Did God Breathe Out (Inspire) Actual English Words

you should have given the Holy Ghost the credit for "inspiring" you to seek this out.

is there anything in that Bible you would consider "un-inspired"?

Praise the Lord! But have you realized that men cannot speak the words of God as Him and you would have never understood the Bible until you got saved? You read the "plan of salvation" from the words of a men. You did nothing more than hear the tesitmony of others what Jesus had done for them. God uses men to relate the Gospel in many fashions, all of them pointing sinners to Him.

That pastor is wrong. Ask him who wasn't saved before 1611 and why did God make everybody wait until then?

That has to be one of the grossist errors ever. I had no Bible at all when I got saved. The only one in the house was my mothers and I couldn't have told you where it was in a hundred years.

I got saved after hearing PREACHING!, You know, that "foolish" thing God CHOSE to save them which believe! I believed in Jesus and knew he died for all man's sins, I just hadn't seen the real need to trust him to the point of asking him to save me, knowing I knew I wasn't saved at the time!

Would you do a study on grieving the Holy Ghost and consider all the implications of blaspheming Him in retrospect to what you just said?

I really don't see how you ever got the impression I had ever said anything like your other experiences with other people MIGHT have been.

I have corrected those who felt like you described with what I just gave you to ask that pastor. Of course they ran to every brother trying to slander the Salamander saying I didn't stand on the KJB, but guess what? They are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

In fact they are just about as wrong as Dr. Bob on this subject:laugh:

 

Papyri. Paper had not been invented yet. For the most part.

 

I'm so sorry you cannot comprehend what I said.

 

:laugh: Show me where Greek is English? Show me where Hebrew is English? Show me where Aramaic is English?

I have words containing all three of those languages in English, and in the KJB.

Now, figure it out.

 

Try this : "SNAKE!"

 

Actually, I understood self-contradiction around age 5.

You're really pretty good at it.

 

2 Kings 8:26, the KJVersion has Ahaziah two and twenty years old when he began to reign....Yet, in 2 Chron 22:2, that same KJ Version has Ahaziah forty and two years......If this is a perfect, infallible translation, God-breathed translation, I have a problem with numbers!!!!!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Orthographical Errors

According to Adam Clark, the Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and the Septuagint, in some copies, twenty. And it is very probable that the Hebrew text read so originally; for when numbers were expressed by single letters, it was easy to mistake the Hebrew letter mem (m), FORTY, for the Hebrew letter kaph (k), TWENTY. And if this book was written by a scribe who used the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake, (or orthographical error), was still more easy and probable, as the difference between the Hebrew letters kaph (k) and mem (m) is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye.

Thus the KJV may not be as perfect as some would wish, I do believe the TKJV ranslators were faithful to what manuscript and Translation evidence they had at the time and the pressure they were under.

 

Thank you. I did understand the reason behind the two numbers. Even logic says he couldn't be older than his father so he had to be 22. I have used my faithful KJV since 1945 for preaching, teaching, study and memorization.

Guess I was hitting at the KJ Bible people..They won't even admit it is just a version, another translation.

We also have words that have changed their meaning since 1611..completely reversed their meaning. Hardly infallible!

Cheers,

Jim

 

What do you mean by snake? Are you calling someone a snake or what? I'm asking for a more specific explanation.

 

Wrong. This is repentance - admittance of guilt and owning our lost condition before God

Wrong. This happens after salvation, not before.

Right. This alone saves praise the Lord. Simple salvation. Sure and Secure.

Ludicrous. I had a Jack Chick tract in my hand. It had KJB scripture in it, but that is ludicrous. THe only thing that saves is Jesus Christ's grace, through faith.

 

I never said this. You are the one, I believe, saying that a certain English translation is the only inspired version.

I never said this either. God inspired the original words of the Bible, which we have translations of.

 

Another Witness to the Vernacular

I, for one, appreciate your candor, Jim and I feel the same way regarding the various Translations.

