophecy was never brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the holy Ghost.”

There is also another verse in some English Bibles that has the verb inspired. Several pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles) of which the KJV is a revision rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."

 

Great point. Only the originals, the autographs, are inspired.

What we have today are copies of copies of copies. And the originals have been changed in the course of history.

Maybe that is why the world has graduated more and more into chaos and violence. When, according to Messiah prophecy the world was to enter into peace with his coming.

 

You should look in the mirror. You describe your own human efforts to cover up your doubt concerning what the Scriptures state as you try to add to them opinions of men.

Your unproven and bogus allegations only demonstrate that you jump to wrong opinions.

Perhaps your posts reveal to readers that you elevate your own opinions over what the Scriptures state since you have failed to prove that the Scriptures state that post-NT Bible translations are inspired.

Disagreeing with your non-scriptural opinions concerning Bible translations is not doubt concerning what the Scriptures state. You have not proven that I doubt anything that God stated. Stating the truth is not fancy language.

Deceiving yourself by believing assertions that are not true would be worse than doubting opinions of men.

 

I have to say as one of the newest arrivals to your site, the way some of you speak to one another, it's hard to imagine one is reading Christian's writing such things.

 

I believe the word of God.

A false accuser may be trying to attack me because I do believe the word of God and do not add to it his non-scriptural opinions.

 

I have not claimed that any verses of Scripture are non-scriptural as a poster incorrectly alleged. I have already noted that I believe what the verses state concerning the Scriptures so that poster should know that his allegation is not true.

When I correctly and accurately refer to non-scriptural opinions, it should be clear that I am referring to statements that a poster makes that are not the word of God. Was that poster trying to claim that his opinions are scripture?

One non-scriptural opinion that I have referred to is the opinion that post-NT translations are inspired when the Scriptures do not state that opinion.

 

Isaiah is of the Tanakh.

The earliest of the extant NT manuscripts only date back to the middle of the 4th century. Hundreds of years after Christ and his Apostles.

It is a simple study to undertake. Begin with keywords like, history new testament tampering.

There is also the book and audiobook, Misquoting Jesus
The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
By Professor Bart Ehrman




Catholic Church admits to Forgery


The Forged Origins of the New Testament

 

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

 

Actually, I trusted on God because we had an encounter with one another when I was a Child.
And before that, I knew the spirit as well. Memory flashes as one very young but not yet with my memory of that covered by the veils of this world.
Those veils have not yet obscured that memory these many decades later.

Thank you for asking.

 

Almighty God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the one foundation and authority on which Bible translations would need to be based or built. Almighty God gave or laid the foundation on which Bible translations depend. The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any later Bible translations. No other foundation for Bible translations can be laid than the one God Himself laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the supernatural process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3, 1 Cor. 3:11).

Puritan William Whitaker wrote: “The church is said (Eph. 2:20) to be built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, that is, upon the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; therefore the prophetic and apostolic doctrine, that is, the whole scripture, and the approbation of the same, preceded the church” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, pp. 347-348). William Whitaker added: “The foundation of the prophets and apostles in this place actually does denote the scripture” (p. 348). William Whitaker also observed that “Ambrose says that by the foundation in this place is understood the old and new Testaments” (p. 349). Again concerning Ephesians 2:20, William Whitaker asserted: “This foundation denotes the doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apostles” (p. 50). Reformer Francis Turretin noted that the word of God is “the foundation upon which we are built (Eph. 2:20)” (Institutes, I, p. 55). Francis Turretin maintained that “the church is built upon the Scripture (Eph. 2:20) and borrows all authority from it” (I, p. 88). In 1684, David Dickson wrote: “The Scriptures are the foundation, upon which the church is built (Eph. 2:20) (Truth’s Victory over Error, p. 3). Concerning this same verse, the Henry Morris Study Bible noted: “The ’foundation of the apostles and prophets,’ upon which the great house must be built, clearly refers to the Scriptures which they wrote under divine inspiration. The New Testament was given ‘by revelation‘ (3:3), ‘revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit‘ (3:5)” (p. 1809). Vishal Mangalwadi wrote: “The church was ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets,’ that is, on the New and Old Testaments” (Book that Made Your World, p. 397).

Scriptural truth concerning a foundation established by God would conflict with any human attempt to make a translation the final authority.

Does the KJV-only desire or claim to have absolute certainty and final authority in a translation while in effect dismissing or undermining the greater authority of its foundation hold up?