Over the past 20 or so years I have had to preach to very difficult groups. One being a third phase, (alternative sentencing), rehab in Southern California.

There were three of us shepherds who preached/taught 4 and sometimes 5 times a day, 7 days a week.

Although I use the KJV for study, it was very easy to teach, especially under these circumstances, using the NIV, which did have around 125 Translators and the dynamic equivalency style lent itself very nicely to a 10th grade reading level without sacrificing the Preceptual Truth of God's Word(s).

Another witness to the vernacular or vulgar as was said centuries ago.

You are correct in regard to terms changing their meanings or useage over the years and some words are not even used any more in contemporary conversation. Many Latin terms are no longer used, however we do retain some imports, such as pastor; used only once in the English Bibles, (personally the term has caused a dramatic change from the humble function of a shepherd to an overarching and many times, elevated designation of "Office").

Terms do cause dynamic changes; "bishop", a case in point. A simple function of the overseer rather than the high office ushered in by the RCc.

 

Ironically, even the KJV translators would take issue with the errors of Dr. Peter Ruckman and his followers.

The KJV Translators in The Prologue.

God "inspired" the Hebrew and Greek words.

If you attribute God-breathed inspiration to the English words of the 1611 (or is it the 1769) Edition of the Authorized Version, then that makes the Church of England the true Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ since by the admission of the Church of England translators, the Scriptures came through the prophets and Apostles as those ordained to be moved and carried along by the Spirit of God to create Scripture.

I suggest you renounce your present church and immediately join yourself to the Church of England as they claim to be that Church though their unbroken line of "Apostolic" succession.

Another problem you might have is deciding which of the families of The KJV Bible you accept as the "pure" Word of God. Is it the Cambridge or Oxford Family?

They are not the same word-for-word.

(A KJVO truism).

There is a division in KJVOism concerning this Cambridge-Oxford problem.

Also which revision year of each of those families are the true and pure words of God as they are different as well.

Another issue is that the original archetype manuscript of the KJV translators is no where to be found, so none of the families or editions can be compared to it to determine accuracy (unless of course the Church of England continues it's mandate of continual inspiration).

The primary vessels of preservation of the Inspired Word of God is the Original Language manuscript copies of the originals.

If you want to know the "inspired" Word of God go through the time and expense of learning the original languages.

After all, you have money and time enough to buy a computer, subcribe to an internet provider and learn enough computer science to be here debating on the BB.

HankD

 

If you want an interesting study, try reading the KJV in light of Church of England ecclesiology...works everytime. Then, the majority of those who worked on the translation were Church of England scholars.

I grew up in the Church of England and that is all we used, the KJV. Even the Prayer Book uses quotes from the KJV.

In my early days in Canada, the KJV was almost elevated to heaven. The premier of Alberta was a King James only Baptist, and his predecessor nicked "Bible" Bill Aberhart.

My Greek and Hebrew is ok for my private use, but not good enough to use in scholarly studies or lessons. I had to rely on the various translations. To this day I still transliterate from my own KJV from my sidenotes where I have corrected text.

Nice to meet a level headed chap. Blessings on you mate.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It's Not The Translation

Yes, but remember, biblos, where we get the word bible from, is really a Greek descriptive term, meaning papyrus and biblion meaning book, (a collection of papyrus/pages bound together).

Papyrus, is simply a conveyance for the Word(s) of God, the compendium of which, we have now in a book of many chapters in various languages.

I believe that the very essence of YHWH, His thoughts, His Nature, His Ways; His very being inhabit His Word(s) and transcends time and translation.

You have to force error from these MVs by distortion. The teacher of error is the true culprit, not the translation.

 

A sense of Worship

Yes, the church of England. There is much to be seen in a study of such magnitude.

The Greek vocabulary and grammar is not as difficult to understand, sometimes, as the Hebrew. Latin is a bit more challenging as it was a developed descriptor language in the early years of the Western church. Many Greek and Latin term were introduced into Christian teachings through the various councils, sees and synods in those days.

It is really very rewarding to look into the semantic range of a specific term that is in a verse under inspection.

For me, my sense of worship and love for our LORD is in the desire to understand His Precepts correctly. Much like the writer of the 119th Psalm, who was able to see the LORD through His Precepts, Commands, Oracles, and His Ways.

 

Hi Dr. Bob

Your 10 questions are clearly intended, to make those of us who love the KJV, sound foolish.
--------------------------------------------------
The fact is, God’s Word has always been under attack.
And Satan’s latest lie, in this attack, is to try and make everyone think, that somehow, God has “allowed His Word to be lost”.

A few months ago, I realized what this attack was doing, so on this forum, I challenged people to name “one Bible”(any Bible), that they could perfectly trust as being God’s Word.

And 1400 hits and 20 page later, only about 3 people could do it.
(2 KJV) & (1 Amplified Bible)
--------------------------------------------------
All the rest(everyone else on this site), had been duped into believing, that God’s actual Word, no longer existed, and so therefore, we had to compare 3 to 25 different versions, to try and come up with, some idea, of what God was saying to us.
--------------------------------------------------
I have one question for you:
“If the KJV is so bad, how do you explain, that the exact Bible that I am studying today, has been around for 239 years?”

The 1611 KJV, was revised 4 times(correcting spelling and typos), and in 1769, the same Bible that I am reading today, came off the presses.

If there was ANYTHING wrong with it, we can all agree, that with all the God haters that have studied it over those years, would have pointed it out to us.
--------------------------------------------------
I trust the KJV, because God Himself, has placed His stamp of approval upon it, because of all the millions of believers over the last 239 years, that had God the Holy Spirit in them, have put there stamp of approval upon it.

 

Wow - how about all the millions of believers who have never picked up a KJV1769? God has also used them to put His stamp of approval on other versions.

The question of the thread is this.

Did God breathe out the words of the KJV1611 or did men translate the words into English?

That is hardly an attack on the KJV or those, like me, who love and trust it.

 

Your last sentence, which I have quoted first, is quite an indictment, my friend. By your own words, and since you (as am I) are also one of this "no one here is willing to be taught" crowd, I will ask for reasons, and not just personal preferences, if that is OK, by my own responses, in 'bold' blue, to some of your 'answers' and the questions, below. My bolded answers are not for any purpose of "yelling" but so that they may actually be read, clearly, on the background of the light blue, BB screen, FTR.

1. Did God breathe out actual English words like He did to the writers of the Bible in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic? Yes

Fine, I guess, as long as you likewise say that God has breathed out actual words in every language, just as in English. Nowhere that I'm aware of does God promise anything more for speakers of English over that of any other language, the (false) teachings of what is known as "British-Israelism" notwithstanding.

However, I also believe you are attempting to subtly redefine the Biblical doctrine(s) of "revelation", "inspiration", and "illumination", in this manner, by confounding the actual teachings of "revelation", "inspiration", "illumination" thus hence 'denigrating' "inspiration," to what is properly called "illumination," in order to suit a personal preference. BTW, how do you answer, then, the fact that there are hundreds of languages and dialects that do not have any Scripture written in their own language??

2. What actual words did God actually breathe out? All of them

I happen to agree that "God-breathed-out" all Scripture (this being the accurate definition of "theopneustos"), being as that is what Scripture says:

Incidentally, here is a good example of where another version happens to give a better and more accurate rendering of the Biblical language, in this particular instance, than does the KJV (as also do the NIV, AMP, and, amazingly, even the MSG) in this particular case. Scripture is certainly "given by inspiration of God," in every manner, as you and/or I could possibly think of "inspiration", but is also even so very much more than this - for the Scripture is a "living word" (Heb. 4:12), proceeding from the very mouth of God (Matt. 4:4), more sure than the eyewitness testimony of those who were actually with the Lord Jesus Christ, and given as holy men spoke from and via the agency of God, the Holy Spirit (II Pet. 1:16-21), which imparts life, of it's own self, unto man (I Pet. 1:23), which life is/was imbued to these words, just as God imbued life unto man from His own mouth. (Gen. 2:7)

3. What English translation contains these actually breathed-out words? King James

I agree that the English KJV has God's translated words, but would certainly not limit this to the KJV. Did not any have this Word of God, in English, before there was the KJV, in 1611? Was not Tyndale's, Matthew's and Geneva Bibles, and so on, these words? And if so, are they not still yet these words of God? If not, why not? And if so, why did it stop then?? Makes no sense to say otherwise!

BTW, here I believe you are here confounding the provinces of "revelation" and/or "inspiration" with that of "illumination."

4. What about synonyms? (ex: a translation might use sin or trespass or fault or transgression all to translate the same Greek word) Which is the correct God-breathed English word? The King James

I have just above given one example where another version gives a better rendering; even your own post I'm responding to, does that here, with the words I bolded, above with "God breathe out."

Sorry, although I do not generally regard your or (especially my) talents as anywhere near those of Tyndale, John Rainolds, Miles Smith, etc., yet here, you have surpassed even them, in this rendering.

5. What do we do with the God-breathed Greek/Hebrew words that have been the authority for 2000-3500 years? They are obviously different, so are they superceded by the English God-breathed words? Yes - the English consolidates the Greek.

This statement is meaningless, although it may "sound good", despite and regardless of whatever you are attempting to convey. Simply put, it is one that should have been left with its originator, instead of being "borrowed" by you, frankly.

6. When an English translation adds words not in the Greek/Hebrew, are those words automatically God-breathed? In the King James, Yes

Frankly, these 'answers' are starting to get get ridiculous. There is actually "zero" Scriptural support for this statement, as far as I can see. And this sort of thing is certainly not the position of the actual KJV translators, where I suggest you should actually read their own words, as given "To the Reader:"

7. Will the English God-breathed words correct the Greek God-breathed words? No. They will correct the errors in the Greek Manuscripts (we don't have the originals, so we can't compare)

Sorry, this is "secondary" and advanced "inspiration" you are advocating, here. God is not in the business of giving continuing "new revelation", FTR. (Ps. 119:89; Rev. 22:18-19) BTW, it is an assumption that the "originals" do not yet "exist", even though we do not "have" them. How would you or I know if we did actually "have" them" in our hands? Would you (or I) be able to tell the actual 'handwriting' of Paul or David, even if we actually held it in our hand?

8. If God breathed-out English words in one translation, how can that translation ever be changed (updated) without attacking God's Words? Well, spelling can be changed, printing errors corrected. The words are still the same. Thy word is settled in heaven.

This word was also "settled" long before there was any English translation, not just the KJV, FTR. Incidentally, why does/did not God protect against any "printing errors" if He protected against any "translation errors?" And why have there been no need for any further "spelling changes" for the last 240 years, while so many during the preceding 160 years? This 'position' is inconsistent, to say the very least!

9. If God breathed-out only one translation, are all others therefore false, since they differ in word choices from that one translation? Yes and No. Other can contain parts of the word of God, but are not perfect and pure. Others are just downright perverse.

I happen to fully agree that I see something perverse, at work here. I suggest that it is the one transformed into "an angel of light" who is actually a ruler "of the darkness", however, and not any God-fearing, humble servant of God, who is or has translated Scripture. FTR, the majority of the 'scholars' who actually translated the KJV, and they were generally very good scholars, even so, were not even remotely "worthy to untie" "the shoelachets" of Messers. Tyndale, Luther, Erasmus, and/or Wycliffe!

Now, I will ask for (or have invited) answers.

BTW, my own Bible preference actually happens to be one particular edition and printing of the KJV, which I am unfortunately unable to find, currently, so I am presently left with using my second choice!

[Edited to add] While I would disagree with much of what Salamander has said, as well, his position is much, much closer to the true teaching of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration, than that which you are here advocating, FTR.

Ed